Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 04/25/2014 13:31 (04/25/2014 04:31) |
| Message-ID | <2014042504310914877-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (59m) |
On 2014-04-25 08:09:22 +0000, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>said:
SandmanI am not going to debate the minutiae of this issue, but I will spell out and track my part in this mess. That you had made some sort of mistake was obvious to many of us. It was not my intention to do anything more than give you a clue that there was something wrong. I had hoped that you would have seen the mistake. Unfortunately you did not get it until three days later.
In article <2014042423313288341-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:Savageduck
Actually I knew you had it wrong, and posted a hint which you didn't recognize when this little exchange took place on April 16, 2014 when I found myself entering this thread for the first time:SandmanSandman
"bugger"???"...B&H was also very tiny."???None of that response makes any sense at all.Savageduck
Now I know I didn't specifically spell it out then, but I thought you might have figured there was something wrong.
How so? I was talking about Best Buy, and you said (as I read it) calling Best Buy tiny didn't make any sense, which is a perfectly valid response from you. There is nothing in that response that would have me believe that I had mistakenly abbrivated Best Buy incorrectly.
OK! In my second post on the subject, on April 17, there was this exchange where the hint was a tad stronger, unfortunately you told us that you ignored the URL I provided at that time:SavageduckSandman
For the next three days you still did not recognize or acknowledge your error. It was only after you read my response to Eric on April 19, 2014 that you finally, to my relief understood what several of us had been trying to tell you.
So, at what point did *anyone* tell me that I wrote "B&H" when I meant "Best Buy"? You certainly didn't above.
Then in my next two April 17 posts:SandmanSavageduckEric StevensSandman
Sandman: Colonial was slightly bugger than B&H, but B&H was also very tiny.
"bugger"???
Bigger.
OK! A typo.Sandman"...B&H was also very tiny."???None of that response makes any sense at all.Savageduck
Why not?
"...B&H was also very tiny."?? Those are your words aren't they? If you consider B&H "very tiny" what exactly do you consider a large store?
B&H is a massive store, the furthest from *very tiny* that anybody could possibly imagine. Take a look at their store information video at full screen. < http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/NYSuperStore08.jsp >
...and:SandmanSavageduckEric StevensSandman
Sandman: Colonial was slightly bugger than B&H, but B&H was also very tiny.
"bugger"???
Bigger.
OK! A typo.Sandman"...B&H was also very tiny."???None of that response makes any sense at all.Savageduck
Why not?
"...B&H was also very tiny."?? Those are your words aren't they? If you consider B&H "very tiny" what exactly do you consider a large store?
B&H is a massive store, the furthest from *very tiny* that anybody could possibly imagine. Take a look at their store information video at full screen. < http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/NYSuperStore08.jsp >
Then on April 18, I posted this, <2014041807431394298-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>and even then you were blind to the information provided:SavageduckSandman
I'm sure the camera section of B&H actually is significantly larger than colonial, when comparing area, but smaller when it comes to actual photorelated merchandise.
You can't possibly be serious, unless you were in Bob & Harry's photo store. You don't sound as if you actually visited B&H Photo Video.
Finally on April 19 you understood when you read my response to Eric.SavageduckSandman
Huh? Are you saying that the Best Buy at 1620 W Osceola Pkwy has a much larger camera section than I am claiming it does? Why on earth would I lie about that? IN fact, have I ever lied at any point? (Hint: no).
You understand that up until this morning you have been talking about B&H, not Best Buy? Read your original statement and all your subsequent remarks until this AM.
On 16 Apr 2014, in message <slrnlkt1r0.743.mr@irc.sandman.net>you stated: "Colonial was slightly bugger than B&H, but B&H was also very tiny."
It might have a "B" in its name, but Best Buy is no B&H.SavageduckSandman
The camera section in this Best Buy was small, they had very few SLR bodies around, and a very small selection of P&S cameras as well.
So, who ever claimed that Best Buy was a comprehensive camera store?
We understood that once you told us you had never been to NYC. However, you persisted with your claim until you read and understood my post of April 18 on April 19.SavageduckSandman
That said, once you understood that there was a difference between B&H and probably all other camera stores in the USA
Which is something I've yet to "understand", mind you. I've never been to B&H so I have no idea how different it may be to other camera stores in the states. All I have is some allusion to square footage, but I've not actually seen the store.
As far as camera stores in the USA go there are only two comparable retail operations with equally strong online presence; B&H and Adorama.
...and yet here we are. Time to let it go.SavageduckSandman
there was no need to keep pounding away at this issue, and the time has come for Tony, Eric and you to close this endless debate.
They won't. I didn't "open" it, I am merely responding to their trolling and misinformation.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
04/14/2014-
