Very good point. If the Olympus Guy was just jumping on to sell and not be a
devoted list member, I too would have objected. My objection would not be to
the same degree as the spammers who find us, but still object. John is a
very involved member of the list. He provides boatloads of info and insight.
Tom took our obsession to the pinacle and backed down a bit. He made
available a lot of stuff at reasonable prices. Not as a business, but as
member sharing with his friends. I see a distinct difference.
I'll miss the Olympus Guy. But I'm glad he didn't spam us with adverts. I
welcome Tom's FS posts as much as those of any other member with a personal
collection of any size. Keep them coming.
Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: <WKato@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: OlympusGuy hypocrisy
> In a message dated 1/22/01 6:09:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> miaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > I mean no offense to anyone, but did not this very list basically drum
Paul
> > Van T. off this list for his repeated ads here? Was not this very case
> > cited as one of many, many on this list that led to the formation of a
> > completely separate OM-trader list?
>
> I feel a little guilty because I was against PVT on the list. Not because
he
> wasn't a nice guy as I have bought several items from him. But his posts
were
> 100 ommercial and had no Zuikoholic value. I guess he had a lot of
> knowledge about Olympus equipment but he never shared his knowledge.
>
> Warren
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|