[Leica] Re: M Small Viewfinder comments

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

It is my opinion that the editor of a publication IS completely and totally
responsible for its content. And with any technical publication, the worth
of the publication is directly proportional to the validity of its content.
Print innuendo, hearsay, and untruths,  and the publication is basically
worthless. Erwin should refuse to allow his articles to be published in a
forum that will, undeniably, tarnish their worth, and ultimately, his
reputation.

Marc is completely correct on this issue.

Jim


At 01:04 PM 3/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 09:23 AM 1999-03-17 EST, Joe Zarick wrote:
>>I was sorry to see Marc Small's comments about the current issue of the LHSA
>>Viewfinder.  His complimentary remarks about the issue did not outweigh his
>>poor taste and near slander of two fellow LHSA members. These two, Roy
>Moss in
>>particular, have spent countless hours (without compensation)  in LHSA work.
>>Comments and corrections, about and of, Viewfinder articles are in order,
>>however, Ad Hominem remarks are not. I think apologies are in order. 
>
>Joe
>
>Apologies are NOT in order:  my comments are hardly ad hominem attacks of
>any sort, but, rather, are valid criticisms of the work of Moss and
>Gilcreast.  Moss DOES work hard, but he fails to complete the loop, and
>should have articles refereed to prevent the constant inclusion of error
>which has marred every single issue of VIEWFINDER he has edited.
>Gilcreast's many articles on specific lenses have been excellent, but his
>articles on sharpness are simply not supportable technically:  both are
>filled with supposition, rumour, and false statements.  
>
>I have corresponded with Gilcreast on his earlier writings and with Moss
>extensively.  Moss's spin is that he isn't concerned over factual accuracy
>and will rely on the author's expertise.  Well, I find this a chilling
>response, as we are ALL capable of error -- I have published extensively,
>but everything I have ever had run in any journal, and, certainly, both of
>my books, have been read and reviewed at length by others to minimize this
>sort of error before they were submitted for publication.  Moss should
>ensure that VIEWFINDER articles are similarly reviewed.
>
>VIEWFINDER is a magazine highly regarded for its technical accuracy.  That
>is why the constant inclusion of mistakes and mis-statements is so damned
>annoying.
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>