Re: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued?

From: Robert M ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/16/05-12:24:06 AM Z
Message-id: <BAY3-DAV23C6EB2E199D24E1694031E6F50@phx.gbl>

> >>> Earlier, someone posted they had inside information and declined to
> > who.
> >>> I will believe it when Kodak announces it; "reliable" inside sources
> >>> often less than reliable.
> >>
> >> I've known Richard for years and I also know who he is speaking about.
> >> suggest you reconsider.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but not everyone knows Richard.
> Ah. So you're new to the list and did not know that Richard has been a
> great and valued contributor to this list, the USENET groups,
> puresilver mailing list and I'm sure many other venues. I guess that's
> understandable.

I am familiar with Richard's name and I am not new to this list. I have seen
his name for years. However, not everyone knows anything about Richard. I do
not frequent USENET photo lists, nor am I a member of the "Puresilver" list.

> > Which would you prefer? Hearing news from someone you do not know
> > a particular company or information directly from the horse's mouth?
> Well what I would prefer has little to do with it but since you asked, I
> would like to see some modicum of trust and respect be present when
> addressing others on the list. Particularly those who are significant
> contributors to these forums and in being such would have been removed
> ago had their information been faulty and unreliable.

(Hey Richard, no insult intended for the following comments - Smiley)

I do not believe you (not you, Richard - Smiley) This list's moderators
probably do not remove people for inaccurate information. Or perhaps they
do. Are you saying that a member questioning something is a bad thing? Are
you saying I should trust what I read? Sorry, but no. Not these days.

And again, not everyone knows Richard. By the way, frequent contributors to
mailing lists can be wrong much of the time. Again, not you, Richard -

You apparently want me to automatically assume something that on the surface
that seems quite absurd, is in any way accurate. Not a gonna happen, sorry.
Not when I know how much silly information is available on the net and some
statements absolutely demand extraordinary proof. Like Kodak dropping all
black and white papers.

> > So, do not climb on me; I was not out of line.
> Yes you were. You stated
> > Earlier, someone posted they had inside information and declined to say
> > I will believe it when Kodak announces it; "reliable" inside sources are
> > often less than reliable.
> I'm not certain of your reference to "someone" but I don't think that
> "someone" was letting us know that Kodak was discontinuing all B-&-W
> printing papers.

I thought Richard mentioned he was in possession of some inside information,
thereby confirming the rumor. Publicly unavailable because the person who
contacted Richard was a Great Yellow Insider. Richard posted the info that
started this tangent of the thread.

I would never walk into a news director's office and pitch something without
confirmation from the company the news story concerns. We read far too much
incorrect information these days, and in some cases, reporters make things
up from whole cloth. Again, I am not calling Richard a liar, just asking
questions and taking a logical approach.

My reference to "someone" was indeed Richard; I said someone because I had
deleted the posts and forgot who posted the reply. I did not want to put
e-words in Richards mouth. With no name and department of the insider that
sent Richard the update, I simply cannot take the information at face value.
I think that is quite fair.

Had I posted (a few months ago) that The Eastman Kodak Company was
discontinuing all black and white papers and related products, the statement
would have been questioned and I would have been required to provide solid
proof. I then say it came from a Kodak Insider, you would want to know
his/her name. I could say anonymous sources, but how much would you have
trusted my reportage? Not likely you would have and I would not expect you

Clear enough for you?

Received on Thu Jun 16 00:27:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/07/05-11:30:54 AM Z CST