Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Beach Camera OK?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:04:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.

More about : beach camera

Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:04:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve L wrote:
>
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.


it looks like they are getting better.
resellerratings.com says:

Customer Satisfaction
Six-Month Rating: 9.40
Six-Month Reviews:96
Lifetime Reviews: 299




Lifetime Rating: 8.87 Average Store: 7.33
High Average: 9.04
Low Average: 3.34
8.26 Pricing of Products and Services
8.80 Likelihood of Future Purchases
9.41 Shipping and Packaging
7.50 Customer Service
7.92 Return or Replacement
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:36:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://shop.bizrate.com/ratings_guide/cust_reviews__mid...

"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:07:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just purchased a Canon 300D and a couple of accessories from them, and it
went smooth as silk. They do, however, offer only a 10-day return policy if
I read correctly. I think some other places have 30-day return policies.

--
John

Steve L wrote:
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach
> Camera in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and
> they have it for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price
> of $669.
May 22, 2005 12:37:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have purchased several items from them over the last couple of years,
inluding Nikon stuff with rebates. I have not had any problems.
I think it is far better to deal with established vendors than who knows
what on Ebay.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:40:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve L wrote:
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>
>
>
I bought a Canon from them about 2 months ago. Everything went very
well. I had no problems and would order from them again.

John
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:25:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:04:18 -0700, Steve L wrote
(in article <HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga>):

>
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>
>
>

My experience with them has been positive.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:09:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have purchased from them and everything went perfectly.

Tim







"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...

Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:54:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.

It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
person whose name I've never seen here before.

Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.

I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
better.
With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can plant
posts here.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:54:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all I assure that I am quite
real and have purchased from numerous online sources including Beach Camera. I
have had approx. 40 - 50 posts in this group in the past 6 months. For you to
be so jaded and assume that there is some nefarious activity afoot is sad, and
as I said, offensive to those of us who contribute to this group regularly and
honestly.
Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, and I rather doubt you are the
appointed usenet psychologist or attendance keeper anyway.

If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to keep your
unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.

Tim







It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
person whose name I've never seen here before.

Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.

I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
better.
With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can plant
posts here.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Destin_FL wrote:
> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all

<snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>

>
> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>

Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not furthered
by such rabid language.

I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a
chance that ... has or could occur.

It may also be worthwhile to pump up your adrenaline and let the fumes
escape in uneditied emotional style; I don't think that contributes
much "positive" to a thread.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:47:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W90ke.13922$cf5.7174@lakeread07...
> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all I assure that I am
> quite
> real and have purchased from numerous online sources including Beach
> Camera. I
> have had approx. 40 - 50 posts in this group in the past 6 months. For
> you to
> be so jaded and assume that there is some nefarious activity afoot is sad,
> and
> as I said, offensive to those of us who contribute to this group regularly
> and
> honestly.
> Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, and I rather doubt you are
> the
> appointed usenet psychologist or attendance keeper anyway.
>
> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to keep
> your
> unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>
> Tim

Read my post again, and note that I made no declarations extending beyond my
own observations.

I make no assumption that I am right.

In a world where the vast majority of camera shops are dishonest scam nests,
it is wise to use caution when an outfit long associated with problems
suddenly has a string of positive posts by unfamiliar people.

-Mark

> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
> person whose name I've never seen here before.
>
> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>
> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
> better.
> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
> plant
> posts here.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:54:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>>
>> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
>> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
>> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>
>It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
>person whose name I've never seen here before.
>
>Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>
>I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
>better.
>With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can plant
>posts here.


I agree with Destin_FL that this conclusion
is ridiculous.

My personal experience with Beach -- I bought
my Nikon scanner from them, almost exactly
four years ago. No problems. It was probably
one of the first LS-8000s shipped in the USA.

More recently (about 18 months ago) I tried to
buy my 10D from them and eventually gave up when
they asked me to fax them a photocopy of my
credit card.

BH's price was considerably higher but BH was
much easier to deal with, so they got the order.

bizrate.com is an excellent way to screen
prospective retailers.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:04:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in message
news:v571919cjqg7dve7nun0uag356pem4b0id@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:54:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>>>
>>> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach
>>> Camera
>>> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have
>>> it
>>> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>>
>>It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
>>person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>
>>Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>
>>I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
>>better.
>>With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
>>plant
>>posts here.
>
>
> I agree with Destin_FL that this conclusion
> is ridiculous.


Relax, Rafe.
I made no declaration of fact at all.
There is a big difference between a declaration and a suspicion.
Learn the difference before you pounce.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:V7Vje.43242$Qp.42961@fed1read04...
>
> "Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>>
>> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
>> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
>> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>
> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
> person whose name I've never seen here before.
>
> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>
> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
> better.
> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
> plant posts here.

That's ridiculous. SEVEN separate positive replies over half a day and you
think it's a "plant"? Check the headers of the posts and see if they're from
the same place. It doesn't look like it to me.

I have never dealt with Beach Camera myself, but I have bought three cameras
from their "sister company" BuyDig.com and have been 100% satisfied. Great
prices, fast shipping, no hassle, no problems of any kind. And it is
certainly true that Beach has very high customer ratings on BizRate.com and
elsewhere. Even if you think those high ratings are the result of Beach
employees planting *hundreds and hundreds* of favorable reviews, where are
all the *negative* reviews that so many other online sellers accumulate?
There is no way Beach could prevent them from showing up if they existed.

N.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:28:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:YeednfR0A6uVOA3fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:V7Vje.43242$Qp.42961@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>>>
>>> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach
>>> Camera in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they
>>> have it for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of
>>> $669.
>>
>> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by
>> a person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>
>> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>
>> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings
>> getting better.
>> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
>> plant posts here.
>
> That's ridiculous. SEVEN separate positive replies over half a day and you
> think it's a "plant"?

No.
I don't think they're plants...
....I think it was worth considering, and said so.

>Check the headers of the posts and see if they're from the same place. It
>doesn't look like it to me.
>
> I have never dealt with Beach Camera myself, but I have bought three
> cameras from their "sister company" BuyDig.com and have been 100%
> satisfied. Great prices, fast shipping, no hassle, no problems of any
> kind. And it is certainly true that Beach has very high customer ratings
> on BizRate.com and elsewhere. Even if you think those high ratings are the
> result of Beach employees planting *hundreds and hundreds* of favorable
> reviews, where are all the *negative* reviews that so many other online
> sellers accumulate? There is no way Beach could prevent them from showing
> up if they existed.

Again... I made no declaration of anything.
If it's legitimate, then my post has helped to underscore this by generating
more reliable positive posts.
Done.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:40:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:D JqdnbwaNY4OXQ3fRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Destin_FL wrote:
>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all
>
> <snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>
>
>>
>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
>> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>
>
> Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not furthered by
> such rabid language.
>
> I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a chance
> that ... has or could occur.
>
> It may also be worthwhile to pump up your adrenaline and let the fumes
> escape in uneditied emotional style; I don't think that contributes much
> "positive" to a thread.

Since he and other posters here were essentially accused of being "plants"
for Beach Camera, I think he is justified in being annoyed and expressing
that annoyance.

N.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:40:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:D JqdnbwaNY4OXQ3fRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>> Destin_FL wrote:
>>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all
>>
>> <snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>
>>
>>>
>>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
>>> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not
>> furthered
>> by such rabid language.
>>
>> I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a
>> chance that ... has or could occur.
>>
>> It may also be worthwhile to pump up your adrenaline and let the
>> fumes escape in uneditied emotional style; I don't think that
>> contributes much "positive" to a thread.
>
> Since he and other posters here were essentially accused of being
> "plants" for Beach Camera, I think he is justified in being annoyed
> and expressing that annoyance.
>
> N.

Me, too; my comment had to do with his inflammatory language.

Reading is your friend.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 6:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:UsudnWHBgJ_RWw3fRVn-2w@giganews.com...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>> news:D JqdnbwaNY4OXQ3fRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>>> Destin_FL wrote:
>>>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all
>>>
>>> <snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
>>>> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not furthered
>>> by such rabid language.
>>>
>>> I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a
>>> chance that ... has or could occur.
>>>
>>> It may also be worthwhile to pump up your adrenaline and let the
>>> fumes escape in uneditied emotional style; I don't think that
>>> contributes much "positive" to a thread.
>>
>> Since he and other posters here were essentially accused of being
>> "plants" for Beach Camera, I think he is justified in being annoyed
>> and expressing that annoyance.
>>
>> N.
>
> Me, too; my comment had to do with his inflammatory language.
>
> Reading is your friend.

:-)

We have no quarrel there, but inflammatory breeds inflammatory.

N.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 6:33:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:xN2dnazIJLwITQ3fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:UsudnWHBgJ_RWw3fRVn-2w@giganews.com...
>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>>> news:D JqdnbwaNY4OXQ3fRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>>>> Destin_FL wrote:
>>>>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all
>>>>
>>>> <snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
>>>>> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not furthered
>>>> by such rabid language.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a
>>>> chance that ... has or could occur.
>>>>
>>>> It may also be worthwhile to pump up your adrenaline and let the
>>>> fumes escape in uneditied emotional style; I don't think that
>>>> contributes much "positive" to a thread.
>>>
>>> Since he and other posters here were essentially accused of being
>>> "plants" for Beach Camera, I think he is justified in being annoyed
>>> and expressing that annoyance.
>>>
>>> N.
>>
>> Me, too; my comment had to do with his inflammatory language.
>>
>> Reading is your friend.
>
> :-)
>
> We have no quarrel there, but inflammatory breeds inflammatory.

Inflammatory in this case breeds discussion.
-A good thing.
Beach camera has now received more positive comments by more familiar
people.
This can only be a good thing for Beach.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You have just made an unwarranted allegation. My name is new because I've
just recently begun to get back into photography, and I just recently
subscribed to this newsgroup. New names doesn't necessarily mean something's
fishy.

--
John

Mark² wrote:
> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is
> by a person whose name I've never seen here before.
>
> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>
> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings
> getting better.
> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
> plant posts here.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Tucker" <johnREMOVE@REMOVEintegrity-web-design.com> wrote in message
news:MJ3ke.54$4N2.33@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> You have just made an unwarranted allegation. My name is new because I've
> just recently begun to get back into photography, and I just recently
> subscribed to this newsgroup. New names doesn't necessarily mean
> something's fishy.

Great.
Glad to hear it.

>
> --
> John
>
> Mark² wrote:
>> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is
>> by a person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>
>> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>
>> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings
>> getting better.
>> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
>> plant posts here.
>
>
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:57:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark?,
You just don't seem to get what anyone here is saying. The fact that YOU didn't
recognize any names is utterly MEANINGLESS to the rest of the honest and decent
people posting here. This is not YOUR personal newsgroup. So the fact that YOU
in partciular have not been "swindled" over the years is also MEANINGLESS. That
is news for you to keep to yourself.

You say you made no declarations. Listen Mark, let's not get into semantics
here OK? You "pondered" that myself and the other posters were plants for Beach
Camera. That is patently offensive to me/us. That completely disregards that
we MIGHT be real and genuine people who have, by the way, a positive to add to
the thread.
On the other hand, your addition to the thread was unwarranted, unfounded,
unneccesary, and purely negative. The further you try to defend yourself, is
the further into your own hole you dig. It is not helping yourself to take an
unattractive position on this matter and keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep on and on and on
trying to defend your position. Had you had some PERSONAL dealings with Beach
Camera, you would have been well to post, otherwise the question/thread did not
apply to you in ANY way.

Tim

P.S. I genuinely wish this whole thing had not degenerated into this. I
suspect that under other conditions I would have a great deal of respect for
you. Newsgroups seem to inherently include a bunch of flame and
negative/hateful activity because people get to sit in their little rooms behind
the cover of cyberspace. It is a shame that newsgroup members can't find a way
to comport themselves as though they were face to face.


________________________




Great.
Glad to hear it.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:57:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c%5ke.13959$cf5.9946@lakeread07...
> Mark?,
> You just don't seem to get what anyone here is saying. The fact that YOU
> didn't
> recognize any names is utterly MEANINGLESS to the rest of the honest and
> decent
> people posting here. This is not YOUR personal newsgroup.

Oh for crying out loud.

We all all here to comment on any number of things, including impressions.
I got a certain impression.
There was disagreement.
Great!
Welcome to usenet.

>So the fact that YOU
> in partciular have not been "swindled" over the years is also MEANINGLESS.
> That
> is news for you to keep to yourself.

Oh brother.

>
> You say you made no declarations. Listen Mark, let's not get into
> semantics
> here OK? You "pondered" that myself and the other posters were plants for
> Beach
> Camera.

And you countered my comment.
Great.
I put it out there...you answered...game over.
Get over it, you sniveling little twit.

>That is patently offensive to me/us. That completely disregards that
> we MIGHT be real and genuine people who have, by the way, a positive to
> add to
> the thread.

It didn't disregard anything you may or many not have been.
I pondered...You clarified.
That's how these things work.
Get over it.

> On the other hand, your addition to the thread was unwarranted, unfounded,
> unneccesary, and purely negative. The further you try to defend yourself,
> is
> the further into your own hole you dig. It is not helping yourself to
> take an
> unattractive position on this matter and keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep on and on
> and on
> trying to defend your position. Had you had some PERSONAL dealings with
> Beach
> Camera, you would have been well to post, otherwise the question/thread
> did not
> apply to you in ANY way.
>
> Tim
>
> P.S. I genuinely wish this whole thing had not degenerated into this.

Then I'd suggest you quit hammering away at your petty hyper-sensitivity.
Good grief. It's amazing what people get their "feelings" hurt over these
days.
It is amazing to me that you fail to recognize that this is a fairly
anonymous forum...including those who post to deliberately deceive. What I
wondered about DOES happen...OFTEN.
That I was off the mark here should be no big deal.
You've clarified, and I've noted the correction.

Now what are you still carrying on for?

>I
> suspect that under other conditions I would have a great deal of respect
> for
> you.

Then why won't you note this down as a simple clarification, rather than a
series of you and others going on and on over how offended you are.

>Newsgroups seem to inherently include a bunch of flame and
> negative/hateful activity because people get to sit in their little rooms
> behind
> the cover of cyberspace.

I absolutely agree with this. But what you seem to be forgetting is that
this very fact, as stated by you, is the very same factor that lends itself
to false posts such as what I wondered yours and others might be. You have
outlined precisely why posts are often, and understandably questioned here.

You don't just gulp down everything you read here (I hope), and neither do
I.
You'll be wrong from time to time and so will I.
This is expected.
If you get literally offended each time you don't like what someone thinks
or wonders, you're in for a long stressful presence here, because to the
rest of usenet, we are all mostly typed names from unknown sources. I've
been on this forum for years, and am familiar with a great many posters.
You will eventually become a familiar "face" here, but until you are, you
have to wait a bit before you can demand that others always assume you're
legitimate. Have you counted the trolls here? Have you counted the sock
puppets? There are hundreds.

>It is a shame that newsgroup members can't find a way
> to comport themselves as though they were face to face.

The fact that this isn't face-to-face is the very reason for hightened and
justifiable skepticism.
If we were all in a big meeting room, there would be zero troll problems,
this conversation would not be necessary--simply because bull-shi--ers are
easily identified face-to-face..
Since this is a faceless, and unverifiable forum with no regulations
whatsoever, it SHOULD be understandable why things are questioned. There is
a long history of people propping up scam shops here.

If people were offended, I really think they need to just learn more about
the strengths and weaknesses of usenet.
A major weakness is simply that we don't know who's talking...who is
presenting themselves honestly, and who is not.
In the process of determining these things, we make assertions that are then
tested/responded to.
I verbally questioned the posts.
You and others clarified.
Unfortunately, you and others also spent time being needlessly offended,
when you could have simply recognized the need for clarification, and
offered it.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:57:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark,
Now you have lowered yourself to calling me a sniveling twit? And you go on and
on and on and on about how *I* should have just gotten over it and stopped
posting??????? I posted ONCE and you posted at least EIGHT times defending the
indefensible.
I didn't resort to calling you names. That is EXACTLY what I mean about sitting
in a little dark room protected by cyberspace. You get to call strangers names,
and suffer no harm. That also, is indefensible. Mostly just overwhelmingly
childish.
So flame on Mark. I tried to end this on a positive note. You weren't capable
of the same.

But know this... my time in this particular thread is over. I will stay above
your childish defensive posture and hope that down the road we can meet on
better terms.

Sincerely,
Tim
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:57:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6P7ke.13964$cf5.6948@lakeread07...
> Mark,
> Now you have lowered yourself to calling me a sniveling twit?

Ya, sorry about that.
I shouldn't call you that.

>And you go on and
> on and on and on about how *I* should have just gotten over it and stopped
> posting??????? I posted ONCE and you posted at least EIGHT times
> defending the
> indefensible.

I've feilded posts from numerous people here.

> I didn't resort to calling you names. That is EXACTLY what I mean about
> sitting
> in a little dark room protected by cyberspace. You get to call strangers
> names,
> and suffer no harm. That also, is indefensible. Mostly just
> overwhelmingly
> childish.

You sounded like you were whining.
I got tired of it.
I'm sorry.
Shouldn't have called you that.

> So flame on Mark. I tried to end this on a positive note.

>You weren't capable
> of the same.
>
> But know this... my time in this particular thread is over. I will stay
> above
> your childish defensive posture and hope that down the road we can meet on
> better terms.

OK.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 10:12:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:40:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> unwittingly spewed:


>Unfortunately, you and others also spent time being needlessly offended,
>when you could have simply recognized the need for clarification, and
>offered it.


Why don't you just bleeping say, "I was wrong," or "I'm sorry."

Instead, your boundless ego just presses you to dig yourself
in, deeper and deeper, hurling further insults and aspersions
on those who called you on your foolishness and rudeness, and
taking not ONE IOTA of blame on yourself.

You're clueless, Mark. I'd tell you to quit while you're
ahead, but you're way too far gone already.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 10:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in message
news:5f02911miqb32c4okkdq6ieill9nnlnh3d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:40:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> unwittingly spewed:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, you and others also spent time being needlessly offended,
>>when you could have simply recognized the need for clarification, and
>>offered it.
>
>
> Why don't you just bleeping say, "I was wrong," or "I'm sorry."

My suspicion turned out to be incorrect.
I'm sorry you took offense.

> Instead, your boundless ego just presses you to dig yourself
> in, deeper and deeper, hurling further insults and aspersions
> on those who called you on your foolishness and rudeness, and
> taking not ONE IOTA of blame on yourself.

Feel free to blame me all you like, Rafe.

> You're clueless, Mark. I'd tell you to quit while you're
> ahead, but you're way too far gone already.

I'm an experienced photographer who is also experienced on usenet.
The latter means that I've learned to question posts that sing the praises
of shops that have a history of problems.

If Beach is on the up and up these days...GREAT!
May 23, 2005 12:54:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beach did have to leave Maine as the State's Attorney General was out to get
them for sleazy practices. They seem to get a lot of positive opinions of
late, but I wouldn't trust them with my credit card numbers.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 12:54:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ak6ke.36724$tf1.4312846@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Beach did have to leave Maine as the State's Attorney General was out to
> get
> them for sleazy practices. They seem to get a lot of positive opinions of
> late, but I wouldn't trust them with my credit card numbers.
>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>>
>> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach
>> Camera
>> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
>> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.

Which is precisely why I responded to posts in this thread with skepticism.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 12:54:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ak6ke.36724$tf1.4312846@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Beach did have to leave Maine as the State's Attorney General was out to
> get
> them for sleazy practices. They seem to get a lot of positive opinions of
> late, but I wouldn't trust them with my credit card numbers.

I have avoided them based on their past reputation. Several NY/NJ dealers do
have a bad reputation and Beach was one of them.

However, all that seems to have changed completely. While I have still never
bought from Beach, I have bought three times from BuyDig.com which has been
described as Beach's "sister company" in other posts here, and have been
100% satisfied in every way.

Evidently either Beach has corrected their practices *or* the company may be
under completely different management. I suppose it's possible that the
company was bought out by someone who wasn't aware of the poor reputation
they were buying into. Either way I'd be willing to try them now, but my
satisfaction with BuyDig.com is so complete I have no reason to change.
Prices generally are about the same from either company.

N.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:02:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:25:35 -0700, Frank ess wrote
(in article <DJqdnbwaNY4OXQ3fRVn-pg@giganews.com>):

> Destin_FL wrote:
>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all
>
> <snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>
>
>>
>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
>> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>
>
> Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not furthered
> by such rabid language.
>
> I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a
> chance that ... has or could occur.
>

A suggestion of caution, as in your example above, might have been positive,
but a caution is not what Mark offered.

Mark made an accusation based upon nothing but his ignorance concerning the
posting habits of a number of people.

He has a right to display his paranoia, but I doubt very much if it adds
anything positive to any discussion concerning photography.

> It may also be worthwhile to pump up your adrenaline and let the fumes
> escape in uneditied emotional style; I don't think that contributes
> much "positive" to a thread.
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:06:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:47:58 -0700, Mark² wrote
(in article <1B3ke.43259$Qp.11728@fed1read04>):

>
> "Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:W90ke.13922$cf5.7174@lakeread07...
>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all I assure that I am
>> quite
>> real and have purchased from numerous online sources including Beach
>> Camera. I
>> have had approx. 40 - 50 posts in this group in the past 6 months. For
>> you to
>> be so jaded and assume that there is some nefarious activity afoot is sad,
>> and
>> as I said, offensive to those of us who contribute to this group regularly
>> and
>> honestly.
>> Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, and I rather doubt you are
>> the
>> appointed usenet psychologist or attendance keeper anyway.
>>
>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to keep
>> your
>> unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>
>> Tim
>
> Read my post again, and note that I made no declarations extending beyond my
> own observations.
>
> I make no assumption that I am right.
>
> In a world where the vast majority of camera shops are dishonest scam nests,
> it is wise to use caution when an outfit long associated with problems
> suddenly has a string of positive posts by unfamiliar people.
>
> -Mark
>

If you check ResellerRatings.com you will find that Beach Camera has a good
record.

That's what I did before buying from them and I had absolutely ZERO problems
with them.

>> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
>> person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>
>> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>
>> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
>> better.
>> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
>> plant
>> posts here.
>
>
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:30:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEB6B20E0001C50FF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:25:35 -0700, Frank ess wrote
> (in article <DJqdnbwaNY4OXQ3fRVn-pg@giganews.com>):
>
>> Destin_FL wrote:
>>> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all
>>
>> <snip remainder of unbelievably hysterical - if correct - rant>
>>
>>>
>>> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to
>>> keep your unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Relax. You have good perceptions and opinions that are not furthered
>> by such rabid language.
>>
>> I think it is positive to add statements like: I think there is a
>> chance that ... has or could occur.
>>
>
> A suggestion of caution, as in your example above, might have been
> positive,
> but a caution is not what Mark offered.
>
> Mark made an accusation based upon nothing but his ignorance concerning
> the
> posting habits of a number of people.
>
> He has a right to display his paranoia, but I doubt very much if it adds
> anything positive to any discussion concerning photography.

I've never heard so much whining in my life.
PLONK
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:46:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W90ke.13922$cf5.7174@lakeread07...
> This is unbelievably offensive Mark?.... first of all I assure that I am
> quite
> real and have purchased from numerous online sources including Beach
> Camera. I
> have had approx. 40 - 50 posts in this group in the past 6 months.

That's great.
I've made somewhere in the neighborhood of 9000 posts between this and
another photo group over the last 5 or 6 years.
I didn't recognise you or the others here. Shoot me. As Steve Martin would
have said in the late 70's... Excu-u-u-se me! :)  Perhaps you might
consider whether you should take it so personally next time and instead,
simply give some indication that allow folks to recognize your legitimacy
without having a meltdown.

>For you to
> be so jaded and assume that there is some nefarious activity afoot is sad,
> and
> as I said, offensive to those of us who contribute to this group regularly
> and
> honestly.

This sort of fakery happens often here.
"Jaded" to think a set of posts to a newsgroup frequented by good
people...but also frequented by trolls and unstable folks MIGHT be faked?
Surely you jest.

> Not everything in this world is a conspiracy,

I agree.
Unfortunately, an increasing number of posts to this and other NGs are fakes
and trolls.
There has ALWAYS been a certain degree of this element here.

>and I rather doubt you are the
> appointed usenet psychologist or attendance keeper anyway.

Sorry. I forgot to ask the referee (you) permission to respond with
skepticism.
<g>
Pot--Kettle--Black...

> If you have nothing positive to add to a thread, probably best to keep
> your
> unfounded opinions and sad suspicions to yourself.

In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN faked, my
comments would have been quite positive and helpful as they were written.
The posts turned out to be OK after all...but there was absolutely nothing
wrong with my intent...nor with my questioning of the posts. It really is
OK, from time to time, to make a call that turns out to be incorrect, ya
know...
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:33:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:46:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>Perhaps you might
>consider whether you should take it so personally next time and instead,
>simply give some indication that allow folks to recognize your legitimacy
>without having a meltdown.


What, others need to prove their legitimacy
because of -- Mark J Morgan's -- super-sized
ego and obstinate rudeness?

>In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN faked, my
>comments would have been quite positive and helpful as they were written.
>The posts turned out to be OK after all...but there was absolutely nothing
>wrong with my intent...nor with my questioning of the posts. It really is
>OK, from time to time, to make a call that turns out to be incorrect, ya
>know...

You still don't get it, and probably never will.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:32:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in message
news:i4c39110f38gldlobn53gg9jgcil7lpk3k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:46:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps you might
>>consider whether you should take it so personally next time and instead,
>>simply give some indication that allow folks to recognize your legitimacy
>>without having a meltdown.
>
>
> What, others need to prove their legitimacy
> because of -- Mark J Morgan's -- super-sized
> ego and obstinate rudeness?
>
>>In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN faked,
>>my
>>comments would have been quite positive and helpful as they were written.
>>The posts turned out to be OK after all...but there was absolutely nothing
>>wrong with my intent...nor with my questioning of the posts. It really is
>>OK, from time to time, to make a call that turns out to be incorrect, ya
>>know...
>
> You still don't get it, and probably never will.

Rafe,

I've acknowledged the posts were legit, and that my suspicions were
incorrect.

What do you want me to do now?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:33:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:R_eke.43805$Qp.17243@fed1read04...
>
[ . . . ]
>
> In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN faked,
> my comments would have been quite positive and helpful as they were
> written.

GUFFAW!

Mark, following that logic you might as well go around freely accusing
everyone of the most heinous crimes imaginable--on the grounds that your
accusations "would have been quite positive and helpful" if they turned out
to be correct.

N.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:33:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:k66dnYXXCLAydAzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:R_eke.43805$Qp.17243@fed1read04...
>>
> [ . . . ]
>>
>> In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN faked,
>> my comments would have been quite positive and helpful as they were
>> written.
>
> GUFFAW!
>
> Mark, following that logic you might as well go around freely accusing
> everyone of the most heinous crimes imaginable--on the grounds that your
> accusations "would have been quite positive and helpful" if they turned
> out to be correct.
>
> N.

That isn't even remotely similar to what I did.
Thre was nothing random about it.
This newsgroup has a long history of people misleading others about
scam-artist shops.
It was reasonable...but incorrect.
I guess one must be right 100% of the time in your little version of
reality?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:34:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:uumke.43831$Qp.33106@fed1read04...
>
> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
> news:k66dnYXXCLAydAzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:R_eke.43805$Qp.17243@fed1read04...
>>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>
>>> In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN
>>> faked, my comments would have been quite positive and helpful as they
>>> were written.
>>
>> GUFFAW!
>>
>> Mark, following that logic you might as well go around freely accusing
>> everyone of the most heinous crimes imaginable--on the grounds that your
>> accusations "would have been quite positive and helpful" if they turned
>> out to be correct.
>>
>> N.
>
> That isn't even remotely similar to what I did.
> Thre was nothing random about it.
> This newsgroup has a long history of people misleading others about
> scam-artist shops.
> It was reasonable...but incorrect.
> I guess one must be right 100% of the time in your little version of
> reality?

Not 100% necessarily, but a pretty high percentage indeed if you're going to
leave posts like this:
________________

It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is by a
person whose name I've never seen here before.

Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.

I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings getting
better.
With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can plant
posts here.

___________________

That was simply uncalled for, and I have no idea why you continue to try to
defend it.

N.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 8:46:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve L" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:HIKje.24079$NZ1.6603@fe09.lga...
>
> Does anyone have anything good/bad to say about buying from Beach Camera
> in Greenbrook, NJ? I'm thinking of buying a Nikon 8800, and they have it
> for $769, plus the Nikon $100 rebate, for a final price of $669.

I've purchased from Buydig, which is part of Beach, with no problem, as have
several colleagues. Many years ago, Beach was one of the worst places, but
they have apparently cleaned up their act.

Look at resellerratings.com. If the six month rating is at least 9, then
it's pretty safe. A six month rating of less than 6 is usually an indication
to stay away.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:v-udndgaBuP3hw_fRVn-og@giganews.com...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:uumke.43831$Qp.33106@fed1read04...
>>>
>>> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
>>> news:k66dnYXXCLAydAzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>>> message news:R_eke.43805$Qp.17243@fed1read04...
>>>>>
>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD BEEN
>>>>> faked, my comments would have been quite positive and helpful as
>>>>> they were written.
>>>>
>>>> GUFFAW!
>>>>
>>>> Mark, following that logic you might as well go around freely
>>>> accusing everyone of the most heinous crimes imaginable--on the
>>>> grounds that your accusations "would have been quite positive and
>>>> helpful" if they turned out to be correct.
>>>>
>>>> N.
>>>
>>> That isn't even remotely similar to what I did.
>>> Thre was nothing random about it.
>>> This newsgroup has a long history of people misleading others about
>>> scam-artist shops.
>>> It was reasonable...but incorrect.
>>> I guess one must be right 100% of the time in your little version of
>>> reality?
>>
>> Not 100% necessarily, but a pretty high percentage indeed if you're
>> going to leave posts like this:
>> ________________
>>
>> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here is
>> by a person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>
>> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>
>> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings
>> getting better.
>> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they can
>> plant posts here.
>>
>> ___________________
>>
>> That was simply uncalled for, and I have no idea why you continue to
>> try to defend it.
>>
>
> Because it's fun to watch the sensitive boys melt and foam?

Where's the part where he's having "fun"?


>
> In the meantime, it seems to me there might be some hyper-liberal
> uber-victims of disdain whiplash who could have shown evidence of
> unnecessarily egregious empathy, and it may be we are in for some more
> whinging and foot-stamping.

Is there an equation for that?

N.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:39:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:v-udndgaBuP3hw_fRVn-og@giganews.com...
>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>> message news:uumke.43831$Qp.33106@fed1read04...
>>>>
>>>> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
>>>> news:k66dnYXXCLAydAzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:R_eke.43805$Qp.17243@fed1read04...
>>>>>>
>>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD
>>>>>> BEEN faked, my comments would have been quite positive and
>>>>>> helpful as they were written.
>>>>>
>>>>> GUFFAW!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark, following that logic you might as well go around freely
>>>>> accusing everyone of the most heinous crimes imaginable--on the
>>>>> grounds that your accusations "would have been quite positive
>>>>> and
>>>>> helpful" if they turned out to be correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> N.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't even remotely similar to what I did.
>>>> Thre was nothing random about it.
>>>> This newsgroup has a long history of people misleading others
>>>> about
>>>> scam-artist shops.
>>>> It was reasonable...but incorrect.
>>>> I guess one must be right 100% of the time in your little version
>>>> of reality?
>>>
>>> Not 100% necessarily, but a pretty high percentage indeed if
>>> you're
>>> going to leave posts like this:
>>> ________________
>>>
>>> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here
>>> is by a person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>>
>>> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>>
>>> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings
>>> getting better.
>>> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they
>>> can plant posts here.
>>>
>>> ___________________
>>>
>>> That was simply uncalled for, and I have no idea why you continue
>>> to
>>> try to defend it.
>>>
>>
>> Because it's fun to watch the sensitive boys melt and foam?
>>
>> In the meantime, it seems to me there might be some hyper-liberal
>> uber-victims of disdain whiplash who could have shown evidence of
>> unnecessarily egregious empathy, and it may be we are in for some
>> more whinging and foot-stamping.
>>
>> --
>> Frank S
>
> Hi Frank.
> I am truly amazed at the reaction here in this thread.

<snip>

Amazed. Yup.

Maybe shouldn't be. It's not so difficult to figure that a forum where
you can find people who declare their love for "my SupahPix XLNT
oh-bright-thirty" or "my 11-77 LightBender SXe" may be home to the odd
odd-ball.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It seems to me a major contributor to the problem (I'm not really
convinced it is a "problem" any more than encountering a range of
personal heights in a population - it's there and inconvenient for
some, transparent to others - but to anyone but Randy Newman, not the
subject of much controversy) is failure of perspective, and of
understanding.

In the computer society things come so easy, gratification so quick,
messaging so convenient and efficient, u r ok to put out less than
enough for full understanding, and to pay not-quite-enough attention
with the same result. Leaping from beginning (read the answer to some
question or challenge) to end (understanding, kind of, the message
actually written) is facilitated by shorthand writing and shorthand
thinking, and seldom includes complete cognition, which should be the
middle term.

I still don't see how anyone could take your suggestion as a personal
affront, particularly since you denied them personage if they were
perpetrators (in which case they would have no legitimate complaint)
and made no direct allegation ("smacks of", has characteristics
similar to or in common with) against a person, rather a practice or
circumstance.

If your data was wrong - and it seems it was - then the proper
response was, "Oops, you got that one wrong, here are my bona fides
.... "

Unless, of course, the vanity factor is so dominant that every song
must be about you, even if it isn't. Got to have some excitement in
the sedentary world of keyboard potatoes. (I almost did an
unforgivable and wrote, "Keyboard Drama Queens". Now _that_ would be
an insult!)

--
Frank ess
"Slap my mind".
—Uri Geller
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:59:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:D NednVgZBc19GA_fRVn-hg@giganews.com...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>> news:v-udndgaBuP3hw_fRVn-og@giganews.com...
>>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>>> message news:uumke.43831$Qp.33106@fed1read04...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
>>>>> news:k66dnYXXCLAydAzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:R_eke.43805$Qp.17243@fed1read04...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the not-so-unlikely (at the time) event that the posts HAD
>>>>>>> BEEN faked, my comments would have been quite positive and
>>>>>>> helpful as they were written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GUFFAW!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, following that logic you might as well go around freely
>>>>>> accusing everyone of the most heinous crimes imaginable--on the
>>>>>> grounds that your accusations "would have been quite positive and
>>>>>> helpful" if they turned out to be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> N.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't even remotely similar to what I did.
>>>>> Thre was nothing random about it.
>>>>> This newsgroup has a long history of people misleading others about
>>>>> scam-artist shops.
>>>>> It was reasonable...but incorrect.
>>>>> I guess one must be right 100% of the time in your little version
>>>>> of reality?
>>>>
>>>> Not 100% necessarily, but a pretty high percentage indeed if you're
>>>> going to leave posts like this:
>>>> ________________
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting to me that every single "positive response" here
>>>> is by a person whose name I've never seen here before.
>>>>
>>>> Smacks very much of a "Beach Camera" plant.
>>>>
>>>> I know Crownfield...but his only comment was that he notes ratings
>>>> getting better.
>>>> With enough persistance, employees can stack ratings just as they
>>>> can plant posts here.
>>>>
>>>> ___________________
>>>>
>>>> That was simply uncalled for, and I have no idea why you continue to
>>>> try to defend it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because it's fun to watch the sensitive boys melt and foam?
>>>
>>> In the meantime, it seems to me there might be some hyper-liberal
>>> uber-victims of disdain whiplash who could have shown evidence of
>>> unnecessarily egregious empathy, and it may be we are in for some
>>> more whinging and foot-stamping.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frank S
>>
>> Hi Frank.
>> I am truly amazed at the reaction here in this thread.
>
> <snip>
>
> Amazed. Yup.
>
> Maybe shouldn't be. It's not so difficult to figure that a forum where you
> can find people who declare their love for "my SupahPix XLNT
> oh-bright-thirty" or "my 11-77 LightBender SXe" may be home to the odd
> odd-ball.
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with that.
>
> It seems to me a major contributor to the problem (I'm not really
> convinced it is a "problem" any more than encountering a range of personal
> heights in a population - it's there and inconvenient for some,
> transparent to others - but to anyone but Randy Newman, not the subject of
> much controversy) is failure of perspective, and of understanding.
>
> In the computer society things come so easy, gratification so quick,
> messaging so convenient and efficient, u r ok to put out less than enough
> for full understanding, and to pay not-quite-enough attention with the
> same result. Leaping from beginning (read the answer to some question or
> challenge) to end (understanding, kind of, the message actually written)
> is facilitated by shorthand writing and shorthand thinking, and seldom
> includes complete cognition, which should be the middle term.
>
> I still don't see how anyone could take your suggestion as a personal
> affront, particularly since you denied them personage if they were
> perpetrators (in which case they would have no legitimate complaint) and
> made no direct allegation ("smacks of", has characteristics similar to or
> in common with) against a person, rather a practice or circumstance.
>
> If your data was wrong - and it seems it was - then the proper response
> was, "Oops, you got that one wrong, here are my bona fides ... "
>
> Unless, of course, the vanity factor is so dominant that every song must
> be about you, even if it isn't. Got to have some excitement in the
> sedentary world of keyboard potatoes. (I almost did an unforgivable and
> wrote, "Keyboard Drama Queens". Now _that_ would be an insult!)
>
> --
> Frank ess
> "Slap my mind".
> —Uri Geller

Ahhhhhh...
What a breath of fresh air you are, Frank.
While I was quite aware of being surrounded by hypersensitive...um... "folk"
(trying to be kind)...there comes a point where one gets the cold, sinking
feeling that all people of sound mind have suddenly evaporated.

You mapped this one well, and put my thoughts down in ways I hadn't fully
formulated/communicated. Your delineation of personage (or lack of) vs.
practice/circumstance squarely hit the nail.

I'd like to think they'll read (and perhaps even _digest_) your words, but
if not...we might yet survive...since we'll never live in a world free of
sad, persecuted folk who see injury under every rock and bush. They remind
me of the particular women that dominate conversations at my
work-place...where everything = insult and every conversation between them
serves only to confirm and heighten the "legitimacy" of whatever offense is
reported to the group. Drama is fine, but only when triggered and
accompanied by something truly and compellingly real.

Mark
May 24, 2005 3:48:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Or they might be filling up places like resellerratings and the usenets with
their own employees bragging about the great deals they got. The old "I
tired this site and got the best..." spam.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:EIWdncZJwtHliwzfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ak6ke.36724$tf1.4312846@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > Beach did have to leave Maine as the State's Attorney General was out to
> > get
> > them for sleazy practices. They seem to get a lot of positive opinions
of
> > late, but I wouldn't trust them with my credit card numbers.
>
> I have avoided them based on their past reputation. Several NY/NJ dealers
do
> have a bad reputation and Beach was one of them.
>
> However, all that seems to have changed completely. While I have still
never
> bought from Beach, I have bought three times from BuyDig.com which has
been
> described as Beach's "sister company" in other posts here, and have been
> 100% satisfied in every way.
>
> Evidently either Beach has corrected their practices *or* the company may
be
> under completely different management. I suppose it's possible that the
> company was bought out by someone who wasn't aware of the poor reputation
> they were buying into. Either way I'd be willing to try them now, but my
> satisfaction with BuyDig.com is so complete I have no reason to change.
> Prices generally are about the same from either company.
>
> N.
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:48:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:48:32 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>Or they might be filling up places like resellerratings and the usenets with
>their own employees bragging about the great deals they got. The old "I
>tired this site and got the best..." spam.

I wondered how long it would take you to dredge up that
unsubstantiated BS again.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:48:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kZtke.39340$tf1.4625182@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Or they might be filling up places like resellerratings and the usenets
> with
> their own employees bragging about the great deals they got. The old "I
> tired this site and got the best..." spam.

Careful Tony...
....That's exactly what I thought might be going on at the beginning of this
thread, and they got their panties in such a wad that they're still whining
about how much my post hurt their little selves...


> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
> news:EIWdncZJwtHliwzfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:ak6ke.36724$tf1.4312846@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> > Beach did have to leave Maine as the State's Attorney General was out
>> > to
>> > get
>> > them for sleazy practices. They seem to get a lot of positive opinions
> of
>> > late, but I wouldn't trust them with my credit card numbers.
>>
>> I have avoided them based on their past reputation. Several NY/NJ dealers
> do
>> have a bad reputation and Beach was one of them.
>>
>> However, all that seems to have changed completely. While I have still
> never
>> bought from Beach, I have bought three times from BuyDig.com which has
> been
>> described as Beach's "sister company" in other posts here, and have been
>> 100% satisfied in every way.
>>
>> Evidently either Beach has corrected their practices *or* the company may
> be
>> under completely different management. I suppose it's possible that the
>> company was bought out by someone who wasn't aware of the poor reputation
>> they were buying into. Either way I'd be willing to try them now, but my
>> satisfaction with BuyDig.com is so complete I have no reason to change.
>> Prices generally are about the same from either company.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:21:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kZtke.39340$tf1.4625182@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Or they might be filling up places like resellerratings and the usenets
> with
> their own employees bragging about the great deals they got. The old "I
> tired this site and got the best..." spam.

Tony, meet Mark.

Mark, meet Tony.

In the immortal words of Bogie, "This may be the beginning of a beautiful
friendship."

N.


>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
> news:EIWdncZJwtHliwzfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:ak6ke.36724$tf1.4312846@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> > Beach did have to leave Maine as the State's Attorney General was out
>> > to
>> > get
>> > them for sleazy practices. They seem to get a lot of positive opinions
> of
>> > late, but I wouldn't trust them with my credit card numbers.
>>
>> I have avoided them based on their past reputation. Several NY/NJ dealers
> do
>> have a bad reputation and Beach was one of them.
>>
>> However, all that seems to have changed completely. While I have still
> never
>> bought from Beach, I have bought three times from BuyDig.com which has
> been
>> described as Beach's "sister company" in other posts here, and have been
>> 100% satisfied in every way.
>>
>> Evidently either Beach has corrected their practices *or* the company may
> be
>> under completely different management. I suppose it's possible that the
>> company was bought out by someone who wasn't aware of the poor reputation
>> they were buying into. Either way I'd be willing to try them now, but my
>> satisfaction with BuyDig.com is so complete I have no reason to change.
>> Prices generally are about the same from either company.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:01:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:wEuke.43868$Qp.29544@fed1read04...
>
[ . . . ]
> I am truly amazed at the reaction here in this thread.
> I think perhaps what has happened is people's egoes were bruised because
> their names weren't recognized (even though one of them has "posted 50 or
> 60

Rather than the fact that you implied they were "Beach plants" and "stacking
ratings," etc.?

You're becoming rather Clintonesque in your excuses, Mark.

[ . . . ]
>
> Back in the "old days" on this and rec.photo.equipment.35mm, we had people
> like Liam (remember him?) who loved to bash B&H--coming up with all sorts
> of ridiculous evils they had supposedly done to him.

I remember Liam very well, and he not only NEVER "loved to bash B&H," he
NEVER had a bad word to say about the company at all that I can recall. In
fact he mentioned several times being a regular in-store customer.

Liam's (and others') only beef that I can remember was with B&H's then
director of training, the sleazy and self-important pipsqueak Henry Posner.
Now it is true that Posner had his gaggle of loyal, groveling sycophants in
the newsgroups, who apparently saw "B&H" whenever they read "Henry Posner,"
and saw "Henry Posner" whenever they read "B&H." In their imagination I
suppose the whole B&H building was one huge Henry Posner, and vice versa.
But Liam never had any trouble making the distinction.


[ . . . ]
>
> In the case of Beach Camera, the positive responses uniformly lacked
> detail, which is typical of fake posts made by a single individual who is
> cranking out fake identities to stuff a thread one way or the other.
> Apparently, these were legitimate posts, but they happened to have
> characteristics that were in keeping with those that are often fake.
>
> Instead of simply responding with a correction, they decided to be
> offended/hurt, etc.

And to you that seems like an completely unjustified reaction from innocent
people whom someone has just insinuated are crooks. They should have "simply
respond[ed] with a correction."


> That is a decision they chose among many other more productive responses.

It seems to me their responses were very productive. Look at how this thread
has grown already, though I must admit the growth is due more to your
efforts than anything else.


> Our court system is filled with petty people filing lawsuits because of a
> society that creates people so fragile and needy that the slightest notion
> of is churning out people with no back-bone...who feel everyone else must
> kiss their petudies lest respond as though they've suffered grave personal
> injury.

Ohhh myyy Gaawwwwd. Now people who object to being called crooks in a
newsgroup are transmogrified into "petty people filing lawsuits [filling our
court system]" or the equivalent. This is almost beyond Clintonesque.

Entertaining, though. Keep it going, Mark.

N.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:01:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:NOKdnU92y-ojuA7fRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:wEuke.43868$Qp.29544@fed1read04...
>>
> [ . . . ]
>> I am truly amazed at the reaction here in this thread.
>> I think perhaps what has happened is people's egoes were bruised because
>> their names weren't recognized (even though one of them has "posted 50 or
>> 60
>
> Rather than the fact that you implied they were "Beach plants" and
> "stacking ratings," etc.?
>
> You're becoming rather Clintonesque in your excuses, Mark.
>
> [ . . . ]
>>
>> Back in the "old days" on this and rec.photo.equipment.35mm, we had
>> people like Liam (remember him?) who loved to bash B&H--coming up with
>> all sorts of ridiculous evils they had supposedly done to him.
>
> I remember Liam very well, and he not only NEVER "loved to bash B&H," he
> NEVER had a bad word to say about the company at all that I can recall. In
> fact he mentioned several times being a regular in-store customer.


Liam did nothing but bash B&H. That is ALL he did.

> Liam's (and others') only beef that I can remember was with B&H's then
> director of training, the sleazy and self-important pipsqueak Henry
> Posner. Now it is true that Posner had his gaggle of loyal, groveling
> sycophants in the newsgroups, who apparently saw "B&H" whenever they read
> "Henry Posner," and saw "Henry Posner" whenever they read "B&H." In their
> imagination I suppose the whole B&H building was one huge Henry Posner,
> and vice versa. But Liam never had any trouble making the distinction.

OK.
You just conclusively identified yourself as a complete idiot, unworthy of
further discussion.
Or...merely a troll.

>> In the case of Beach Camera, the positive responses uniformly lacked
>> detail, which is typical of fake posts made by a single individual who is
>> cranking out fake identities to stuff a thread one way or the other.
>> Apparently, these were legitimate posts, but they happened to have
>> characteristics that were in keeping with those that are often fake.
>>
>> Instead of simply responding with a correction, they decided to be
>> offended/hurt, etc.
>
> And to you that seems like an completely unjustified reaction from
> innocent people whom someone has just insinuated are crooks. They should
> have "simply respond[ed] with a correction."

Read Frank's last two posts.
Goodbye.
PLONK.
!