Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format

[Cmrausr@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/1/01 3:58:12 PM, mxsmanic@hotmail.com writes:

>Why doesn't anyone just answer the question?  Why do my questions get 
personal
>attacks in response, instead of legitimate answers?

Because you're questions are intended to provoke.

>Just what exactly is "brutal sharpness"?  If it has an objective existence, 
it
>can be explained, and that can be done without any resort to puerile 
invective.

The kind of sharpness which would make a female subject recoile in horror as 
every pore is revealed in a portrait.

>What I find here is that whenever I question something that appears to
>be pure
>mythology, I am assaulted by a tidal wave of emotional responses apparently
>intended to distract attention from the fact that there is no real-world
>basis
>for the myth (a tactic that doesn't work with me, in case you have not
>noticed).

Only your opinion works for you Anthony, apparently you are only interested 
in what you have to say.

>With respect to the question at hand, if Zeiss lenses are indeed "brutally"
>sharp (the implication being that sharpness is not a good thing), I'd like
>to
>see this quantified in some objective way.  I base my evaluations of 
equipment
>and images on objective information, not emotion, or myth, or hearsay,
>or
>good-old-boy networks. 

Aesthetic interpretation of images is not all about objectivity. Many other 
factors come in to play, and no, I'm not going to recite them to you.

 It would be nice if other people here could grow
>up a
>little, drop the personal attacks against me, and just answer questions
>and
>discuss issues in an objective way.  It's tiring to deal with people who
>behave
>like spoiled children on a playground.  It doesn't exactly enhance the
>image of
>Leica, either, since a disproportionate number of Leica owners (if this
>list is
>representative) seem afflicted by this immaturity.  No wonder the company
>and
>its customers get so much bad press (I'm just glad I pressed on with my
>discovery of Leica, anyway, despite the wailing children).

Not an objective way to look at the LUG, or the people who participate in 
this list, because of it's variety.

>
>I am unconcerned by all the off-topic bandwidth consumed by many others
>on this
>list--inane conversations concerning alcohol, war, politics, and the like--as
>I
>just skip anything that doesn't interest me.  Go ahead and ramble. 

 If you were unconcerned you wouldn't use words such as  inane and ramble, 
because you are belittling others with those types of reference, and being 
provocative with their use.

 However,
if
>you are going to respond to a post or question of _mine_, please keep your
>response on topic, and do not waste my time with some juvenile personal
>attack.

I don't know why you post questions to the list at all, since the only person 
with the right answer is Anthony. Perhaps you should form the LAG, --Listen 
to Anthony Group. Then restrict it's membership to yourself.

Scott