[Leica] Michael Darnton

[Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>]

I apologize to you Michael.

I picked up that portion of your post from someone else's post (note the
double >> ) who was saying, basically the same thing. I was concurring but
broadening the scope as the other person(s) was/were talking more about UV
filters if I remember correctly. I was simply talking about the whole chain
of detrimental practices that obfuscate reasons for buying Leica precision.

So no, I really did not read your post. It was long gone from my inbox.
There is simply too much chatter to keep very long. I picked up what I saw
and read, as I already said, from another post. That's all there was.

Perhaps you should find and read the other post(s) and say the same thing
to him/her/them.

Again, my apologies for using that piece of your post.

Jim


At 03:56 PM 3/1/01 +0000, Michael Darnton wrote:
>Jim, until you said this I was going to politely refrain from responding to 
>your response to my post, but now I will: Gee, Jim, can't you read? If 
>you're going to quote my post to continue your religious war, try to 
>understand what it said. It said I DON'T "go the extra mile, spend the extra 
>dollars, to buy the best lenses available"--that this is not the entire and 
>sole purpose of Leica ownership. It's particularly ironic that you pick my 
>post, the entire purpose of which was to communicate that one point and it's 
>various facets, to use as a stepping stone in your arguement, but "you 
>didn't really read my post did you... You just skimmed it and saw the line 
>you quoted and decided that it was your turn to fire a volley".
>
>--Michael
>
>
>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:06:09 -0800From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>Subject: 
>[Leica]
>Message-ID: <200103010608.WAA17309@spoon.alink.net>References:
><4.1.20010228162632.01bbd100@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com>
>
>Gee George, can you
>read?
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com