Out of date ? Only if you must have the "latest & greatest" !

They're not yoghurts you know.

I'm over selective before pressing the shutter, but on the other hand, I don't want to fill memory cards with hundreds of images that I've no real passion for on the off chance that I've taken a "good" shot. I need to find a happy medium.

Looking at your gallery entries, there's nothing wrong with your "eye". I think you're very selective, as am I. Sometimes though I'll take a "nothing" shot & will be surprised what I can make out of it when back at home, so I think I need to set the trigger finger loose a little more.

Thanks GivingTree. I originally shot that one with a previous competition subject of "doors" in mind.

I don't think they are a niche brand. They just have low market share. Of course there are lenses only available in Pentax mount, but that can be said for all manufacturers.

Yes this is a Pentax forum & It should not be opened to all brands images. But not discussing the competition is unhealthy I think. Besides I don't think it is a common occurence, sure there've been a few long threads over the past week, but they have in fact had very little to do with other brands in the end.

Bob

edit: mixed up tense

Oh, I see this thread has re-appeared. I replied into cyberspace at first.

I don't want to get involved in an argument, I don't need or want the specifics as I'm really not interested. But you may find this interesting.

The High Court has ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.

Mr Justice Eady hearing a case regarding posts on an investors bulletin board (or forum) has said that such comments are not to be taken in the same context as a formal newspaper (etc) article and are more like slander due to the casual or conversational nature of them.

Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."

As for the case in hand it involved a Nigel Smith who runs a shareholder action group, comments were made about this group on a bulletin board (ADVFN). Mr Smith sued the owners of the board and the individuals making the comments.

Mr Justice Eady said that the comments were likely to be considered as 'fair comment' i.e. they cannot be considered as defamatory if they are posted without malice and represent the posters honest views: "I referred to common themes in the postings, such as that of 'bullying' other users and making 'threatening demands' for money. That is classic fair comment territory and, in the light of the modern authorities, it is inconceivable that a jury would find any of those who expressed such a view 'malicious' Ð let alone all of them...Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held. It is fanciful to suppose that any of these people did not believe what they were saying. Even if they reached their conclusions in haste, or on incomplete information, or irrationally, the defence would still avail them."

There are of course similarities with last years case concerning the football club Sheffield Wednesday see Beware Libel On The Internet and Court Considers Defamatory Comments Posted on a Fanzine. Mr Justice Eady did though make it clear that "I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim...I am focusing only on these particular circumstances."

Congrats to Darkmunk. I'm expecting no more than 2 words of feedback per shot by the way. A mammoth task.

Oh yes, I certainly don't envy him. 37 entries at present.

I'm still here & not looking to upset the applecart. I hope I'm still welcome...
I've struck up a friendship with a few here & letting a badge get in the way of that would be quite frankly be very silly.

I can still contribute to the general photography discussions & even offer advice from my limited knowledge. If ever a forum meet occurs within a reasonable distance of me then I'll attend, & if my Nikon isn't welcome, then I'll leave it at home. If I'm not welcome due to the brand of camera I use at present then quite frankly I'd glady remove this website from my favourites. But I know that for most of you it isn't a big issue. Pentaxians yes, but photographers foremost is how I see it. I sincerely hope that I've read the majority of you correctly.

By the way, I've had it with Heinz baked beans - I'm now moving to Cross & Blackwell. Anyone have an issue with that ?
That is how silly this argument has become for me.

The king is dead... long live the king !

Now I'm definately not making sense, thank you & goodnight.