Re: [Leica] lower classes don't use leicas?

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

I tend to value the quality of discussion more highly than the number of people
I can keep subscribed to a list; after all, if all one wants is numbers, it's
pretty easy to build a list that will have tens of thousands of members, but no
worthwhile discussion at all (cf. Usenet).  However, you may have different
priorities, and perhaps having thousands of people calmly echoing each other's
opinions on liquors, lizard-skin camera bodies, and the bokeh of 55-year-old
lenses is more important and interesting to you than discussions of real-world
Leica-based photography involving include actual differences of opinion among
smaller numbers of more tolerant and individual participants who occasionally
take real pictures.

For what it's worth, I note that out of 1200 people, only a dozen or so post
with any frequency.  Personal attacks directed at me attract attention only
because so little else of substance passes over the list for weeks at a time,
and most of it is small talk and people patting each other on the back.
Virtually none of the active participants seems to be a real photographer, and
very few of the examples of Leica photography I've seen here seem to be much
more than test shots intended solely to redistribute the lubricants in someone's
Leica gear.  In fact, I think that the overwhelming impression the average
person might get from reading this list and its many off-topic or extremely
esoteric threads is that Leica owners as a whole are indeed crusty old codgers
with money but no talent who fiddle with Leica equipment because they can afford
it and because they really don't know how to take decent pictures with it (or
with any other brand of gear).  I'd almost say that the conversations I see here
are doing more damage than good to the reputation of Leica and Leica owners, as
they seem to involve just about everything except _Leica photography_.

The only reason I've participated here at all is that I really do take
photography seriously and I happen to own some Leica equipment that I like to
use in that pursuit for a number of reasons (all of which are relevant to the
art and science of photography, and not to status symbols, investments,
collections of rare objects, scotch, obscure camera bags, the D-Day invasion, or
anything of that sort).  There aren't too many Leica lists around, and very few
people actually own Leicas, so my choices are limited, unfortunately.  I keep
hoping that Leicas might become interesting to a more varied and cosmopolitan
population of photographers, but I am not optimistic, and some of the drivel I
see here would probably scare off a lot of prospects, anyway, as it reinforces
the worst stereotypes of Leica owners.

In any case, just remember that you often don't know what you've got until it's
gone.  If you want a thousand dilletantes discussing how many angels can dance
on the shutter-speed dial of an M4 over cognac and cigars in the lodge, you're
on the right path; if you want any number of real photographers using Leicas
discussing photography and Leica equipment, I think the train left the rails
quite a while ago, and tossing anyone who doesn't want to follow the rules of
the old boys' club will only make it worse.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reid" <reid@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 23:41
Subject: Re: [Leica] lower classes don't use leicas?


> A year or two ago I booted Anthony from the LUG because his postings to it
always made it a worse place. I may or may not have formed an opinion about his
personality; my choice to remove him was based on the effect that his postings
have on others. There are 1200 people on the LUG, and perhaps only 1 or 2 or 3
of them consistenly annoy others. Anthony, for whatever reason, seems to annoy
more people than anybody else.
>
> Anthony, I have no idea whether you understand the effect that your in-writing
personality has on people, so I don't know whether you are doing it on purpose.
If you are doing it on purpose, please take this as a warning to back off. If
you don't understand what we are talking about, don't do this on purpose, but
are simply doing what you do, then I have to warn you that I am seriously
contemplating blocking you again. In this forum you are defined by what you say
and not who you are, and what you say is, in my opinion, not valuable to the LUG
in toto.
>
> One of the intriguing properties of evaluating people by what they say and not
by who they are is that it doesn't really matter what email address you used.
When "mxsmanic" joined the LUG, it was instantly obvious that this was the same
person as anthony@atkielski.com.
>
> I've kicked about a dozen people off the LUG in the 10 years that it has
existed. I normally don't even announce it; I just do it. The person vanishes,
and nobody ever knows why. One person was kicked off for using an assumed name
to say obscene things about another LUGger; I guess he thought I couldn't trace
him. He has come back under a new email address but has totally behaved himself
since his return, so his staying here is fine with me. You came back under a new
email address and have not, in my opinion, behaved yourself since your return.
>
> I will decide what to do about 'the Anthony problem' this weekend. I would
like to remind everyone else that 'express scorn with silence' is a good policy.
>
> Brian Reid
> Barkeeper
>