Re: [Leica] Evaluation/ENOUGH CRAP ALREADY!

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

I just can't STAND IT any longer!

First of all, I don't remember Erwin CHARGING us for any of his information. 
  Therefore we have a choice to either accept it, or pass on to the next 
email. Getting our shorts in a knot over a comment on a camera only shows 
that we are all a bunch of bored geeks.

Second, opinions are worth what they cost.  It would best if responses to 
opinions were only as violent as the opinion was intelligent.

Third, if you can't say anthing good about someone on the LUG then delete 
their emails and shut the hell up!  This is not a discussion about politics, 
racism, literature, freedom of the press, repression of the underclasses or 
lesbian friggin rights.  It's about CAMERAS.  It's about Summicrons and M3's 
and shutter speeds and developers and all the really FUN stuff that 
shouldn't have grown adults pissing on each others pancakes.

Fourth, using someone's name as a Subject header should have one rule.  Once 
the ACTUAL subject of the note has changed to foot fungus or the value of 
talk radio, take the poor slobs name off the header!

Finally, I'm not sure what "qualifications" one would need to have to 
comment on the LUG. God knows I have read some of the smartest, and DUMBEST 
comments on the net here, and the only guy that I remember getting kicked 
off was the crackpot Anthony. ANYONE can join, and ANYONE can contribute.

For my part I have compared what Erwin has said on his web site and in his 
notes to this group to my OWN experiences and you know what?  He's pretty 
damned right most of the time.  For ME these are EXCELLENT QUALIFICATIONS. 
For that matter I have also enjoyed the comments of a LOT of folks here on 
the LUG, including Mike and yes, goddamit, even Walt.  I don't need their 
resume, their political party or their blood type to read and enjoy their 
opinions.

For whatever reason this group gets a wart hog up their ass about every 60 
days about something.  Let's start hitting the DELETE key, instead of reply. 
  (which is probably what I should have done tonight)

Best goddamn wishes
Dan States
Madison WI
>
>Mr Johnston wrote in part:
>"They're exactly the same questions I had to ask myself in evaluating Erwin
>as a contributor to _PHOTO
>Techniques_ (where evaluating the expertise and reliability of authors was
>a"continual part of my job responsibility).  My conclusion was that his
>expertise is suspect,............"
>This part of the story is remarkable. First of all the true facts and I 
>will
>stand to court to prove it. I wrote an article about the Noctilux and sent
>the text to Mr Johnston. He reviewed it and found it acceptable for
>publication. He even gave some flattering comments about it and would
>publish it without any alteration, except some English language changes. He
>never asked for any credentials and of any evalution procedure I am 
>unaware.
>If Mr Johnston checked my expertise and reliability as an author, I was NOT
>informed of  that act and he never gave me any indication that he 
>questioned
>my qualities or even would ask other individuals to evaluate what I wrote.
>If Mr Johnston had some evaluation procedure, and actually used that on me,
>he did not tell me and if he did it really, he never gave me the results. I
>must presume that I passed the test, because the article has been 
>published.
>After sending the text and illustrations nothing happened. Many months 
>later
>I asked him what was the status and Mr Johnston told me that he had lost 
>all
>the slides and even the text and he blamed his assistent for this. He
>specifically asked to send me the text and new illustrations again. This
>happened at leat three months after the first shipment. Now if Mr Johnston
>had an evaluation procedure running he had ample time and arguments to get
>rid of me. Still after several months he did not inform me of any such
>procedure, nor of any suspicions about my credibility.
>He specifically asked for this article as he was sure it would be very well
>received in the market.
>After publication of this first article, Mr Johnston asked if I would
>prepare a new article on the achievements of Mr Mandler and expressed his
>interest in continuing our relationship. He still did not mention any
>results of his evaluation, nor did he mention the fact that he was
>conducting an evaluation, nor was he expressing his doubts about my
>qualities. On the contrary! Mr. Johnston asked me several times about the
>Mandler article and I must assume that he did do this after being satisfied
>by his evaluation that I was good enough as a contributor to his magazine.
>To be frank: Mr Johnston NEVER asked me any question about my credentials,
>he NEVER said a word to me that his evaluation had given him second 
>thoughts
>about my qualities or that I was suspect as an author and he urged me
>several times to write more articles.
>I really feel unhappy about the way things are developing, but Mr Johnstons
>statement that he found me suspect as an author for his magazine after
>evaluation of my credentials, is a gross lie. I refused to write for this
>magazine, and he never wrote me a letter stating that his investigations
>into my credibility would force him to discontinue our relationship.
>I think that if an editor has evidence that a contributor is not qualified,
>he should not publish his articles. I have to assume that Mr Johnston did
>his research BEFORE he agreed to publish my article. Fact is that is has
>been published. I also assume that if Mr Johnston had evidence that I was
>suspect in his eyes as a contributor, he would have informed me and gave me
>the source of his trouble and would give me a chance to answer to these
>assertions. NOTHING of this happened.
>Mr Johnston NEVER told me he conducted an investigation into my qualities,
>he NEVER gave me any reports that gave support to his hesitance about me, 
>he
>NEVER informed me that he would stop using articles from me based on his
>evaluation and he NEVER even told me that he had information that 
>questioned
>my qualities.
>If Mr Johnston at whatever moment in time felt that my qualities as a
>contributor were questioned, I think I would be the frst to be informed.
>That did not happen.
>I have only two facts: Mr Johnston published my article and asked for more,
>specifically a story about Mr Mandler. That was HIS proposal, not mine, and
>as this came several months after publication of the Noctilux article ( an
>article that was more than 6 months in the making) I assume that Mr 
>Johnston
>had ample time for his evaluation. He did and I repeat he did not give any
>indication in all our correspondence that I was suspect as an author. In
>fact, he kept inquiring when my next article would be ready.
>If Mr Johnston's conclusion as he states it, is that my expertise is 
>subject
>and that he reached this conclusion when evaluating me as a contributor  to
>Photo-Techniques, I wonder why he published the article and why he 
>announced
>the issue specifically on the Lug and why he asked me several times to
>produce more articles.
>On a moral level, I wonder why Mr Johnston has never informed me of his
>investigations into my qualities, or about his results.
>I would never have disclosed these facts, where it not that Mr Johnston 
>felt
>it necessary to start acting as a presidential candidate. Well I can 
>testify
>I never have been convicted for being drunk at the steering wheel and yes I
>smoked mariuhana and used LSD and I am not a photographer. Now that he has
>found it necessary to publish this story in public, I can no longer be
>silent.
>
>Erwin
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.