Re: Trip to "Solmes"

[Michael Goldbard <m@gbard.com>]

Eric,

I'm sorry that you took such offense at what I hoped would be nothing more
than a gentle rejoinder.  I tried private e-mail the last time you cut
someone off at the knees.  Evidently it did no good.  Bill is obviously a
well-intended, decent sort and I'm sure we all welcomed his efforts.

Eric, clearly you are the final arbiter of what is interesting or useful on
the LUG and we should all defer to your superior wisdom and grace in
communication thereof.

		Regards,

		Michael

P.S.  I will, in the future, refrain from replying to your postings, either
to the LUG or on the Compuserve Photoforum.


>To:  >INTERNET:Leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>
>Michael Goldbard wrote:
>  >> Perhaps private e-mail might have been the more appropriate
>  >> outlet for your criticism.
>
>
>     Perhaps it would have been for yours.  Perhaps you might have
>asked Bill what he thinks first.  (I did hear from him, and he gave
>no such indication.)  Perhaps I should just stop annoying myself by
>subscribing to a list where all manner of random chatter passes
>without comment, while a direct answer to a question really ought to
>be kept out of sight.
>
>     Bill asked for comments publicly, and did _not_ suggest private
>responses.  Moreover, since I'm not well acquainted with Viewfinder
>or its standards, or LHSA and its politics, as many here are, I
>thought that I (and others) might possibly learn something from
>public discussion.  Had someone posted a photo for criticism, do you
>imagine that it would be more productively conducted in private?...
>No, just forget it; no point in an ongoing exchange over this.
>
>              --  Eric Meyer.