On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Not a true representation of what has transpired at all. Some > disingenuous PDML members, proposing that such an event can happen > where ~they~ live, kept the harangue going, I merely responded. Turns > out that what I know as a "lab" is not what they (any of them) think > of as a "lab." What I meant by "lab" was a "pro lab" as opposed to > what they meant, one of them equating his Walmart to my "pro lab."
Seems that it's time for some new glasses, Mafud. Bill mentioned Wal~Mart, but Isaac, Aaron and myself gave specific examples of pro and semi-pro labs that charge the same for chemical prints as they do for film. You know, if you could read and acted a little less senile, this could be an interesting discussion. As it is, you're totally shutting yourself off from learning anything new. And to think that all this started because you made a generalized statement that you can't back up. Har! > It appears I was correct in my assertions. No way would a "pro lab" (any) do > digital for the same price as film. Wrong-o, blind boy. > As we now know, your "resident lab technicians" are either mini(lab) > technicians or they were referring to any place that develops film, ~not a > "pro lab," as labs are generally known by professional photographers. Let's hope Aaron doesn't sue you for defamation here, Suda. > As for my being "wounded:" ~NOT!~ I'd say rigor mortis has set in, actually. :) chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
