Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] RG's Google search
From: "Sonny Carter" <sonc@sonc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:02:27 -0500
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107241629380.27666-100000@bokeh.pdi.com> <006e01c114b3$7cd63880$56234d18@gv.shawcable.net> <005701c114b9$42359e40$7f8c1d18@nyc.rr.com>

RG,
Looking back, I now see what you were driving at, though your raw search
method yields a flawed result.  The totals of the brands come out (in favor
of your argument) higher than the total pages, You also left out poor
Koni-Omega with 19 entries, and probably others.

But then, some of the 2740 pages I found were Russian and Chinese pages that
had nothing to do with photography. One is about a guy's dog that is named
"Bokeh"

Regards,

SonC





- ----- Original Message -----
From: "r g" <photos@nyc.rr.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Bokeh.. bah!


> I use google.com as the "great leveller" in determining correlations.
> Throughly circumstantial but renders the idea that bokeh is a semantic
leica
> construction a spurious argument.
>
> Bokeh 3030 pages total.
> Olympus 1060, Nikon 888, Canon 753, Leica 654, Pentax 512, Tamron 469,
> Contax 435, Hasselblad 210, Mamiya    190
>
> rg
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com>
> > I never heard reference of the bokah thing until someone came up with it
> on
> > the LUG some years ago.
>
>

In reply to: Message from "Juan J. Buhler" <jbuhler@pdi.com> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh.. bah!)
Message from "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh.. bah!)
Message from "r g" <photos@nyc.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh.. bah!)