Brand Loyalty - Why?
Mr. Curious
I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
jump "brand name" in a heartbeat. I've always done that in the past with
SLR gear and I do it today with digital camera gear. I already paid the
company what they wanted, they deserve nothing further from me, nor do I
owe them one damn thing more. They should be on their knees thanking me
every day that I bought anything at all from them.
In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
might come with a camera. If that's not possible then I might magic-marker
it out. Or more usually just use some other better quality strap and throw
theirs in the garbage with their bold corporate name on it. If they want me
to advertise like a minimum-wage sandwich-board in front of a store for
them then they're going to have to pay me a monthly advertiser's salary of
my own choosing. I can think of nothing sillier and more demeaning than
wanting to walk around with some corporate logo visible on my shoulder or
back. As if I'm now their obedient dog with my owner's collar and they own
me somehow. Yet people do this willingly, proudly, walking around like
little branded slaves. Just bend over while they get the iron hot and burn
their logo into your hind-quarters. You're absolutely no different than
branded cattle if you walk around with a corporate logo on you. Just say,
"MoooOOOOoo!"
<shakes head>
What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
I don't get it. Not in the least.
Bruce
wrote:
>
>I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
>I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
>technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
>better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
>jump "brand name" in a heartbeat. I've always done that in the past with
>SLR gear and I do it today with digital camera gear.
Brand loyalty in the context of an SLR system means that users have a
considerable investment in one system. It's not just about a camera
body; it may be two or more camera bodies and many lenses and other
items that are dedicated to that particular system, and make it
particularly expensive to change systems.
So choosing the right system is quite important, and many (D)SLR users
put a lot of effort into making what they see as the "right" choice of
system, simply because they will find it difficult to change at a
later date. And that's why people develop brand loyalty - because
there isn't usually an alternative to staying with that brand.
I have changed brand several times, My original SLR system in the
1970s was Olympus. I later changed to Nikon. Some years on, I didn't
like the direction Nikon was taking with increasing incompatibility
with older lenses, and changed to Pentax.
When digital came along I bought a Pentax DSLR but was very
dissatisfied with it. I changed to Canon because the 5D was the first
affordable full frame DSLR and the EF mount could accept my old Pentax
and Nikon lenses with adapters. I then bought a selection of Carl
Zeiss (Contax mount) lenses and enjoyed the combination of Canon's
excellent full frame sensor and the outstanding Zeiss glass, while
still keeping some old Pentax and Nikon lenses. I used several Canon
lenses too.
Finally, when Nikon went to full frame it was an easy decision to buy
a D700 and use all my old Nikkors, sell off the Zeiss glass and buy
some more Nikon lenses - a combination of some new AF-S zooms and a
tilt-shift lens plus some older classic optics.
None of this has come cheap. I dread to think how much it cost me to
change systems, and I can see why people - especially those on a
limited budget - would stick with one system. And that is the basis
for brand loyalty.
Personally, I don't have loyalty to any brand. They are all after my
money. They will do whatever they need to extract as much of it from
me as possible, while not always giving best value in return. ;-)
Ofnuts
> None of this has come cheap. I dread to think how much it cost me to
> change systems, and I can see why people - especially those on a
> limited budget - would stick with one system. And that is the basis
> for brand loyalty.
There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
brand slavery...
--
Bertrand
Bruce
wrote:
Yes, that's a pretty accurate description. :-(
That makes me a slave to Nikon. ;-)
Robert Coe
: I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
: I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
: technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
: better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
: jump "brand name" in a heartbeat. I've always done that in the past with
: SLR gear and I do it today with digital camera gear. I already paid the
: company what they wanted, they deserve nothing further from me, nor do I
: owe them one damn thing more. They should be on their knees thanking me
: every day that I bought anything at all from them.
:
: In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
: might come with a camera. If that's not possible then I might magic-marker
: it out. Or more usually just use some other better quality strap and throw
: theirs in the garbage with their bold corporate name on it. If they want me
: to advertise like a minimum-wage sandwich-board in front of a store for
: them then they're going to have to pay me a monthly advertiser's salary of
: my own choosing. I can think of nothing sillier and more demeaning than
: wanting to walk around with some corporate logo visible on my shoulder or
: back. As if I'm now their obedient dog with my owner's collar and they own
: me somehow. Yet people do this willingly, proudly, walking around like
: little branded slaves. Just bend over while they get the iron hot and burn
: their logo into your hind-quarters. You're absolutely no different than
: branded cattle if you walk around with a corporate logo on you. Just say,
: "MoooOOOOoo!"
I sympathize with much of what you say, and I've been known to remove
corporate logos from my clothes and equipment on occasion. But you're totally
missing the point about camera equipment. Often it's simply impractical to
switch. For example, I'm a Canon owner. My wife and I have three Canon DSLRs
and seven Canon-compatible lenses. If we decided to switch to, say, Nikon,
we'd have to go to the trouble of selling off our Canon gear and still take a
financial beating to duplicate our current equipment in the Nikon world.
Nikon and Canon, in particular, tend to race each other, with one or the other
ahead at any given point in time. If the other company makes a better camera
today, there's a good chance that "your" company will make a better one
tomorrow.
Brand loyalty doesn't mean we're suckers. It just means we aren't rich enough
to follow the fashion of the moment.
: <shakes head>
:
: What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
: Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
:
: I don't get it. Not in the least.
Now you're just trolling. If you really don't get it in the least, you're
probably not paying attention.
Bob
David Kilpatrick
>
> In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
> might come with a camera.
I just fit nice Dynax straps to new Alphas, to confuse people. I also
put Canon lenscaps on my Nikon.
David
Mr. Curious
I like that idea, but you're still a walking billboard, a slightly more
entertaining one. Now if you had put a Hasselblad lens-cap on them or other
more wild combinations. I think I'd prefer a "Fischer Price" lens-cap so
everyone is amazed and impress by my using a toy camera. I believe that
Adorama sells many brands of replacement lens-caps with company logos on
them, very inexpensive. You could hunt there for more humorous combos.
Might even be more fun if people started marketing novelty lens-caps and
straps with Ferrari, Rolls Royce, etc. on them. What with how often they
try to compare cameras to cars.
Personally I don't even like telling anyone what camera I have used. The
camera deserves no credit, let alone the company that created it. Does a
chef give credit to his cookware? On the menu is there an entry of: "Chef
Antoine prepares Roast Lamb Cutlets with Mint Sauce served on a bed of Wild
Rice and Spring Shallots, all professionally cooked on Kuhn Rikon Duroply
and All Clad." Is that going to somehow make their meal better or a more
pleasurable experience? Allow them to charge more for it? Will the meal
come with a complimentary brochure showing the various cookware available
from those companies and who to contact? Any self-respecting chef on earth
would be highly insulted if anyone gave the least bit credit to his
cookware.
As for the other replies. Okay, I guess I "get it" from the financial point
of view. I guess that's never been a concern of mine, and why I
"didn't/don't get it".
I'm starting to see that those who most loudly proclaim their brand loyalty
are doing so out of the tightest financial constraints. The less they can
spend the more brand loyal they are. Would that about sum it up?
Ofnuts
I know a troll when I see it :-) The Canon caps are crap. I know, I'm a
Canon owner...
--
Bertrand
Bob Haar
>
> There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
> brand slavery...
Another aspect comes up when people are really trying to defend their
decision to buy a particular product rather than admit that another might
have advantages. It quickly becomes an irrational argument that is more
about "mine si bigger that yours!"
As others have said, the DSLR brand choice is similar to a computer OS
choice, there are a number of interdependent pieces. You cannot easily
switch camera bodies without considering the collection of lenses,
accessories and software that you have also invested in.
Don Stauffer
Let's discount the lens mount thing. I get the idea that is NOT what
you are talking about. Rather, you mean the boosterism.
One reason is that many camera buffs want to appear as very
knowledgeable consumers. They have to make everyone believe that
anything they bought is the best that there is.
Occasionally, someone can buy something that is so outstanding and above
all competition that they are impelled to rave about it.
Personally, I have changed SLR brands twice, first time because the
company dropped out of the SLR market for awhile, the second time
because my wife bought a real expensive but nice lens for her Nikon,
while my Canon outfit had very old lenses (bought it used many years ago
(yes it was a film camera)
When I decided to go digital SLR (after a couple of digital P&S) I
wanted to be able to use her great lens. So, I guess while I buy the
same camera for lens compatibility I don't have all that much brand
loyalty :-)
Bruce
wrote:
>On 8/28/09 7:48 AM, "Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
>> brand slavery...
>
>Another aspect comes up when people are really trying to defend their
>decision to buy a particular product rather than admit that another might
>have advantages. It quickly becomes an irrational argument that is more
The lengths to which people will go in order to avoid "Buyer's
Remorse"! ;-)
No doubt Edsel owners were heard loudly singing the praises of their
uniquely able automobile.
Bruce
wrote:
Perhaps using Cosina lens caps on Canon L lenses would reduce the risk
of them being stolen. ;-)
John McWilliams
Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in the
market place, was there anything wrong with that marque? Now, rejection
in the market place is a horrible thing for a car that was meant to
honor a beloved family member. .....
--
John McWilliams
Bruce
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in the
>market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?
Does there need to be anything else wrong? Isn't that enough?
>Now, rejection
>in the market place is a horrible thing for a car that was meant to
>honor a beloved family member. .....
Perhaps honoring the family member was thought more important than
designing a saleable car?
John McWilliams
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:47:36 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in the
>> market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?
> Does there need to be anything else wrong? Isn't that enough?
>
Let's say, no, that's not enough! But I am asking if there was any other
major flaw in the car besides the look?
Hypothetically, they probably could have sold, say 5,000 units per year
indefinitely, way too few to make a decent production run.
>> Now, rejection
>> in the market place is a horrible thing for a car that was meant to
>> honor a beloved family member. .....
>
>
> Perhaps honoring the family member was thought more important than
> designing a saleable car?
Of course failing in the latter area obviated success in the former......
--
John McWilliams
David Ruether
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1opf95hnltg791l3b...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:54:37 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net>
> Perhaps using Cosina lens caps on Canon L lenses would reduce the risk
> of them being stolen. ;-)
But, but...., Cosina has made some very fine lenses...! ;-)
--DR
John A.
wrote:
>In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
>might come with a camera. If that's not possible then I might magic-marker
>it out. ...
What's wrong with sharpie or el marko? I think this guy's a magic
marker shill! :)
(Oops! Sent this by email first. Gotta move those buttons apart. :P )
Giftzwerg
says...
> What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
> Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
Uh, the fact that I've invested over $15,000 in Canon glass and
accessories?
That fact help you out any?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"While liberals wave the Justice Department's report on CIA
interrogation techniques at the rest of the world and tearfully beg them
for forgiveness, the rest of us are wondering why we don't reduce the
deficit by selling the rights to these interrogations on pay-per-view.
The contestants on your average Japanese game show go through more
intense ordeals."
- Doctor Zero
Giftzwerg
says...
> > There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
> > brand slavery...
>
> Another aspect comes up when people are really trying to defend their
> decision to buy a particular product rather than admit that another might
> have advantages. It quickly becomes an irrational argument that is more
> about "mine si bigger that yours!"
The problem is that "advantages" in the SLR system world tend to be
fleeting. 12-18 months after "it's all over," and Canon rules the whole
world ... Nikon comes back and eats their lunch with a new slate of
bodies.
I'm a Canon shooter. I was green with envy when the D300 / D700 came
out. Now I've upgraded to the 5D MkII, and I've got the same
performance - *without* freaking out and panic-selling all my glass and
accessories.
Forget all this heatseeking gearhead bullshit and go out and shoot some
pictures, already.
ray
I wonder what your car looks like.
C J Campbell
>
> I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
> I've *never* understood this.
Mostly, just because it is fun.
Camera systems are expensive, so making a bad choice can be an
expensive mistake. Beginning photographers especially are nervous about
getting the 'wrong' camera.
Most experienced photographers, though, understand that there are not
very many bad cameras out there. When was the last time you saw a "Not
Recommended" rating at DPReview? The fact is, manufacturers devote a
lot of resources ensuring that any new camera they introduce will not
be a failure. Some 'rumored' cameras will never see the light of day
and manufacturers have even been known to cancel expensive roll-out
events (or hold the event anyway and introduce nothing, as Nikon did at
WPPI this year) rather than introduce an unsuccessful camera.
So experienced photographers know that if you get a DSLR camera from a
major manufacturer that you are going to get one of the finest cameras
ever made. But that does not keep us from rattling each others' cages
once in awhile, especially if we see noobs who are still a little
insecure about their choice.
And of course, we know that there are a few nuts who adopt a brand as
if it was a religion. It is especially fun to rattle their cages.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
J. Clarke
I'm told that the big problem was that they marketed it to the "up and
coming", not understanding that that was a niche already occupied by Lincoln
and Cadillac--the people who are _there_ drive Rolls, Ferrari, or old
clunkers.
C J Campbell
I use R-Straps. I will attach rubber bands and things like that to them
to give an appearance of them being something I repaired. I will even
put black gaffer tape over the brand on my camera, just to keep the
white lettering from distracting subjects or attracting the wrong kind
of attention. My cameras are not beat up, but careful application of
gaffer tape and they look like they are totally worthless. Plus, some
places that like to "tax" (demand bribes from) professional
photographers will assume that you are a poor amateur and you can get
away without paying the tax (bribe). The tape gets removed when the
camera goes up for resale and the camera looks all pretty again.
Besides, you never know when a little bit of gaffer tape might come in
handy.
D. Peter Maus
That's not always the case. I can pretty much afford what I want
to buy. I shoot Nikon. I picked Nikon based a number of factors that
were relevant at the time. I stay with Nikon because 1) I've gotten
good service from them. 2) My hardware continues to work
together--lenses, bodies, old, new....and 3) as has been pointed
out, here, the differences between brands are fleeting. If what I'm
shooting works, and something comes out by Canon that's better for
my needs, I can keep shooting what I've got until Nikon produces a
better product yet.
A little patience, and a little skill go a very long way.
I do, get a tickle out of tweaking the other side, though. I was
at a pro-bono shoot for Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation motorcyle
ride in South Bend this summer. A D700 on a speed strap at my side,
and a D300 in my hand, and a shutterbug comes up and starts talking
cameras. And looks down at the D700.
"What are you shooting? EOS....."
I cut him right off, "Excuse ME?"
He jumped back in horror, and I thought he was going to have a
stroke. "Oh, geez...Sorry man. I"m SO sorry."
He backed away like I was holding a .357.
I chuckled about that all day.
Some of my buddies shoot Canon. One of my colleagues shoots a
Pentax off the clock. My brother always wanted a Hasselblad.
And they're all fiercely rabid about their brands.
I'm just amused.
I like what I'm shooting. I get the pictures I want. Anything
more is comedy.
There's a LOT of marketing money put into building brand loyalty.
And there's a lot of money riding on brand loyalty. Truth is,
though, that you shoots what you likes, and let it end there.
Bowser
"Mr. Curious" <m...@nothanks.net> wrote in message
news:ctbf95ldr5rtdbft2...@4ax.com...
I think it's because the Nikon owners are a bunch of really smug bastards.
Yeah. That's it.
;-)
Sorry, I can't explain it. That strange behavior has been around as long as
there have been brands, not only of cameras, but pretty much anything else.
Cars, snowmobiles, televisions, you name it. When I was younger the big
brand wars were Ford vs Chevy, RCA vs Magnavox, etc. Brand wars are nothing
new, not in the least. I've shot with Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya, Nikon,
Canon, Minolta, and Olympus. Whatever suits the need, I use. Couldn't give a
rat's ass about the label.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
>> What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
>> Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
>>
>> I don't get it. Not in the least.
>
> I think it's because the Nikon owners are a bunch of really smug
> bastards. Yeah. That's it.
>
> ;-)
>
> Sorry, I can't explain it. That strange behavior has been around as long
> as there have been brands, not only of cameras, but pretty much anything
> else. Cars, snowmobiles, televisions, you name it. When I was younger
> the big brand wars were Ford vs Chevy, RCA vs Magnavox, etc. Brand wars
> are nothing new, not in the least. I've shot with Hasselblad, Pentax,
> Mamiya, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Olympus. Whatever suits the need, I
> use. Couldn't give a rat's ass about the label.
SLRs are different ... as someone else wrote, its not loyalty, its slavery.
Once you buy a bunch of lenses, you are committed.
With Nikon and Canon it currently does not matter, both are excellent.
Doug McDonald
John Passaneau
For me it has to do with, 1- I have a bunch of lens for the system I
own, and 2- each camera brand has it's own way of doing things such as
which way the lens turns when you focus them. Some of us still manually
focus our cameras. Canon and Nikon turn in opposite directions. I'm used
to that way my system works and I have no interest in learning a new
system and retraining myself after 40 years of using one brand.
John Passaneau
C J Campbell
>
> I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
> I've *never* understood this.
I never have, either, when clearly Nikons are superior to all other cameras.
OldBoy
> Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
>
All of the above :-)
Mr. Curious
I'm starting to think too it's a bit like those who are satisfied with
their cameras, no problems, so you never hear from them. Just a quick post
of "I really like my XXXXXXX camera, never a problem, perfect B3 prints
from it. Bye." Then they never feel the need to post again, they said all
they felt that was necessary. The floodgates break loose on other brands
and models where a handful have a problem so you hear about it forever from
all sides.
My analogy is to imply that maybe there's a lot of people out there that
don't give a rat's-ass what brand it is, you just don't hear from them.
Those few unstable and insecure that are devoutly loyal to a brand-badge
wage holy-wars so that's all you ever see of the issue. I sometimes take
their zealous behavior into account when deciding on if a brand is worth
buying. If they have to try that hard to convince others then there's
probably something wrong. If not with the merchandise then the mental
stability of people that buy that brand, neither a good sign. I've passed
by many Canon and Nikon products during my lifetime because of this and
have never been displeased with my eventual alternate purchases. In a way I
thank them for their holy-war behavior because it convinced me to look
beyond the local "camera of the month club" and discover things they'll
never know about other makes and models. Cameras and lenses having features
that allow me to do things they'll never know about. Making my photography
even more unique and marketable than they'll ever achieve. In a sense,
they're stuck in a rut of their own making.
It's nice to see the responses (which would take too much time to reply to
individually) that show I'm not the only one befuddled about this strange
human behavior.
Ofnuts
Yes, but nobody knows...
--
Bertrand
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Mr Curious <m...@nothanks.net> wrote:
> I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
> I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
> technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
> better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
> jump "brand name" in a heartbeat.
Yep, happens every day. Minuscle changes with less impact.
But, OH! NEW! SHINY! oh so SHINY! And promises to do
everything better and automatically!
> I've always done that in the past with SLR gear
... obviously just exchanging the film would have been cheaper,
and maybe once upgrade to a top level body for a pittance.
Or buy a few of them, changing film halfway isn't that easy.
... obviously you never had any good lenses --- and sold what
you had at a loss, each time. And for what? For nothing!
> and I do it today with digital camera gear.
So *you* are iand have been one of the stupid people who exchange
their well-working camera everytime a competitor comes out with
half a megapixel more or 10mm longer tele or other minuscle
'upgrades' that have absolute no bearing on their photography.
That's one thing I just don't get. Slave to 'fashion'.
Owned by the 'newest gear virus'. Defined by how many days
his camera is old. Photographic quality determined by how good
the fully automatic modes are. No understanding of the gear,
no knowledge how to use it to it's best advantage. But *just*
all new ... SHINY!
*shudder*
Say <MOOO>!
> They should be on their knees thanking me
> every day that I bought anything at all from them.
Sure, you buy 10.000 cameras and even more lenses per year, right?
> In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
> might come with a camera.
If I was a fashion and newness slave as you are, I'd also scrape
off the names, I'd be deadly embarassed showing I didn't get
along with the tenth camera either --- this quarter!
> I can think of nothing sillier and more demeaning than
> wanting to walk around with some corporate logo visible on my shoulder or
> back.
I can, and it starts with posting such tripe as you post.
No wonder you don't own up but hide your name (in vain).
> As if I'm now their obedient dog with my owner's collar and they own
> me somehow.
You keep buying and buying. You are an obedient slave to the
market. Dogs are allowed to play and run at will at times.
Slaves are to just work and behave as they are told.
> Yet people do this willingly, proudly, walking around like
> little branded slaves.
Some people own Rolls Royces or Cadillacs or Porsches and
don't remove the maker's signature ... because *they* can
afford it. Those that cannot, frown, calling them slaves.
> "MoooOOOOoo!"
See, you said <MOOO>. Took your sweet time about it, too,
but then these new-is-always-better fanbois aren't too clever.
> <shakes head>
Yep, get that fly out of your ear, it might double your IQ.
Insult? You startet them, if you can't take the heat, get out
of the kitchen.
> What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
> Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
Experience. Skill. Determination. Calmness. Rationality.
> I don't get it. Not in the least.
No, you got terminal envy, you cannot get experience.
People using 5 or 10 year old gear, and *still* producing snapshots
10 times better than your best with the newest stuff out there.
Envy.
People happy with their choice and publically saying so, not
unsteady affairs like you have with your many ex-cameras.
Envy!
People in a stable relationship with their lenses, knowing their
good and bad sides and using that to their advantage, versus your
camera one-night-stands.
ENVY!
ENVY! ENVY! ENVY! terminal ENVY!
How the market loves you. How much sales managers grin.
-Wolfgang
Mr. Curious
>
>
>I wonder what your car looks like.
I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising. You'd be
surprised how much better they look that way. It actually gives them a bit
of class. I don't advertise any logo for anyone unless they pay me what I
ask. I never bother to ask, I just remove their corporate logos. Nothing
they could pay me would be worth it to degrade myself that much.
John A.
wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2009 16:11:56 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
Visible branding is a public service. If something is an obvious
quickly-breaking-down piece of crap the rest of us know what brand to
avoid.
That's why trademarks are protected. Not to protect the interests of
the owner, at least not primarily, but to allow the consumer to
identify who makes what so they earn deserved reputations.
Giftzwerg
says...
> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If only there were some ... natural mechanism by which to explain
variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though.
On the scale of our own Sun."
- Ace of Spades
D. Peter Maus
> In article<32dg95hl54nfdi9kf...@4ax.com>, m...@nothanks.net
> says...
>
>> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
>> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
>> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
>
> Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
>
Actually, I do the same thing.
Bowser
<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:h79673$dh5$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
Agreed, but I think the original poster was talking about the propensity for
some people to simply worship their brand. Being locked in is one thing, buy
one brand and one brand only because it's a religion is another. I know
people who won't even look at a camera unless it says "Canon" on it,
regardless of what else might be available that's better suited for them.
It's bizarre.
D. Peter Maus
I had a conversation with a client, this week. We were talking
about the most recent shoot, and upcoming work, and he mentioned
that he'd contacted another gunsel, a Canon shooter, for a project
that he thought might be a bit far out of my geographical area.
Those negotiations fell apart, and he hired me anyway. When he told
the other shooter who he'd hired for the gig, the guy was nearly
blue in the face. More for the fact that he'd lost the gig to a
Nikon shooter, than that he'd lost the gig.
I chuckled about that one most of the train ride home.
My old man was like that, too. Especially about his cars. He was
a FORD man.
He about had convulsion when I pulled into his driveway in my
first Studebaker Hawk. A '56. This was about '79. He was also quite
distraught when the temperatures dropped 2 figures below zero, and
the only car in the neighborhood that was running was my Hawk.
I mentioned, as I was jumping off his brand new company car, a
Ford--I forget which model--that apparently God wasn't a FORD man.
He didn't talk to me for two years.
But my brother mentioned a few days after, that he'd never seen
that shade of blue come out of the darkroom, before.
I think he used that tableau on a Christmas card.
Pete D
"D. Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:h79hhv$o85$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Still doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps even less now.
Chris Malcolm
> ;-)
People who don't understand technical details argue about brand names
instead.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ray Fischer
>What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
>Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?
Those who cannot accomplish on their own latch onto the accomplishments
of others.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
> >> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
> >> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
> >
> > Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
> Actually, I do the same thing.
Dude. Cutting up the sheet metal on a new car to keep people from
recognizing, say, a Volkswagen Beetle seems *totally* reasonb ...
Wait, what?
DRS
[...]
> What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure?
> Ignorance? Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need
> to "belong"?
It's a function of the way people construct identities within contemporary
consumer culture. Understanding it firstly requires separating a product's
use value (what you can do with it) from its exchange value (what you can
buy/sell it for). Once upon a time there was a distinct connection between
the two. Company A's product was superior in quality, reliability and
longevity to Company B's product so it could charge more. Company A
accordingly acquired consumer loyalty because of its superiority in the
realm of use value. Names like Leica and Carl Zeiss are still trading on
the back of reputations painstakingly built decades ago. They were boutique
companies that differentiated themselves from Fordist mass production by
tying the quality of their hand-built products with the perceived
authenticity of the master craftsman, as against the perceived
inauthenticity of the assembly line product.
Nevertheless, the Fordist era was increasingly dominated by mass production,
reaching its apotheosis in the 1950s when excess industrial capacity from
WWII was turned to producing consumer goods instead. This material
affluence was ideologically tied in capitalist countries to ideological
superiority. Keeping up with the Jones's - if they got a new
television/refrigerator/car then you had to get one too - became a function
of being a good capitalist citizen. Mass consumption meant mass conformity.
By the 1970s mass production was on the wane in the West, and concomitant
technological changes saw the rise of product customisation. This period
also saw the beginnings of lifestyles, whereby mass conformity collapsed and
identities began being consciously constructed as being different to the
Jones's. Remembering Bourdieu's dictum that "taste not only classifies, it
also classifies the classifier," the construction of these lifestyles - of
differentiation - was very much through brands. We choose brands because of
our tastes but the combination of those brands classifies us, gives us our
differentiated identities. However, as the brand assumes ever increasing
importance exchange value becomes increasingly detached from use value, to
the point where by the 1980s theorists like Baudrillard could claim we had
entered a culture of hyper-reality wherein the signifier (the brand) no
longer had a referent (the use value of a product) but had themselves become
their own referents. IOW, product quality was no longer what mattered, it
was the value of the brand itself (which goes a long way to explaining, for
example, Apple's enormous success with mediocre products like the iPod and
iPhone).
Marketers in late (post-Fordist) capitalism have seized upon this with
gusto. Marketing today is primarily about creating emotional attachments to
the brand itself rather than promoting the superior use value of their
products. Their ideal is a life-long love affair of the consumer with their
brand (hence their relentless assaults on children, who can distinguish
brands as early as two years old), and the ways they try to make this happen
are fascinating. What I also find fascinating is the way early twentieth
century critics of capitalism like Walter Benjamin predicted this trend as
an inevitable outcome of capitalism itself.
Lots of people have criticised this process and today's culture of
superficiality. I find no surprise that many of the people in here who
argue that "the brand doesn't matter, the quality of the equipment matters"
have identified themselves elsewhere as being of older generations. They
are therefore arguing from the earlier paradigm in which they grew up. To
many of them the culture of superficiality is simply incomprehensible. My
answer is that the paradigm has changed. Late capitalism has very cleverly
linked this superficiality to our supposedly core values of individual
liberty, free enterprise and liberal democracy. IOW, where once being a
good capitalist citizen meant buying what everybody else was buying, today
it means buying to differentiate yourselve from everybody else. And you do
that not on the basis of the product but of the brand.
Ivan G
wrote:
>In article <h79hhv$o85$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>> >> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
>> >> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
>> >> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
>> >
>> > Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
>
>> Actually, I do the same thing.
>
>Dude. Cutting up the sheet metal on a new car to keep people from
>recognizing, say, a Volkswagen Beetle seems *totally* reasonb ...
>
>Wait, what?
It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
Mr. Curious
wrote:
>"Mr. Curious" <m...@nothanks.net> wrote in message
>news:ctbf95ldr5rtdbft2...@4ax.com
>
>[...]
>
>> What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure?
>> Ignorance? Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need
>> to "belong"?
>
>It's a function of
<snipped for brevity only>
Thank-you for that well thought-out explanation. It also helps me to
understand why "I don't get it". I may be incapable of thinking like
contemporary culture (for which I'm highly grateful), but it doesn't mean I
can't put my mind into their vacuous existence and comprehend it from their
pointless-of-view.
I guess this means I need to put fuzzy bunny-ears and a Fischer Price
lens-cap on my camera now. I sensed there might be a better reason for that
lens-cap idea. Then my camera will be cute, adorable, and huggable. I can
finally be "one of them". <shudder>
I half expected that someone would have typed a reply of, "Alert the main
tower, sound the alarms, we have another 'runner'."
:-)
Bob Larter
> Bruce wrote:
>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in
>>> the market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?
>
>>
> Let's say, no, that's not enough! But I am asking if there was any other
> major flaw in the car besides the look?
Wasn't that the car that exploded if it was rear-ended?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
>> David Kilpatrick wrote:
>>> Mr. Curious wrote:
>>>> In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
>>>> might come with a camera.
>>> put Canon lenscaps on my Nikon.
>>>
>> Canon owner...
>
>
> Perhaps using Cosina lens caps on Canon L lenses would reduce the risk
> of them being stolen. ;-)
Or Sigma...
D. Peter Maus
> In article<h79hhv$o85$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>>> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
>>>> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
>>>> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
>>>
>>> Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
>
>> Actually, I do the same thing.
>
> Dude. Cutting up the sheet metal on a new car to keep people from
> recognizing, say, a Volkswagen Beetle seems *totally* reasonb ...
>
> Wait, what?
>
That's not it. A Volkswagen Beetle is always recognizable as a
Beetle, just as a GMC Sierra is always recognizable as a GMC Sierra,
or it's Chevrolet variant. The logo, emblazoned across the back is a
corporate arrogance, and a product billboard for which the
manufacturer hasn't paid. They pay huge sums to put a brand anywhere
else. But I pay for the privilege of having their brand follow me
around everywhere I go? I don't think so.
It also disrupts the otherwise clean design.
So, I remove them. Cleaner line. No advdertising.
I've had dealers afix their sticker to the back of my car during
a service call. I"ve invoiced them for the privilege. That usually
stops it.
But I don't serve as a free iving billboard for a manufacturer
who will freely pay thousands just to get their name out into the
public.
Giftzwerg
iv...@privatemailonly.net says...
> >> >> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
> >> >> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
> >> >> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
> >
> >> Actually, I do the same thing.
> >
> >Dude. Cutting up the sheet metal on a new car to keep people from
> >recognizing, say, a Volkswagen Beetle seems *totally* reasonb ...
> >
> >Wait, what?
>
> It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
Yeah. Whew. Because the average gomer totally has the body-shop cred
to go all sheet-metal cuttin' on his $30,000 car and make it look "much
nicer."
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
> I've had dealers afix their sticker to the back of my car during
> a service call. I"ve invoiced them for the privilege. That usually
> stops it.
Well, after they told you to stick your "invoice" up your ass, that is.
Giftzwerg
says...
> I half expected that someone would have typed a reply of, "Alert the main
> tower, sound the alarms, we have another 'runner'."
I think you misspelt "retard."
Ivan G
wrote:
>In article <ktqh951fks0r384pr...@4ax.com>,
>iv...@privatemailonly.net says...
>
>> >> >> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
>> >> >> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
>> >> >> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
>> >
>> >> Actually, I do the same thing.
>> >
>> >Dude. Cutting up the sheet metal on a new car to keep people from
>> >recognizing, say, a Volkswagen Beetle seems *totally* reasonb ...
>> >
>> >Wait, what?
>>
>> It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
>
>Yeah. Whew. Because the average gomer totally has the body-shop cred
>to go all sheet-metal cuttin' on his $30,000 car and make it look "much
>nicer."
Simple sheet-metal work and surface refinishing is not "rocket-surgery".
But no doubt to someone like you it would be. I can now see why you made
your comments, also why you don't understand why people might do this.
Simply, because you can't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
tony cooper
wrote:
>John McWilliams wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:47:36 -0700, John McWilliams
>>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in
>>>> the market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?
>>
>>> Does there need to be anything else wrong? Isn't that enough?
>>>
>> Let's say, no, that's not enough! But I am asking if there was any other
>> major flaw in the car besides the look?
>
>Wasn't that the car that exploded if it was rear-ended?
No, Ford Pintos manufactured in the 1970s had that problem. The gas
tank was placed between the rear axle and the bumper. The Edsel had
no particular safety problems or mechanical flaws. It wasn't even a
bad design. It just never caught on with the public.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
SMS
> Bruce wrote:
>
>> None of this has come cheap. I dread to think how much it cost me to
>> change systems, and I can see why people - especially those on a
>> limited budget - would stick with one system. And that is the basis
>> for brand loyalty.
>
> There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
> brand slavery...
This is true. Unless there's really a compelling reason to switch, with
one company offering products with features that the manufacturer of
your current system not only doesn't offer but explicitly states that
they have no plans to offer, people stick with their current system.
When Nikon, five years or so ago, said that they had no plans to offer
full frame, that accelerated the migration of the high end users from
Nikon to Canon (though it had already been happening for other reasons
such as lens selection). Then they were forced to change course after
the Canon full frame models were so successful.
I still recall when I made the fateful Nikon versus Canon decision back
in the days of film SLR. The only thing that pushed be to Canon was that
at the time Canon had a better selection of the mid-range quality
lenses, though a few years later Nikon had caught up and had similar
lenses. If Nikon had had the lenses I wanted I would have went the Nikon
route because Nikon had much better flashes at the time.
D. Peter Maus
> In article<h7b4oo$40q$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>> I've had dealers afix their sticker to the back of my car during
>> a service call. I"ve invoiced them for the privilege. That usually
>> stops it.
>
> Well, after they told you to stick your "invoice" up your ass, that is.
>
>
Actually, none has ever gotten that crass. They're businessmen.
They don't like it. But they understand my point. They have to pay
everyone else to carry their brand logo. They understand that I
don't have to, and won't, do it for free.
>
D. Peter Maus
> In article<ktqh951fks0r384pr...@4ax.com>,
> iv...@privatemailonly.net says...
>
>>>>>> I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
>>>>>> truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
>>>>>> refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. Whew. That makes a fuck of a lotta sense.
>>>
>>>> Actually, I do the same thing.
>>>
>>> Dude. Cutting up the sheet metal on a new car to keep people from
>>> recognizing, say, a Volkswagen Beetle seems *totally* reasonb ...
>>>
>>> Wait, what?
>>
>> It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
>
> Yeah. Whew. Because the average gomer totally has the body-shop cred
> to go all sheet-metal cuttin' on his $30,000 car and make it look "much
> nicer."
>
The average gomer doesn't have to. Nor, in most cases, does he
care to. Nor, in fact, is anyone talking about the average gomer.
But here we have the case of two individuals who care to, and
have the skills to do so.
It's odd that you would have a problem with that, because it's 1)
not YOUR car; and 2) the practice is incumbent upon no one to emulate.
Your comments are especially odd, in light of the fact, that, in
the 50's and 60's, decking was commonplace among car customizers.
>
John McWilliams
It was pilloried in some circles due to the odd front end!
And, yes, the Pinto got that rap, when less than 30 vehicles out of some
2 million caught fire in collisions. From Wiki:
> However, a 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz[11] argued that the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. The number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires, according to Schwartz, was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the twenty-seven recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz argued that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs claimed showed Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
But it's hard to overcome a lovely turn of phrase as "the barbeque that
seats four"!
--
John McWilliams
Giftzwerg
iv...@privatemailonly.net says...
> >> It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
> >
> >Yeah. Whew. Because the average gomer totally has the body-shop cred
> >to go all sheet-metal cuttin' on his $30,000 car and make it look "much
> >nicer."
>
> Simple sheet-metal work and surface refinishing is not "rocket-surgery".
> But no doubt to someone like you it would be. I can now see why you made
> your comments, also why you don't understand why people might do this.
> Simply, because you can't.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
Why don't you post some images of your own efforts in this vein? You
know, the modifications you've made to your own car?
Better yet, let's see the OP's mods.
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
TRANSLATION: "They didn't use the phrase 'stick your invoice up your
ass, dickshit,' but this was precisely the message they delivered."
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >> It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
> >
> > Yeah. Whew. Because the average gomer totally has the body-shop cred
> > to go all sheet-metal cuttin' on his $30,000 car and make it look "much
> > nicer."
> >
>
>
> The average gomer doesn't have to. Nor, in most cases, does he
> care to. Nor, in fact, is anyone talking about the average gomer.
>
> But here we have the case of two individuals who care to, and
> have the skills to do so.
>
> It's odd that you would have a problem with that, because it's 1)
> not YOUR car; and 2) the practice is incumbent upon no one to emulate.
... and (3), only a fucking idiot (a) buys a vehicle in the first place
that features huge panels of logos he will have to remove at huge effort
and expense or (b) is stupid enough to care about this.
D. Peter Maus
> In article<h7bcmj$fm9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>>> I've had dealers afix their sticker to the back of my car during
>>>> a service call. I"ve invoiced them for the privilege. That usually
>>>> stops it.
>>>
>>> Well, after they told you to stick your "invoice" up your ass, that is.
>
>> Actually, none has ever gotten that crass. They're businessmen.
>> They don't like it. But they understand my point. They have to pay
>> everyone else to carry their brand logo. They understand that I
>> don't have to, and won't, do it for free.
>
> TRANSLATION: "They didn't use the phrase 'stick your invoice up your
> ass, dickshit,' but this was precisely the message they delivered."
>
Interesting, that, not being there, you are been empowered to
translate the language of the encounter.
No, actually, in each case, they simply agreed to my position and
the matter was closed.
The message that was delivered, was, "I see your point. I'll take
care of it."
In most cases, the language was, 'No problem, I understand. I'll
take care of it."
In one very contentious case, the GM of the dealership snapped,
"You must be in marketing. I'll take care of it."
That dealership in particular stopped afixing their sticker to
cars entirely, and went with an easily removable license plate frame.
In the 50's it was a common practice to afix a script in the same
font as the manufacturer's logo bearing the name of the dealeship to
the trunk lid. This required drilling into the sheetmetal. The
holes invariable became sources of moisture promoting rust. Public
complaints, including some fleet purchase customers got that noise
stopped.
So, the idea is not as odd as you may think. And the
conversations with dealers rarely, if ever, become ungentlemanly.
They simply don't have to. Both parties realize that the customer,
not getting his wish, simply may take his business elsewhere. The
dealer, who is, after all, a businessman in a shark-filled
competitive environment, is rarely willing to jeopardize business or
a customer's brand loyalty by being the ass you describe.
D. Peter Maus
> In article<h7bd5s$jcj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>>> It makes it look much nicer. That's the point. You appear to be pointless.
>>>
>>> Yeah. Whew. Because the average gomer totally has the body-shop cred
>>> to go all sheet-metal cuttin' on his $30,000 car and make it look "much
>>> nicer."
>>>
>>
>>
>> The average gomer doesn't have to. Nor, in most cases, does he
>> care to. Nor, in fact, is anyone talking about the average gomer.
>>
>> But here we have the case of two individuals who care to, and
>> have the skills to do so.
>>
>> It's odd that you would have a problem with that, because it's 1)
>> not YOUR car; and 2) the practice is incumbent upon no one to emulate.
>
> ... and (3), only a fucking idiot (a) buys a vehicle in the first place
> that features huge panels of logos he will have to remove at huge effort
> and expense or (b) is stupid enough to care about this.
What finishing school did you say you went to?
But you may be right. Car customizers have been doing this
for decades. And we know what whackjobs they and their customers are.
And how much money is made doing it.
In fact, Warshawsky's offered aftermarket panels with
alternate script, or no script at all, for drop-in customization.
They sold thousands of them to 'fucking idiots who were stupid
enough to care about this.'
And made millions doing it.
>
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps using Cosina lens caps on Canon L lenses would reduce the risk
> > of them being stolen. ;-)
>
> Or Sigma...
might not help :)
<http://www.photographyblog.com/news/thieves_steal_sigma_products_in_uk/>
A large quantity of Sigma products were stolen on Friday 15th June,
temporarily disrupting supply to customers.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> When Nikon, five years or so ago, said that they had no plans to offer
> full frame, that accelerated the migration of the high end users from
> Nikon to Canon (though it had already been happening for other reasons
> such as lens selection). Then they were forced to change course after
> the Canon full frame models were so successful.
nikon said no such thing. what they said was they would produce a full
frame camera when it was cost effective to do so.
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >> It's odd that you would have a problem with that, because it's 1)
> >> not YOUR car; and 2) the practice is incumbent upon no one to emulate.
> >
> > ... and (3), only a fucking idiot (a) buys a vehicle in the first place
> > that features huge panels of logos he will have to remove at huge effort
> > and expense or (b) is stupid enough to care about this.
>
>
> What finishing school did you say you went to?
<laughter>
Finishing school, Nancy?
Which one did you attend? Did it have the word "daisy" in it?
Look, the point is that ... yes, things created by corporations tend to
be emblazoned with (a) the name they gave the thing, (b) the name of the
entity that's selling it, and (c) dozens of other things related to the
product.
The PC I'm typing on has the name of the manufacturer on it. The bottle
of soda I'm drinking is labeled. My car has a make and model nameplate.
The soap in my shower comes stamped with the manufacturer's logo.
And yes, my 5D Mk II has "Canon" imprinted on it. If I built such a
nice product, you may rest assured my name would be on it.
Does the OP fuckwit *really* spend eight hours a day sanding all the
corporate logos off *everything* in his life? Shampoo bottles? Candy
bars? Cheerios? He ruined his camera by grinding the nameplate off?
What a colossal imbecile.
D. Peter Maus
It's his camera, shampoo bottle, candy bar, Cheerios, PC, soap,
or soda bottle. He's paid for it. He owns it. He's entitled to do
what he wishes with it without input from anyone else.
Just as your derision is your entitled opinion, his efforts with
his own property are his entitlement.
Why would anyone care what he does with his own property?
Especially to the degree that it induces name calling.
>
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > Does the OP fuckwit *really* spend eight hours a day sanding all the
> > corporate logos off *everything* in his life? Shampoo bottles? Candy
> > bars? Cheerios? He ruined his camera by grinding the nameplate off?
> >
> > What a colossal imbecile.
>
>
> It's his camera, shampoo bottle, candy bar, Cheerios, PC, soap,
> or soda bottle. He's paid for it. He owns it. He's entitled to do
> what he wishes with it without input from anyone else.
I think you're forgetting the part where he took his idiot philosophy on
the road and posted it on USENET; if that doesn't amount to a cry for
"input," then I don't know what does.
In other words, if he didn't want to hear my opinion, he could have just
shut the fuck up.
Alan Browne
> I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
> I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
> technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
> better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
> jump "brand name" in a heartbeat.
If you have $10,000 in lenses (and that's in a small number of lenses)
and various other fit-to-brand accessories then you do not jump brand
unless quite well off or foolish.
I admire the best of each brand - recognize however that each co.
produces schlock as well as high end gear. And when it comes to
companies like Olympus, the 4/3 decision is looking less and less like a
bold advance and more like a company that has painted itself into a
noise bounded corner.
None of the above makes my camera brand "better" (or worse), but it is
the system that I will stick with due to past investment. Thankfully
they finally upped their game to full frame which gives all of my lenses
another 10-20 years or more of service life for me. I can think of a
lot of things to do with the money I won't spend in replacing those lenses.
And those who have been shooting seriously for a long time have long
discovered that camera brand is not what makes their photos good or
great. It is but one part of the equation.
That said, the most insufferable rank amateurs are the Nikon users. Too
many of them somehow believe that their Nikon D50 and kit lens conveys
to them the patina of a seasoned pro...
tony cooper
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:40:43 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:47:36 -0700, John McWilliams
>>>>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in
>>>>>> the market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?
>>>>> Does there need to be anything else wrong? Isn't that enough?
>>>>>
>>>> Let's say, no, that's not enough! But I am asking if there was any other
>>>> major flaw in the car besides the look?
>>> Wasn't that the car that exploded if it was rear-ended?
>>
>> No, Ford Pintos manufactured in the 1970s had that problem. The gas
>> tank was placed between the rear axle and the bumper. The Edsel had
>> no particular safety problems or mechanical flaws. It wasn't even a
>> bad design. It just never caught on with the public.
>
>It was pilloried in some circles due to the odd front end!
Almost every new model of every brand of automobile was criticized for
some style flaw in those days. Detroit turned out some truly ugly
automobiles. The Edsel wasn't any worse from a style viewpoint than
some other automobiles.
Automotive stylists finally figured out how to avoid criticism: make
all cars look alike. When I was a kid, I could stand on a corner and
tell you the make of every passing car at 100 yards or more away...in
twilight...and with one eye closed. Now I can't determine the maker
of the car parked next to me until I walk around it and find some
logo.
D. Peter Maus
> In article<h7bhcm$de0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>> Does the OP fuckwit *really* spend eight hours a day sanding all the
>>> corporate logos off *everything* in his life? Shampoo bottles? Candy
>>> bars? Cheerios? He ruined his camera by grinding the nameplate off?
>>>
>>> What a colossal imbecile.
>>
>>
>> It's his camera, shampoo bottle, candy bar, Cheerios, PC, soap,
>> or soda bottle. He's paid for it. He owns it. He's entitled to do
>> what he wishes with it without input from anyone else.
>
> I think you're forgetting the part where he took his idiot philosophy on
> the road and posted it on USENET; if that doesn't amount to a cry for
> "input," then I don't know what does.
>
Perhaps an implied invitation by the furthest stretch.
Hardly a cry. And certainly no call for the derision.
> In other words, if he didn't want to hear my opinion, he could have just
> shut the fuck up.
You may be right. But he was hardly so crass, about it.
By your own logic, your gratuitously bellicose presentation may
well fairly cry for input, as well. May well be a cry for something
else.
That the OP chooses a different path from yourself is not
necessarily noteworthy.
That it offends you so as to provoke this level of ridicule and
scorn suggests something else entirely.
>
>
>
>
Moving On ...
<DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Why would anyone care what he does with his own property?
>Especially to the degree that it induces name calling.
>
He doesn't care. He's just a lonely and desperate troll looking for any
attention any way possible, by turning the original post into huge
exaggerations to perpetuate the attention for himself. This kind of typical
troll's gambit is usually easy to spot within three posts if they're
subtle. Sometimes two or less if they're as obvious as this one is.
Giftzwerg
DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > In other words, if he didn't want to hear my opinion, he could have just
> > shut the fuck up.
>
>
> You may be right. But he was hardly so crass, about it.
Yeah. Whew. He was a real gentleman about it, calling everyone who
doesn't ruin a $2,500 DLSR by grinding the "Canon" logo off the prism
house a corporate steer:
"Just bend over while they get the iron hot and burn
their logo into your hind-quarters. You're absolutely no different than
branded cattle if you walk around with a corporate logo on you. Just
say, 'MoooOOOOoo'!"
Gawrsh. A class act, this momo.
Sorry, dude, but anyone OCD enough to grind the logo off everything he
owns - and crow about his obsession on USENET - is just a head case.
I look at things exactly the opposite way; I'd be uncomfortable spending
serious bucks on something that the manufacturer *wasn't* proud to put
their name on. I'm certainly not going to waste my time sanding it off.
Allen
> In article <h7bcmj$fm9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>>> I've had dealers afix their sticker to the back of my car during
>>>> a service call. I"ve invoiced them for the privilege. That usually
>>>> stops it.
>>> Well, after they told you to stick your "invoice" up your ass, that is.
>
>> Actually, none has ever gotten that crass. They're businessmen.
>> They don't like it. But they understand my point. They have to pay
>> everyone else to carry their brand logo. They understand that I
>> don't have to, and won't, do it for free.
>
> TRANSLATION: "They didn't use the phrase 'stick your invoice up your
> ass, dickshit,' but this was precisely the message they delivered."
>
Maus many, many times now. I agree with you, but this has gone on way
too long. I an reducing the volume of this thread by killfilling Mr.
Maus--what an idiot he is.
Allen
D. Peter Maus
Which underscores a point made in a previous thread about
photographers, egos, and the ability to have civil discussion.
The name is Peter, by the way. Michael was my uncle.
D. Peter Maus
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:11:36 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
> <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/09 10:45 , Giftzwerg wrote:
>>> In article<h7bhcm$de0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>>
>>>>> Does the OP fuckwit *really* spend eight hours a day sanding all the
>>>>> corporate logos off *everything* in his life? Shampoo bottles? Candy
>>>>> bars? Cheerios? He ruined his camera by grinding the nameplate off?
>>>>>
>>>>> What a colossal imbecile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's his camera, shampoo bottle, candy bar, Cheerios, PC, soap,
>>>> or soda bottle. He's paid for it. He owns it. He's entitled to do
>>>> what he wishes with it without input from anyone else.
>>>
>>> I think you're forgetting the part where he took his idiot philosophy on
>>> the road and posted it on USENET; if that doesn't amount to a cry for
>>> "input," then I don't know what does.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps an implied invitation by the furthest stretch.
>>
>> Hardly a cry. And certainly no call for the derision.
>
> and are eternally vigilant for opportunities to deride what you say.
LOL. Yeah, I've noticed that.
>
>>> In other words, if he didn't want to hear my opinion, he could have just
>>> shut the fuck up.
>>
>>
>> You may be right. But he was hardly so crass, about it.
>>
>> By your own logic, your gratuitously bellicose presentation may
>> well fairly cry for input, as well. May well be a cry for something
>> else.
>>
>> That the OP chooses a different path from yourself is not
>> necessarily noteworthy.
>>
>> That it offends you so as to provoke this level of ridicule and
>> scorn suggests something else entirely.
>
> QED, on multiple levels. :)
So it would appear.
p
Miles Bader
> "the barbeque that seats four"!
... "if they're short"
-Miles
--
x
y
Z!
Private
"D. Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:h7bjvp$tev$1...@news.eternal-september.org...snip
>> I think you're forgetting the part where he took his idiot philosophy on
>> the road and posted it on USENET; if that doesn't amount to a cry for
>> "input," then I don't know what does.
>>
>
> Perhaps an implied invitation by the furthest stretch.
>
> Hardly a cry. And certainly no call for the derision.
>
>
>> In other words, if he didn't want to hear my opinion, he could have just
>> shut the fuck up.
>
>
> You may be right. But he was hardly so crass, about it.
>
> By your own logic, your gratuitously bellicose presentation may well
> fairly cry for input, as well. May well be a cry for something else.
>
> That the OP chooses a different path from yourself is not necessarily
> noteworthy.
>
> That it offends you so as to provoke this level of ridicule and scorn
> suggests something else entirely.
Nicely said.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> But you may be right. Car customizers have been doing this
> for decades. And we know what whackjobs they and their customers are.
> And how much money is made doing it.
> In fact, Warshawsky's offered aftermarket panels with
> alternate script, or no script at all, for drop-in customization.
> They sold thousands of them to 'fucking idiots who were stupid
> enough to care about this.'
> And made millions doing it.
Millions were made is a really good argument for about everything.
Millions are made selling hard drugs to addicts.
Millions were made and because of how they were made we've got
a global banking crisis.
Millions are made with credit card frauds and advance cash
frauds ... is fraud thus a good idea?
More millions are made selling often marginal compact cameras
than selling DSLRs ... is a P&S thus better for the consumer?
-Wolfgang
Troll Spotter
Can this obvious troll go anymore red-herring than this? This has to be a
Guinness record.
D. Peter Maus
D. Peter Maus
LOL!...I prefer creamed herring, myself.
SMS
> LOL!...I prefer creamed herring, myself.
Yuck, pickled herring is much better.
You might be interested in the herring festival,
"http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/07/20/090720ta_talk_sacks".
Bob Larter
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:40:43 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:47:36 -0700, John McWilliams
>>>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in
>>>>> the market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?
>>>> Does there need to be anything else wrong? Isn't that enough?
>>>>
>>> Let's say, no, that's not enough! But I am asking if there was any other
>>> major flaw in the car besides the look?
>> Wasn't that the car that exploded if it was rear-ended?
>
> No, Ford Pintos manufactured in the 1970s had that problem. The gas
> tank was placed between the rear axle and the bumper.
You're right, I was confusing the two.
> The Edsel had
> no particular safety problems or mechanical flaws. It wasn't even a
> bad design. It just never caught on with the public.
I'm sure it didn't help that it was ugly as hell:
<http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657781,00.html>
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On 8/29/09 10:45 , Giftzwerg wrote:
>> In article<h7bhcm$de0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> DPete...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>
>>>> Does the OP fuckwit *really* spend eight hours a day sanding all the
>>>> corporate logos off *everything* in his life? Shampoo bottles? Candy
>>>> bars? Cheerios? He ruined his camera by grinding the nameplate off?
>>>>
>>>> What a colossal imbecile.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's his camera, shampoo bottle, candy bar, Cheerios, PC, soap,
>>> or soda bottle. He's paid for it. He owns it. He's entitled to do
>>> what he wishes with it without input from anyone else.
>>
>> I think you're forgetting the part where he took his idiot philosophy on
>> the road and posted it on USENET; if that doesn't amount to a cry for
>> "input," then I don't know what does.
>>
>
> Perhaps an implied invitation by the furthest stretch.
>
> Hardly a cry. And certainly no call for the derision.
Say what? The P&S troll posted a huge rant in which he insulted everyone
who /doesn't/ scrape the branding off their stuff. If that doesn't
invite comment, I'm damned if I know what does.
frag
>
> > The Edsel had
> > no particular safety problems or mechanical flaws. It wasn't even a
> > bad design. It just never caught on with the public.
>
> I'm sure it didn't help that it was ugly as hell:
> <http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657781,00.html>
Compared to all the "Euro boxes" we have now, it doesn't look that bad.
--
frag
Chris H
<m...@nothanks.net> writes
>On 28 Aug 2009 16:11:56 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I wonder what your car looks like.
>
>I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
>truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
>refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising. You'd be
>surprised how much better they look that way. It actually gives them a bit
>of class. I don't advertise any logo for anyone unless they pay me what I
>ask. I never bother to ask, I just remove their corporate logos. Nothing
>they could pay me would be worth it to degrade myself that much.
You sound far more obsessive than someone who has brand loyalty. BTW
They do pay you to advertise. You get a discount on the cost of the car
to have the advertising.... (everyone does) You have paid more to have
the car with out it.
However as for degrading... I think you have other problems more serious
than advertising a logo.
I use Nikon for the good reason that several of my friends had then am
recommended them. I tried out their cameras and found I liked them. I
suspect that had I had friends with Canon's I could well have been
swayed that way. (I think I started with Nikon during the particular 6
months when they were in front of Canon. Canon was "better" for the
following 6 months :-)
However many of the accessories are 3rd party and not Nikon. On the two
cameras I have one strap with Nikon on it and the other does not. One
of the Lenses I have is a Tamron and the teleconverter Kenko. And no I
haven't removed the logo's on them either :-)
That said having a Nikon system that performs well enough I have no
incentive to change kit just because another brand has a new feature...
otherwise we would all be buying the latest top of the range every 6
months (and changing lenses). That is pointless. A new camera from Canon
(or Nikon) etc does not diminish the performance of my Nikon. My
pictures do not suddenly get worse.
However as I have invested in the Nikon F mount and they have a wide
range of kit and there is a huge 3rd party range of Nikon kit why
change?
Now I agree that some people get obsessive and have Nikon hats, T-
Shirts, coats, underpants, pens, key fobs, mugs, etc etc. That I
don't do unless they are freebies at events.
Many like to "belong" to a group. For others it is status.... (only
professionals and serious photographers use Nikon/ Canon/ Leica/
Hasselblad).
On the other hand I don't spend time and effort removing logos. That is
equally stupid. Far more obsessive is spending time and MONEY removing
logos. People who do that are worse than those who do buy the
merchandise.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
John McWilliams
> On the other hand I don't spend time and effort removing logos. That is
> equally stupid. Far more obsessive is spending time and MONEY removing
> logos. People who do that are worse than those who do buy the
> merchandise.
Worse? I don't think so; different, yes. Obsessive, perhaps. I used to
cut the alligators off Chemise LaCoste, but then they became sewn in-
embroidered, perhaps. I've occasionally used a magic marker to blot out
a light logo, and sometimes not bought a product because of aesthetics
which were lousy solely due to logos/names.
If I were into suburban pickup trucks, I might consider customizing it
to the extent of removing the rear tailgate panel with the embossed
whatever on it, but I doubt it.
--
john mcwilliams
Ghett Rheel
wrote:
>Chris H wrote:
Someone scrapes-off or inks-out the logo off of their camera strap whenever
they get a new camera. Taking about 5 minutes out of someone's life every 2
years. Or does a little sheet-metal project to remove the gigantic
billboard logo on the back of a truck that destroys its otherwise okay
appearance. A simple weekend project that will make that vehicle look
better for its whole life, and might even increase its resale value greatly
because of how much better it looks. And this becomes obsessive?
You claim you cut the alligators off your shirts. Don't blame you, that has
to be one of the most annoying and ridiculous logos to have ever ruined any
clothing. Today I cut the huge embroidered logo off of my hunting cap. Why?
It was taking up half the sunshade, and it was imprinted in bright-red,
destroying the otherwise nice camo pattern. The bright-red logo was
attracting the bees and other insects away from the flowers I was
photographing them on, having them land on my cap instead, out of view of
the camera. Is that obsessive? And for which reason? For removing the logo?
Or because I use that cap to make macro-photography of insects easier? Not
to mention the cap just looks much better now too. Improving both function
and form by removing the logo.
The only thing that is truly obsessive are all the outlandish claims and
wild exaggerations made by the trolls that tried to make an imaginary
mountain out of a mole-hill just for attention for themselves. That's the
only thing that's obsessive, overboard, or mentally unstable in any of the
reported behavior in this thread.
Giftzwerg
ghr...@anyaddress.com says...
> >If I were into suburban pickup trucks, I might consider customizing it
> >to the extent of removing the rear tailgate panel with the embossed
> >whatever on it, but I doubt it.
>
> Someone scrapes-off or inks-out the logo off of their camera strap whenever
> they get a new camera. Taking about 5 minutes out of someone's life every 2
> years. Or does a little sheet-metal project to remove the gigantic
> billboard logo on the back of a truck that destroys its otherwise okay
> appearance. A simple weekend project that will make that vehicle look
> better for its whole life, and might even increase its resale value greatly
> because of how much better it looks.
Now grind the "Canon" off a 1Ds MkIII and see what happens to the value.
> And this becomes obsessive?
Fucking retardedly obsessive. Borderline psychotic. You people are off
your chump.
Ghett Rheel
wrote:
>In article <53qn95ld00834h4v6...@4ax.com>,
>ghr...@anyaddress.com says...
>
>Now grind the "Canon" off a 1Ds MkIII and see what happens to the value.
>
Thanks for providing yet another perfect example of:
J. Clarke
I remember when I was a kid the mother of one of my friends was exceedingly
puzzled that I could readily identify her Ford Falcon as a Ford Falcon after
she had removed all the badges. I finally decided that she was a loon.
Giftzwerg
ghr...@anyaddress.com says...
> >Now grind the "Canon" off a 1Ds MkIII and see what happens to the value.
> >
>
> Thanks for providing yet another perfect example of:
>
> The only thing that is truly obsessive are all the outlandish claims and
> wild exaggerations made by the trolls that tried to make an imaginary
> mountain out of a mole-hill just for attention for themselves. That's the
> only thing that's obsessive, overboard, or mentally unstable in any of the
> reported behavior in this thread.
<shrug>
What *does* the OP do with the flagrant attempt by Canon, Nikon, Leica
et al to inflict their malign advertising efforts on him by putting
their name on not only the strap, but the camera itself? Perhaps his
zeal for removing logos is confined to certain things and not others?
How far does his obvious hypocrisy extend?
Listen, dumbass; anyone stupid enough to start hacking on the sheet
metal of a $30,000 motor vehicle for no good reason is clearly dumb
enough to do other incredibly stupid things. I'm simply wondering
whether stupidity or hypocrisy is paramount in his efforts.
Ghett Rheel
wrote:
>
>How far does his obvious hypocrisy extend?
How far will this psychotic troll Giftzwerg keep trying this obviously
desperate behavior for attention?
My guess, until his medication is adjusted properly or until some real
human (as opposed to virtual ones) gives him his much needed attention
sometime during his life. The former occurring has a higher percentage of
probability. The latter is what got him to this point in the first place,
and keeps him this way.
Or until someone exposes this Giftzwerg troll's obvious sock-puppet
identity for the one with which everyone else is already familiar. Let us
make a list of other well known resident-trolls who are equally psychotic
and desperate, it'll help to narrow it down.
Guess one: the resident-troll who has a whole newsgroup devoted to his
lifetime troll career, even titled with his legal name,
"alt.kook.lionel-lauer", a.k.a. Bob Larter.
Guess two: Wolfgang Weisselberg, uses extremely similar and desperate
psychotic troll's tactics.
Guess three: SMS, but SMS lacks basic vocabulary, unless SMS is just one of
its many lower-functioning acts.
Guess four: ASSAR, he's been put in far too many filters and pretty much
gave up on that nym.
Guess five: ...
I have much better thing to do than this. Trimming a toenail is more
interesting and fascinating than this. I have become momentarily bored. A
rare event in my life. It happened once for about an hour back in early
April of 1984. It was awful. This time lasting a mere few minutes, an event
that won't even be remembered for long. Almost forgotten already.
Giftzwerg
ghr...@anyaddress.com says...
> >How far does his obvious hypocrisy extend?
>
> How far will this psychotic troll Giftzwerg keep trying this obviously
> desperate behavior for attention?
<laughter>
I'm not the one advocating chopping sheet metal off $30,000 automobiles
to avoid being a "dog" of corporate advertising. I'm the nice,
reasonable fellow who's pretty much OK with Toyota putting a normal,
tasteful nameplate on my car.
Nor, like certain asshats, do I get out my Crayolas and scratch out the
logo on a camera strap in some OCD frenzy.
> I have much better thing to do than this.
Here's hoping "Go fuck yourself" is one of them. And you get down to it
sometime soon.
tony cooper
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Chris H wrote:
>
>> On the other hand I don't spend time and effort removing logos. That is
>> equally stupid. Far more obsessive is spending time and MONEY removing
>> logos. People who do that are worse than those who do buy the
>> merchandise.
>
>Worse? I don't think so; different, yes. Obsessive, perhaps. I used to
>cut the alligators off Chemise LaCoste,
Why would you purchase a Lacoste shirt in the first place if you
objected to the logo? It's not like you couldn't find a similar item
without a logo.
>but then they became sewn in-
>embroidered, perhaps. I've occasionally used a magic marker to blot out
>a light logo
Same question.
>and sometimes not bought a product because of aesthetics
>which were lousy solely due to logos/names.
>
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> And made millions doing it.
>>Millions were made is a really good argument for about everything.
[...]
> Can this obvious troll go anymore red-herring than this?
You haven't said anything yet, but yes, you are already a
herring, caught red-handed.
> This has to be a Guinness record.
Nope, for a troll you are just run-of-the-mill, not even worth
mentioning. Millions of trolls make millions of posts.
-Wolfgang
John McWilliams
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:48:57 -0700, John McWilliams > <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Worse? I don't think so; different, yes. Obsessive, perhaps. I used to
>> cut the alligators off Chemise LaCoste,
>
> Why would you purchase a Lacoste shirt in the first place if you
> objected to the logo? It's not like you couldn't find a similar item
> without a logo.
Not so, tony. At the time, where I lived on the East Coast of the U.S.,
there were no shirts similar to the type of knit, weight of fabric and
style that would subsititute for the formidable LaCoste. This being 50
years ago.
[Sigh.]
--
john mcwilliams
tony cooper
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:48:57 -0700, John McWilliams > <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Worse? I don't think so; different, yes. Obsessive, perhaps. I used to
>>> cut the alligators off Chemise LaCoste,
>>
>> Why would you purchase a Lacoste shirt in the first place if you
>> objected to the logo? It's not like you couldn't find a similar item
>> without a logo.
>
>Not so, tony. At the time, where I lived on the East Coast of the U.S.,
>there were no shirts similar to the type of knit, weight of fabric and
>style that would subsititute for the formidable LaCoste. This being 50
>years ago.
>
>[Sigh.
Ren� Lacoste did not spell his name with the "c" capitalized, nor does
the company that uses the name. Lacoste came by the nickname "the
alligator" over a bet he made with the captain of the French Davis Cup
team. The bet was that if he won a particular match that he would
receive an alligator skin suitcase. He won. The press latched on to
the sobriquet.
I've owned several Lacoste knit shirts, but never purchased one. I
had a friend who was a manufacturer's rep for the company, and he gave
me samples. This was when I was living in Indianapolis, Indiana; not
exactly the center of the fashion world. They were all well-made, but
there was nothing about them that was that much different from other,
similar, quality knit shirts available in those days 50 years ago.
Personally, I preferred Fred Perry (also a tennis great) knit shirts,
but I had to pay for them. The Fred Perry logo is a bit more
discreet.
I've never played tennis, though. When I hit a ball, I don't want
anyone hitting it back at me. I would like to be able to find it in
the rough, though.
Bob Larter
> Or until someone exposes this Giftzwerg troll's obvious sock-puppet
> identity for the one with which everyone else is already familiar. Let us
> make a list of other well known resident-trolls who are equally psychotic
> and desperate, it'll help to narrow it down.
>
> Guess one: the resident-troll who has a whole newsgroup devoted to his
> lifetime troll career, even titled with his legal name,
> "alt.kook.lionel-lauer", a.k.a. Bob Larter.
ROTFL!