Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Facts revisited
From: leica@davidmorton.org
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:17:22 +0100

imxputs@ision.nl wrote:

"I am always surprised that anyone on this list can make statements without
any 
proof or with reference to that famous " highly knowledgeable and offiial,
but 
anonymous sources" phrase, without being challenged or asked to
substantiate. 
If I make a statement or do a measurement, my person is made suspect, my 
methods are challenged or I am forced, preferably by legal means, to dsclose

sources by name, rank and position"

You are not the first person who I have asked, politely, to provide the
source for information posted to the LUG, and I doubt you will be the last.

I asked that you provide the source. This is not an unreasonable request, as
*you yourself said* - in your post which can be found at
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v10/msg07638.html - that
"information with a high journalistic content should be treated as such". At
no time did I do anything other than ask politely for the source, I do not
know why you use the phrase "by legal means".

You must be aware that this is an interesting story, not necessarily for the
LUG, but for the wider photographic community.

The discrepancy casts doubt on a whole range of published reviews, in many
publications across the world. As such it is *particularly* important to be
certain of the facts, and of the sources of the information.

Asking for information about those sources *in no way* impugns the
reputation or authority of the person communicating information from those
sources.

- -- 
David Morton
dmorton@journalist.co.uk