Actually, I was not. You post was not sufficiently interesting, and
I treat such as "below my radar". But since you asked directly....
I am glad that you are above ad hominems, or I should take offense at that ;-)
There was no "might" involved. You said "I'm gonna get an E-1 just
to torque the jaws of Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Karlson."
And as you note below I then wrote, "Actually, I probably won't get an E-1..." I think that the "contradictory" statements might suggest a "might" to the less rigid mind.
Now,...that is a statement that you are going
to do something purely for the purpose of annoying someone else. In
short, a personal attack.
Ah, very good! Sort of like "You post was not sufficiently interesting, and I treat such as 'below my radar' "? Oh, wait, you don't do that sort of thing. Much. OK.
...you knew, to an extremely high degree of certainty, that neither
myself or Mr.Karlson were "beaten with an Olympus camera as children".
Your zeal (if reasonable) leads me to think it was a (reasonable) possibility.
What there is wrong information and how is it indefensible?
Well, since you later stated that "Actually, I probably won't get
an E-1...", your yourself have proven your first statement wrong,
and have successfully breeched its defences. Your rhetorical
question, by its own nature, is self negating.
Of course, my first statement is not necessarily "wrong": I could be passing through a decision process -- changing my mind. I said that "I probably won't get an E-1..." which is different from saying that I definitely won't get an E-1.
Might get one yet, maybe just (in a very uninteresting and beneath-your-radar attempt) to torque your jaws. Please feel no obligation to respond at length (as you seem to have inexplicably (in light of your impeccable standards) done here).
Of course, the fact that I might do so would make your statement that "your [sic] yourself have proven your first statement wrong," well, wrong. Sorry -- a subtle distinction, but one that must be made.
I can get an E-1 ... for any reason ("good" ... that suits me,
That is true. However, as you said, "Actually, I probably won't get
an E-1...", therefore your statement was made for no other purpose
than to annoy two people. "just to torque the jaws of...."
Uh, see above, and actually, it served several purposes, that was just one. Since, as you note below, you can grasp the subtle, I won't list them all here.
a question is not, in itself, wrong information, it is an effort to seek
the right information from those who would presumedly know.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you were making an honest and
sinceer attempt to find out if Mr. Karlson and myself were "beaten
with an Olympus camera as children"?
What else am I to surmise if your anti-4/3 zeal is reasonable? Or, if you in missed some of the subtler subleties throughout this post, yeah, I wouldn't put it past you to fall for that. Take your pick, whichever most/least offends you.
As I said above, there are worse things than hyperbole,
Quite true. There is thinly veiled sarcasm. There is really bad humor.
Veiled? Oh, that must be why you though you perceived the subtler aspects of my post. Honest mistake. But if the humor is good (or at least not bad) -- but subtle? This is sometimes a difficult line to tread.
...Your calling my request for information "wrong information"
is not hyperbole, but just plain, well, wrong.
Again, no one would construe your rhetorical question as a "request
for information".
See above. A second reading might bring clarity and I can type slower if that helps.
Those issues aside, I was subtly (I'm pointing this out to you as
you seem to have difficulty grasping the subtlety)
I assure you, I have no difficulty with the subtle.
You put me in an awkward position: I either must take your word for this, or the empirical evidence to the contrary.
addressing your seemingly religious zeal in denouncing an
unreleased camera on scant preliminary evidence.
As I have pointed out, I have made numerous positive statements
about this camera.
I think you made one that you noted in another thread (where you also posted this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=5427570 ). It could be argued that the bulk of your posts concerning the E-1 are that it is not a good thing or not good enough -- which may be entirely true. My point (again -- you may have missed this) was not the validity of your criticism, but your seemingly-zealous agitation that someone might actually like the concept E-1 (for now) and the actual execution of the same (in the future).
As I said,
It very well might be the worst camera ever made.
Of course, nobody here but Phil has actually had his or her hands
on one, and that was not, apparently, a production camera (Phil
calls it an "initial production" camera, distinguishing his preview
"as a prelude to the full reivew using a production camera").
And, as several people (myself included) "initial production" has
an established definition, a saleable (sellable) product.
Anything can be sold, but Phil felt the need to distinguish this from a "production camera." Maybe he just has higher standards than you. Hey, it happens.
Take it from me: that new unreleased Mel Gibson movie SUCKS.
Nobody should pay money to see it. You'll hate it, all of you.
Excellent example. You provide no explanation or reasoning, just
condemnation. I do provide the technical explanations to back up my
statements.
..about preliminary information on an unreleased camera not in final production. Yup, you do.
You might want to see someone about those voices in your head.
See someone? Aren't the voices enough?
But thanks for not attacking me!
