Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]And who, Peter K are you? For whom do you work? Nikon, Minolta? Canon? Barney >>>>> ""Kotsinadelis," == "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com> writes: "Kotsinadelis,> Well Erwin, "Kotsinadelis,> Since you won't be reading this reply to your diatribe and since you quoted "Kotsinadelis,> the McCarthy era, let me point out that this reinds me of the OJ trial. "Kotsinadelis,> Since you refuse to explain who you are, and people have told you not to "Kotsinadelis,> respond to these posts (which I did not start by the way) it is only logical "Kotsinadelis,> that you attack the questioner. Its easier to attack a person to hide the "Kotsinadelis,> facts, if indeed they are to be hidden. It appears you have never found a "Kotsinadelis,> Leica lens to your disliking, hence the questions. You are entitled to "Kotsinadelis,> ignore my posts, so be it, this is your right. All that was asked of you "Kotsinadelis,> was who you are. Outside of taking some girlie pictures that you post on "Kotsinadelis,> your website (nice looking girls for the most part) we know nothing else. "Kotsinadelis,> Peter K >> ---------- >> From: Erwin Puts[SMTP:imxputs@knoware.nl] >> Reply To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 6:55 AM >> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> Subject: [Leica] the dialectics of Mr Kotsinadelis >> >> Mr Kotsinadelis seems to follow a dialectical logic. He professes to be >> our >> staunchest attacker of every perceived glimpse of censorship, especially >> when he happens to note a glimmer of it in his self defined enigmatic >> "gang >> of five". He defends his right to say whatever he likes based on a simple >> law of freedom that says that whenever you do not like his (or any other >> persons) postings, you simply ignore them or use the delete button. I >> fully agree with this position. As I noted some time ago I will not >> respond >> to any of Mr K's postings (referring to the same basic freedom). So I >> filter out all messages by this sender as I am fully entitled to do. Now >> Mr. Kotsinadelis asks me a question which I am free to ignore. But what >> happens then. Now the cruisader against censorship becomes the enforcer of >> some self appointed rules, stating that I must answer his question and >> immediately so and if I fail to comply to Mr Kotsinadelis' demands I will >> loose any credibility I might have. >> This train of dialectical logic reminds me of the McCarthy period in the >> fifties. >> >> I am grateful for the many posts (public and private) of Luggers who find >> my writings enjoyable, instructive and informative. The many discussions >> resulting from my reports 'force' me to make them better through time. I >> learn from what people tell me. I write to inform and to evaluate. And I >> am >> a Leica fan. >> On the other hand I am deeply troubled by all these posts trying to >> convince Mr. Kotsinadelis and his followers. By responding we give >> substance to Mr. Kotsinadelis' stance. That is a pity. Some person noted >> that no one on the LUG should get involved in "Mr Puts' fight". Well I am >> not aware of any fight on my side. I conduct research on Leica image >> quality and report my findings on the Lug and elsewhere. If someone wants >> to challenge my content, he or she is free to do so. If one does not >> believe what I report, be my guest. I write for the large group of persons >> who like to share my findings and respond to its conclusions by phone or >> mail or letter. >> Now Mr. Kotsinadelis and followers: >> first of all: as a writer for Shutterbug Mr K. may know Mr Bob Shell. I >> talked indepth with Mr. Shell about my work and my background. Feel free >> to ask him what his opinion is. >> secondly: if you challenge my quality I would gladly invite you to comment >> in a rational way to my findings in any of my reports. If you find faults >> in my assessment, have proven evidence that contradicts or undermines my >> conclusions. I will be most happy to correct my reports. If you feel that >> my reports are too subjective to be acceptable, then go to PopPhoto where >> you will find any hard numbers to your liking or go to Photodo, which also >> has any string of graphics that supposedly are based on rockhard facts. >> Then study these graphs and numbers, compare them to my semi-standardized >> formulations and if you find my reports faulty, please tell me. I will be >> most grateful for your effort to improve the standards of quality of the >> Lug. >> >> As an aside: im my Report on the 70-180 I gave the following info: >> >> "BTW 1: I am not an employee of Leica. I just happen to have some interest >> in >> "the products of this company and use part of my free time to collect some >> "facts about some of the products. I get some help from the Dutch importer >> as >> "he provides me with samples of lense to test and I am allowed to use them >> as >> "long as I like. In the case of the 70-180 more than two months." >> >> >> >> Erwin >>