Polaroid 110b to 4x5 graflok conversion-any instructions available?

[william_littman]

the tests

[william_littman]

test 2

[kelly_flanigan1]

Mr Littman; many of us have tinkered our entire lives; and here I find your claim; conversion really absurd and insulting. In the 1950's many of us used Exakta's in 35mm; and used Kodak Aero Ektars for telephotos; since they were only 3 to 5 dollars on the surplus market. Many of us used war surplus fixer; war surplus tri-x in 4x5 sheet form. With cars some of us swapped carburetors; changed jets; used hotter ignition coils; hand polished valve and the intake manifolds. Because some of us Hoosiers in 4H club converted Polaroids seems to get your knickers in a knot. The darn cameras were often not the latest models; and tagged as obsolete crap/junk. <BR><BR>It seems to bother you that folks were poor and had a drive to create a working camera from junk parts. some of us walked thru ditches collecting pop bottles for spare change; cut lawns for 4 bits; sold GRIT or greeting cards door to door. Once folks did conversions; and were proud of their creation(s). <BR><BR>My dads era of photography has books on making your own darkroom trays out of cardboard; and sealing them with candle or ball jar wax. In 4H club we had a contact printer with a mess of #47 radio lamps; so one could locally burn in a contact print. In the 1950's folks often used cardboard tubes and enlarging lenses; and a T mount adapter for macro work using an Exakta. Patenting stuff that was done 1/2 century ago does happen were folks dont do a decent prior art search. Many conversions are not patented; since they were just "how to" projects learned in photo magazines; learned thru the grape vine; or just done in a Photoclub eons ago. One of my fathers books has many chapters on things one can make out of wooden barrels. You just do down to your local cooper and get old barrels for free; to make your projects out of; ie skis; chairs; boats; toys; etc. In a prior era folks didnt worry about wether their conversion would be patented 1/2 century later :) <BR><BR> I am not sure why one would want to pay several grand for a Polaroid conversion today anyway. They seem why too darn expensive by several orders of magnitude. Why not just get a 4x5 speed graphic at 1/10th the cost?. Folks long ago did Polaroid conversions because they were way LESS expensive than buying a 4x5 speed graphic. <BR><BR>

[kai_griffin]

Littman's "patent" (pending) doesn't hold water, and it won't float. He'll claim that it is "just days away" from approval for years to come, but it's already a dead dog. The best we can hope for in the future is that he'll limit these tiresome rants to one or two every 6 months or so. For the rest of us, it's probably easier just to ignore him and let him go quietly nuts in his own corner of the globe, since engaging him in debate only results in reams of stream-of-consiousness ramblings, which personally makes me feel vaguely voyeuristic in reading (in the same way that reading the diary of a madman might).

[william_littman]

Mr. Flanagan

as I said earlier you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. and I have already shown that you have contradicted yourself on this issue repeatedly.

 

I have seen the images posted in your gallery until recently and other images you have posted and if that is what you believe Large format is for I can understand that it is hard for you to justify any sort of expenditure, most people can understand that.

 

.

 

perhaps you have inherited development coupons, the rest of us expect a decent quality out of LF or we spend less on film costs.

 

a lens may cost you 35 but for that kind of quality you posted I would buy a Kodak 35mm disposable and be better of so would everyone else.

 

So I respect your right to post opinions but have found that you contradict yourself on almost every subject and the people I do work for do consider your posts as always endorsing some financial wizardry of no cost when in reality there are much less expensive manners to obtain poor or average quality.

 

If someone has little funds then buying something inefficient will triple the costs in the long run, a 4x5 sheet cost 2-4 dollars by the time it is developed, unless it is justified by quality of some sort the savings are to stay away from the expenditure altogether.

 

the speed graphic issue is true if one refers to a merely structural issue. any further justification of expenditure would have to come from someone whose images don't look like the camera fired by someone stepping on a cable release by accident.you insist that a Polaroid conversion was less desirable than a speed graphic but my clients who own or have owned all possible best 4x5 alternatives insist they prefer my camera to everything ever made, if you cant see the difference what can you see? This diffrence found by all qualified reviews and the most established photographers shows that invention is present, all else will have to be justified b prior art submitted to the USPTO

 

It is bogus to resort to generalities, these are specific issues and your claims are not applicable so therefore I must ask you not to represent otherwise as a means of interference.

 

if expenditure is an issue then that will be addressed by less expensive alternatives

 

There are no knots I have shown you that you stated in 2003 that what was done was to place the film inside the camera 4 decades ago, then you contradicted yourself by a difference of an entire decade a few weeks ago so the 4H club becomes MIT and you were in grade school for decades, whatever.

Please do not bother me further It is offensive. the next time you find something offensive look at your photographs before giving others advise on the justification of one equipment versus another and trying to have the last word on every thread that you have the time to post in.

 

If you have prior art submit it to the USPTO

 

Again the only people who can represent the status of a patent are the USPTO and while it is pending the contents are considered to be confidential, if it is granted it will cover since the date when it was applied for

 

 

Thank you

[razzledog]

I guess a couple of pics of some paper inserted into the camera somehow, has me puzzled, perhaps Mr G should try closing the rear door? Guess I won`t perform the same party trick with a certain camera I received from NYC for repair. Apparently it`s never taken a decent photo in it`s life.

It`s amazing how much it reminds me of a Four Designs packfilm conversion with a Toyo 4x5 back attached. Apart from loads of glue and some stick-on matting to hide the fact, the similarity is uncanny, I wonder who copied what? Fortunately, I have many images of the 'Pas Par Hasard' conversion, but unfortunately no directions on how to build it.<div></div>

[william_littman]

That Jones camera shown has the back door locked and closed the leaks are where the frame joins the camera back outside the camera .

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Mr. Jones was notified years ago that one of the modifications I decided to implement falls under the category of " improvement of an existing product" just like adding a Polaroid back to a Hasselblad is considered in the same manner.

 

That has been known to all since the issue of the patents.

 

A route chosen in implementation is not a limitation to use other patented alternatives if chosen.

 

I stated in 2003 that was what I had done.

 

The image shown is of an earlier model, if it is the person I think it is I have checked my records and I have only one customer from NYC who contacted me to request a repair of a 150mm camera since the fall of 2000 when it was introduced. when the repair was complete he stated that he couldn't focus but he wasn't using his glasses to focus but when he did it tested perfectly and I kept emailing and getting confirmation it was ok.

 

In any event the person who facilitated this camera to Jones and Mr. Jones should know the following:Section 1832 of the act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit, or the benefit of others, intending or knowing that the offense will injure the owner of the trade secret. The act also makes it a federal criminal offense to receive, buy or possess the trade secret information of another person knowing the same to have been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without the trade secret owner's authorization.

 

 

This is interference of the worst kind to knowingly facilitate trade secrets so they will be made public by Jones and a fulfillment of threats made earlier.

 

I will never believe that because someone buys a camera from me that gives them the right to violate my IP as a matter of fact all who have purchased from me have agreed not to.

 

 

I have checked my records and I have only one customer from NYC who contacted me to request a repair of a 150mm camera since the fall of 2000 when it was introduced. when the repair was complete he stated that he wasn't using his glasses to focus but when he did it tested perfectly and I kept emailing and getting confirmation it was ok.

 

 

It was one request for repair to which I have confirmation of satisfaction.

 

If this is someone else who did not contact me to inform me of a request for repair and chose to resort to this then it is twice as serious. I am here I provide the service I can considering this continuous interference/ diversion.

 

It is because I need to be free of interference to concentrate on my work that I have had to defend myself most of my clients understand but they shouldn't have to encounter delays because Mr. Jones chooses to believe that unless you invent the wheel you do not deserve a patent, as a matter of fact the 4 designs conversion is included in the first patent and there is no copy consideration. Just a legitimate and lawful improvement of an existing product .

 

like I said do not interfere further.

It is absolutely legitimate and acceptable to introduce a modification to an existing product and absolutely bogus to introduce an expectancy of a quantitative consideration as an objection.

 

Since Mr. Jones insists he has no patents, intellectual property or trade secrets to preserve and has threatened to disclose mine and has to some degree the matter is therefore verified as a willful admission.

 

Several years of instigating a requirement of differentiation of an entire concept before something is novel is rubbish, most improvements are hardly noticeable visibly that is why they are considered improvements.

 

To then add a requirement of reasonability as an expectancy is further nonsense.

 

The quantitative aspect of a convenience can be visibly small but enormous in a category where a small measurement makes a big difference to represent otherwise by presenting the similarity of a structure is deceptive and misleading.

 

If it is an improvement of an existing product the similarity is expected, that covers that. and being that it is both lawful and disclosed in the patents Mr. Jones representation is again another attempt to interfere.

 

There is nothing further to discuss, Aggie was on her way to purchasing my product and was diverted by Jones to then find out that she wasn't getting a Littman for less as he stated then I am diverted by this rubbish and apparently a client from my own city is diverted to facilitating my trade secrets because I am being distracted by this rubbish.Heiko and most everyone who has participated in threads were people who had contacted me first and were diverted by this rubbish.

 

So Please do not interfere further, you have confirmed that I have chosen to implement a modification as Patented, it is perfectly legitimate and as you have stated " original" and " genuine".

 

So again it isn't up to the public to decide and ludicrous for Jones to keep asking as to interfere.

 

This matter is considered as addressed and closed for reasons which are self explanatory and of the utmost gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[william_littman]

Ok if it is not one reason it was the other, in any event it is you who was deemed as requiring exclusion and considering that every time you speak it is corrosive or instigating confrontation there must be more to it than you tell as always, enjoy . all best W.

[razzledog]

It is quite clear to me, that you Mr Littman are not aware of the physics relating to photography. I thought you would realise the reason for the slots featured top an bottom of the Graflok back in your photo? Their prime reason for existance can be attributed to one of two reasons, firstly to keep the sheet film`s delicate emulsion cool when shooting in hot climates like Australia, or secondly, they could be a result of your careless assembly after a complete tear down for close scrutiny. Was this done to expose my 'trade secrets' or just so you could find some fault and advertise any discrepancies? I could do likewise to the Four Designs knockoff I now have in my possession, but that would lower me to your level of behaviour. You obviously have an icongruous mind, totally incapable of anything that involves simple logic. Mr Petronio`s description suits rather well I believe.

[william_littman]

As I recall Aggie was repeatedly insulted and degraded by you on every photo forum you could find when you kept posting images of the exterior appearance of her camera as to justify that she was a bad apple. the camera was verified by many and shown because as usual it leads you to address customer satisfaction as a plug and you volunteer what you don't care about which is what is present in the camera. as far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with making a mistake but when it is clear that you use these forums to solicit business and then accuse her of wrongdoing It is my duty to clear her name because you also prevented her from expressing her opinions about my product as did Petronio by accusing her of being a spy.

 

You and your pack have gone as far as to question the integrity of the most reputable journalists who have praised my product and the most reputable photographers.

 

She sold the camera long after the fact and as far as I am concerned and as you have admitted the camera contains several of my trade secrets and not yours.

 

I don't have to post the pictures of them since you already admitted they were present.

 

I also had to clear my name in regards to your representations that the modifications I insisted were required were present contrary to your early assurances. as this has also been verified by you and many others there is no need to go further.

 

Not only did you prevent her right to express herself as a user of both products but you questioned her journalistic integrity by implying that any preference by her part would have to be a result of wrongdoing.

 

I regret to say that the camera has not been dismantled and verified by many before I got my hands on it as was reported on the other website by several people .

 

In summation Mr. Petronio stated to have preferred his 100.00 speed graphic to the camera he got rid of and later stated in another website that he decided not to complete the sale to me yet that I would stay away from him on patent issues because of his Sicilian connection....that would play real well in federal court....

 

In the end what remains is a constant leverage that should I consider my rights or have to do something to undo the discredit you have admitted to instigate you will retaliate by exposing my trade secrets as a matter of fact you offered to send them by email to anyone everywhere.

 

you told all of PN in 2003 that in your opinion a patent should be respected after which you were expected to say or do nothing to contradict that.Nobody told you what your opinion should be and as a result I expect you to act accordingly.

 

Everybody can read that you volunteered to email anyone who would so desire close-up of trade secrets which are clearly protected by my patents and the industrial espionage act of 1996.

 

 

There is nothing further to discuss I have a right to proceed with my life without you breathing down my neck with leverages If you and Petronio can sleep better by calling people bad names it will come back to you, as far as the people of good faith have already understood but this is no longer a matter of opinion but demonstrated interference which is against the policies of this server and my rights.

[alban_christ]

I was present in the verification of aggias camera.. what littman said is true, when i saw it

the first thing I said .. do people sell this?.. I also was shown that several modifications

where present.. I cant beleive this person says. that the littman is overpriced. I have used

it for years and still do and I could not use this camera instead. I also examine an other

camera wich used a patio door closer as a camera back. this is absolutly stupid. I am

not surprised if littman has had problems with delays this is absolute torture.. and I hope

it stops.

 

alban christ new york city.

[william_littman]

Maybe it is because you admit to enjoy torturing people and calling them bad names and willing to drive the point to the limit until first blood is drawn and i may find no pleasure in having to deal with this at all.

[kelly_flanigan1]

WILLIAM; when we did 4H club conversions; war surplus film and fixer were FREE. We bought new developer and short stop. The army drab keg of caked fixer was in a big metal can. One used a icepick to chip out the fixer and a Ohaus balance to weigh the stuff. We learned a US nickel weighs 5 grams; a US bill 1 gram as references; from a teacher with no college education. Your insults are flatly wrong; rude; and insulting.<BR><BR>Folks with little cash have a great energy in using what is free. Why the sour grapes over a poor schools can do events? We as kids had Free old 4x5 film; free fixer. Most of the long expired tri-x 4x5 we used was war time stuff; abit fogged with old age. <BR><BR>Using JB weld; elbow grease; balsa wood; shoe polish; bone yard nifty free stuff is still going to be done; no matter how negative an attitude you want to present. Some folks have little means/cash; but an actual drive and ambition. Maybe Kilroy is loaded with a oilwell; but old Floyd has to collect soda pop bottles? It is abit absurd that folks converted junk polaroids decades ago in school clubs; and then are attacked for mentioning of these conversions a generation or two later. What an interesting circle of life. From 4H club conversions as a kid for fun, to industrial espionage act of 1996 and insults today. I am real proud that our photo teacher with no college education back then would not put up with whining. He was a bloody farmer; which we respected and feared; and we learned alot from him. His focus was on photography; and making do with surplus materials.<BR><BR><BR> This site needs to be about folks using camera items and equipment in different ways; not attacking folks for wanting to build a camera out of junk parts. Tinkering and experimenting are a positive thing. Something is flatly wrong when ideas are quashed. Conversions folks did long ago are not trade secrets; just stuff poor folks did who were not afraid to create a camera they could not afford. Your camera cost twice in dollars what our teacher made; without inflation.

[william_littman]

you are not the only poor person in this world, count me in .when I was starting I used to fold the sx 70 and put it in my Nikon because I couldn't afford a Polaroid back.then pull it out fold it out and run it thru the sx70

 

that is what you said was done to " the Polaroid's at the 4H club" by hancuting the ortho film in 2003. listen no problem , as I said earlier if you have prior art submit it to the USPTO otherwise do not interfere with my business further.

 

I am about to introduce a less expensive version anyway

thank you

[razzledog]

Thank God a person like you Mr Littman, who constantly misconstrues, misunderstands, misrepresents as well as quote statements completely out of context, reside many miles away from here.

If you were to reside in Australia, it would not remain a happy place. AT NO TIME have I insulted, degraded or otherwise ridiculed Aggie or yourself , other than in self defence and after repeated attacks. I do NOT plan to disclose your IP to anyone, although it seems you take much pleasure in degrading mine. Any problems that may exist, are not with your camera, but with your terrible behavior. Do you indeed build these cameras?, surely someone else is involved.

Clandestine meetings in dark rooms carefully examining opposition cameras is an ideal scenario for a psychological study.

 

I find the constant whinings about your so called conversion and repeated attacks on all who venture there intolerable. Do you hold a patent on harassment also?

The only 'trade secrets' I will make public are my own and you certainly have no control over that.

Why not take the time to read carefully what people have written and refrain from being so SELF CENTRED?

 

WHAT THE HELL does Mr Petronio`s 'connections' have to do with you? Perhaps he`s related to Frank Sinatra, so what?

In my opinion, you would do well to pull your head in, take some lessons in comprehension, punctuation, understanding and tolerance.

 

This whole affair is becoming a bore, so I suggest you also take some lessons in business acumen or better yet, become an evangelist. Your manner would suit that calling no end.

 

If you cannot offer Paul advice, instructions, plans or ideas, simply stay off these threads, as your imput so far is of no value.

[diwan_bhathal]

One question:

 

Above, in this thread, there is a photo of a converted Pola with a Graflok back. This equipment is attributed to be made by Dean.

 

This photo shows the seam of the back of the camera to allow a newspaper sheet to slide in it. This is for both top and bottom.

 

---- Can someone EXPLAIN to ME HOW can one SLIDE a piece of newspaper in the seam between the Graflok and the body of the camera.

 

I have never seen this particular camera ( Dean's ), but I can tell you that the junction, once the Graflok screwed to the back of the camera is VERY TIGHT ( not light tight, but VERY TIGHT, mechanically tight, -- a close tolerance that is, and much smaller than the thickness of a sheet of paper. ).

 

The back of this camera has two "rails" where the Graflok is applied, these are MACHINED FLAT. The Graflok back side, the one that does not take the film holders is MACHINED FLAT. Once these two parts are mated together, and pressure applied by the screw, the tolerance is TIGHT !

 

-- Also, there are two photos of this camera's light leak. Can someone explain to me WHY the light leak is slight, if as stated, that a piece of newspaper fits in the upper and lower seam.

 

Shouldn't the whole film be FOGGED by such an amount of light ??? Given that the seam can accommodate the whole thickness of a newspaper, this is for both upper and lower seam, it seems to me that in this configuration, a lot of light can get in. Is it not ? It does not seem to me that this is so.

 

I will be grateful for an explanation.

 

Diffraction, light scattering and Gamma radiation are not valid answers. Film cooling neither, even though that in the Austral latitudes this needs to be considered.

 

Let's find out what happened. Thanks.

[william_littman]

Mr. Jones

1)the picture that I posted of your camera is identical to the picture you posted yourself on the same day

and identical to the picture you posted of aggies camera .and it doesn't show any internal parts only a camera back which you insist could never constitute IP of anyone. so that is the end of that. trade secret: "a formula, process, or device used in a business that is not published or divulged and that thereby gives an advantage over competitors " that would apply to your offer to email people

what you have offered and as you know they are my trade secrets, patented claims and not yours

 

the image I posted shows no trade secrets because what i posted you have posted before i did a million times.

 

2) " AT NO TIME have I insulted, degraded or otherwise ridiculed Aggie or yourself "

"I could do likewise to the Four Designs knockoff I now have in my possession".

 

Regarding the ensuing defamatory knock off allegations let me remind you that

The Polaroid corporation granted me the title of OEM dealer for the

exclusive production of the Littman 45 single in 2001 as featured since then

on their catalog, The most relevant company in the related subject felt it

was significantly different, innovative and valuable to do so.

 

The same Company features the pack film conversion as an existing Product,

The patent office and everyone skilled and or established in the art of

photography found it novel useful and reported accordingly.

 

The company you make reference to was contacted and consulted by the film maker and also determined that my product was novel different and in no way a competition and in the atmosphere of camaraderie expected in business all relevant parties determined my addition/ improvement to the product was of extreme value, to this date it remains as part of the Polaroid Catalog.

 

As you boasted recently on an auction which you announced repeatedly in PN

you stated" Here`s a chance to secure a now well known 'Razzle'. This is

the ACTUAL camera listed and features a legendary Graflok 4x5 back married

to an also legendary Polaroid 110B. The costprohibitive nature of some conversions (for that is precisely what they are)

may prevent the aquisition of the 4x5 Polaroid 110B, but it might be

possible to secure this one at a bargain basement price if your luck`s in. "

you announced the sale in a thread and linked the decription to PN with that little trick a bargain as comparing to my product you obtained double your price.

 

that is clear evidence that you degrade my product to justify yours,and that you use PN not only for solicitation but actual sales via linking. when you dispute my word in public in PN stating that the modifications are not required people believe you I have ample confirmation to prove it, the problem is the modifications were found present proving they are required.

 

Defiance is not a justification of conduct by someone representing his opinion is that a Patent should be respected and unless you have a patent you have no IP and no reason to be in possession of my camera and you have been provided with the articles of the I.E.A of 1996 and you have already said you would disclose it via email and you have posted a picture. I honestly don't believe a word you say because you said you would respect my patents and told everyone to and we are here reading you offer to email close-ups of patented claims to people anywhere, whether you made the actual camera or I did makes no difference, the Ip is not tangible the only purpose of tangible objects in these matters is for purpose of verification.

 

If you never send an email with a single picture I remind you that tons of My Ip and trade secrets has already been offered by you is offered by you on your site and in auctions for years counsel has copies of all of them, and we are not talking about slapping a 4x5 back on a Polaroid only but much more.

 

You have completely degraded and represented that the value of the parallax correction is " smoke and mirrors".

 

so let me tell you what my clients respond to that, a client of mine bought another conversion without parallax correction( not made by you )

"William I find this camera to be interesting but it is not precise for my

needs so it will not suit me as a practical tool, more of a fun

curiosity. The camera you built me actually exceeded my expectations.

You were telling me how sharp it is and I expected great results. But

when I got my first batch of 4X5 negatives back from my lab I was very

pleasantly shocked. I cannot believe that I am now able to work that

quickly handheld and get 4X5 color negatives that are so absolutely sharp

that they look like they were taken with my Arca-Swiss on a tripod. I

really needed a precise tool and your camera is indeed that. I don't

know how you do it but you build a very cool camera. It is quite unlike

anything else out there. I am going to need a second camera at some

point and when that happens I'll contact you."

 

As I was having a sale and I could use the camera he had as evidence I offered him to trade it in and his response was;

 

 

William: I would

much rather have a Littman than this heavy toy, I find this trade to be

of much greater value to me than to keep this lesser camera.

 

 

I have thought about this and decided that if you would like to use my

name with any comments that I have made I do not have any objection. My

privacy is important to me but I do not believe that this will end up

being a nuisance to my privacy, so no problem. "

 

he paid 2400 on top of the trade because there was a 700 discount because they were on sale or he would have gladly paid 3100 on top of the trade.

 

Sorry but I will keep my clients name confidential unless it is required because My clients have suffered enough interference from all this already to the point that you are holding one of my camera for repair because at the time I was dealing with that you were also posting that unless I have the willingness to yield my rights I should stay away.

 

In any event the Littman he speaks of is with a Rodenstock 135mm and that is whay i mention the instance asI can prove that for such camera to work all the modifications which I stated are required and you insisted the cam sat better than with the original lens are false, so there again you degraded me in front of the public with defiance instead of compliance which is what you represented was your opinion.

 

according to the patents which you told everyone should be respected you are only entitled to compliance and no defiance.

 

3)"Clandestine meetings in dark rooms carefully examining opposition cameras is

> an ideal scenario for a psychological study."

 

Please put on one of the reading glasses from your collection, that image show that is a most reputable and known Office where those " skilled in these matters we are referring to are entitled by law to examine products in order to make determinations " so the clandestine allegation is degrading and that room has the most beautiful view in one of the most prestigious landmark buildings in NY.

so again as you stated that aggies behavior was the darker side of human emotion and you represent that a lawful examination by A Patent holder at the" right kind of office" well lit by daylight and in the presence of several most distinguished people of all related professions is "an ideal scenario for a psychological study", you must be a psychologist then.

 

the leaks shown are because in your obsessive defiance you forgot to consider that Aggie is an excellent photographer a journalist and has a business of publishing a magazine. her credibility is her livelihood and she is licensed, qualified and of good nature she trusted your enthusiastic representations while you were stating" littman move over sounds good to me" and all the assurances that you gave her she trusted your word for years enough to have admitted to me that what you have written In PN and elsewhere had made her believe I was a bad person and she went on to convey that to then have the courage to admit a mistake to which you responded with disappointment .

 

My god what terrible betrayal it would be if 1 person realizes that people think I'm an ogre because you need that and you then feel betrayed .you told her" the 'Ogre' who rushes in to offer a precious gift now becomes the Knight in shining armour".

 

As I found out Aggie was in need of serious surgery at the time, starting a new buisness and dealing with her family she encountered your harassment and the last thing she needed was to allocate all that time and energy to your defiance .and in the end she was without camera for almost 7 months

 

And you defy her when she trusts yours and you defy her when she trusts mine, who the hell do you think you are ?

 

 

I found that when aggie camera back was tightly screwed The fact it has a leak or something may not work is not my problem to me the only reason the leaks is an issue is because it proves the camera was not checked at all before shipping and both aggie and myself had to endure months of torure and lament from Mr Jones when he had no right to have bashed her

 

you now say"Any problems that may exist, are not with your camera" I agree the problem is that it is clear that you have gained notoriety at my expense by fulfilling threats and its a bore that unless I am willing to volunteer trade secrets he will and proved it after which you state what I have to state is of no value unless i do likewise that is yet another defiance instead of compliance.

 

 

 

english is not my first language and since it is yours and you have exellent punctiation and all kids of skills that would mean that you havent misrepresented the following" In my opinion a patent should be respected"

And what is patented can be offered in a place of buisness, this is a commercial free website which forbids solicitation offers by merchants even when disguised by your usual promotional free giveaway

 

 

let me just remind all that this individual now claiming to be the intelectual property owner of what he has always stated cannot constitute intelectual property perhaps it would be wise to realize this is a fork in the road and a good time to bail.

 

 

 

Mr jones In english harrasment means; to annoy persistently. and the wording on the cover of any US patent which is a law and you told all should be respected clearly proves that the one creating the harrasment is you . whatever semantics or grammar you choose. so dont interfere with my rights the same goes for everyone else.

 

 

[kai_griffin]

W.L. wrote:<i>My god what terrible betrayal it would be if 1 person realizes that people think I'm an ogre</i><p>

William, it's more that one person who thinks you are an "ogre" - there is a veritable ocean of us out here who think you are a greedy, egotistical, self-centred, unbearable bully, with an insatiable desire to publicly exhibit all of these dreadful qualities of yours in public -repeatedly - here and elsewhere, like some kind of circus buffoon. You should have already hung your head in shame after writing these maniacal diatribes in the past, yet you bounce right back with your cracked rantings, time and time and time again. Nobody can discuss Polaroid conversions without you subverting the thread with a stream of nonsense that centres entirely around "I, me, mine and self". Every post from you is twice as long as the previous one, re-hashing ancient grudges and paranoia, and displaying all the twisted bitterness of a kaffir lime.<p>Three cheers to Dean, who endures these nasty never-ending rants of yours directed (invariably) against him, with a modicum of restraint and strength of character - things which you demonstrably sorely lack. Here's hoping that both your business and your dubious would-be patent claim disappear in a swift and supremely well-earned puff of smoke. It would be more than good riddance - it would be divine justice, and a cause for great celebration.

[william_littman]

Mr. Griffin

6 months ago when I was still unaware of the statute of induced infringement you insisted that these types of situations should be handled somewhere else because of the" sanctity of on topic discussion" thread/ whatever and the fact is kind sir is that there is no where else no other time, this is virtual reality land and false pretenses are no excuse. people who have unfinished business have nowhere else when they create rules for all to follow cannot then claim the sanctity of the conversation when it violates the policies all agreed to respect and the law, My concerns proved right then as well when the image/ scan/ scam lesson resulted in an image subsequently used by Jones in a commercial website as inducement, therefore I was entirely justified to believe the purpose of the thread was to induce his clients into further inducement and the thread itself was inducement and right after I suggested that was the intention the plugs started, you then responded by having th last word on the thread. in that thread only merchants and competitors told all to ignore me because I would hurt myself.the case is that your interferance hurt me , In any event you ended a situation in which people took advantage of your interference by telling Mr. Jones that it appears that this type of behavior arises from doing a conversion to a Polaroid camera.

 

When Jones went on to bash Aggie to plug sales further in Apug he justified it by saying" at a risk of sounding like Mr. .... I will state the following" and bashed he for almost 6 months.you also prevented Aggie any right to defend herself and treated her with immense disrespect.

 

Diwan started a related thread months ago and I did not intervene and my participation here was justified after I read on a different website that Jones had obtained one of my cameras I assumed he was prepared to disclose unauthorized trade secrets and IP pending, he then threatened to do so and came thru. therefore your behavior of interference for the last 6 months is intolerable and damaging.

 

Please do not interfere further you have used leverage to pressure me into yielding my rights and that is intolerable you said that you would not post further and Jones has said a long time ago that his opinion is that a patent should be respected and In this part of the world people are expected to do as they say which is considered to be more important than semantics and punctuation.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

Please do not interfere further you have used leverage to pressure me into yielding my rights and that is intolerableThank you

[diwan_bhathal]

Gentlemen:

 

Please, can someone tell me how you can stuff pieces of newspaper in the back of the camera pictured above in this thread.

 

This is a total mystery to me.

 

Can someone tell me why the photos of this camera "test" are not totally fogged.

 

This is another mystery to me.

 

Thank you.

[kai_griffin]

<i>you also prevented Aggie any right to defend herself and treated her with immense disrespect.</i><p>

How dare you - I did absolutely nothing of the kind. Grow up, William. You are clutching at straws and willing to lie to defend your indefensible position. Your credibility is already as low as it can get - desperate lies and misrepresentations certainly won't improve it.

[william_littman]

The fog degree will depend on the length of an exposure in relationship with the size and position of the aperture in relationship to the film. I would say it is fogged enough and these cameras are not in my possession, how fogged does it need to be?

 

if you wish to see a more fogged picture then fog one.

 

I cannot dismantle the assembly to check if it is machined straight and it is not your business anyway and i did not post it to show fault but that the treatment of Aggie was not justified and posted it because the discussion ended in mrach and Jones just vashed her again while announcing to have obtained one of my cameras which was used to disclose IP which is confidaential.

 

Mr. Griffin when Aggie tried to presnt her situation you slammed her with"and don't need to have threads destroyed by bickering ex- Polaroid owners." You also told her" it's really not a great idea to join in that behaviour" you told her that her participation was misplaced but i say that she participated because Jones used the forum threads to seduce her and get her buisness and when it wouldnt suit as a plug as he expected he went sour on her, and you turn arround and ask her for ettiqueste because you have been invited to english tea and you have nothing to do with it all and you are a gentleman you then eneded the thread by Jones that he was starting to sound like Aggie

 

If people who are subjected to these mob rag tag crowds appear to suffer and react accordingly and you couldn't care less as do a few others nobody has to grasp at anything.

 

 

let me just say that my credibility isn't low but 100% restored in the eyes of law abiding people.

The rest will never agree for whatever considerations they choose and that is their right but with that said the law states that whoever actively induces infringement shall be liable as an infringer .

 

the credibility you would accept as you have stated is that I yield my rights or you have a temper tantrum. when people admit that the only thing they find credible is that which they expect to hear they then resort to prescribing sedatives or psycho drugs to those who wont budge.

 

These matters are considered as fully addressed and understood by people of good will to whom I am grateful for their patience and understanding

[kai_griffin]

William: <i>Mr. Griffin when Aggie tried to presnt her situation you slammed her with"and don't need to have threads destroyed by bickering ex- Polaroid owners." You also told her" it's really not a great idea to join in that behaviour"</i><p>

Pray tell how this discourse was in any way "immensely disrespectful". It was anything <i>but</i> disprespectful. You intentionally misrepresented that exchange - which is freely available here at PN for anyone to read - to suit yourself. It is what you always do: misconstrue and reconstruct history - albeit trivial, petty and unimportant history - in order to present a skewed case for your sorry, victimised self. We can read through you, William - you're not getting anywhere with this nonsense.<p>By the way, if you don't want total strangers to "interfere further" in your "business", then I suggest you butt out of internet forums with this crap. If you have private issues with people, pursue them privately or not at all - I don't for a moment buy that garbage about you having to use Internet forums because no other avenue is open to you. If that is really the case, then clearly you have no genuine gripes to make in the first place, and these forum posts of yours are more about self-aggrandisement than anything else.

[william_littman]

In this part of the world it is considered disrespectful to tell a woman that has been victimized extensively that her presence or concern is misplaced when the person you are supporting represents that her account amounts to the darker side of human emotion. Asking her for etiquette is disrespectful she was cornered by bullies using dark allegations as would people in an alley .and you prevented her from defending herself by telling her that what she was doing was misplaced.It wasnt.

 

I did / do have a merited standing as a results of my efforts which have been extremely degraded by calculated attacks which have been admitted as " instigation" and then when I defend myself the person says that my words are just words as to preserve the status quo then those clearly identifiable as to their allegiance and motives add that any effort on my part to restore my credibility would be "more about self-aggrandisement than anything else" everyone can see that there is absolutely no doubt that these are attempts to interfere with my rights , my reputation, any chance to restore it .

 

 

 

 

I am not taking public relations advice or suggestions from any of you and in the end whatever the issue may be the answer is always unless people tell you what you want to hear they should leave.

I leave you with the policies of PN which you all agreed to respect when you joined

Terms Of Use

Intellectual Property Rights

You will not use the Site to violate anyone's copyright, trademark, intellectual property rights, that includes not insisting that whoever may own those rights should either yield them or butt off internet forums with this crap.

[william_littman]

I would say that you are the least indicated person to insist that reputations speak for themselves when you just told us that you were expelled from here for calling someone a bad name.when you told us that the reasons you gave were done in such a way as to make PN look unreasonable and further your aggrandizement. you do that all the time .

When this all started and my product was very well acclaimed and justified by the best you stated as to why someone would buy my product" pretentious fashionista photographers like Bruce Weber. Bruce photographs naked adolescent boys and sells those photographs for several thousand dollars a pop. So everybody makes out, except for the exploited adolescent boys" So reputations do not speak for themselves in your case you have admitted to enjoy torturing those who may agree and you have taken giant steps to damage their reputation as you have mine Aggie or anyone who may dare.. you have instigated interference with statements as" sales are the best revenge against Littman" and after you felt you had degraded my reputation and that of those who support me you went on to promote yours and offer to aid in the aggrandizement of theirs at my expense" I'm a marketing consultant and web developer - I could easily build you guys a better site than Mr. Littman's. You could get some extra publicity as a result of Littman's harrasment, so that in the end, Littman himself would be promotion his competitors".

 

You are at the center of the attempt to degrade my reputation to announce your services and further that of others as you had no problem to admit and when I was cornered and had to yield or risk serious health risk you stated" Isn't it great when you get the meds right?".

 

Reputations should speak for themselves as was the case until September of 03 when many threads had been posted in PN about my product and with a very amicable tone .

 

Do not interfere further.