Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I deeply regret this digression into political blathering. Don't read this unless you're a glutten for punishment! Marc James Small, after accusing me of defensiveness said, > First, the Soviets no more used 'stolen' equipment than did we. The gear > was war booty awarded to the Soviet Union as reparations pursuant to the > Inter-Allied Optical Reparations Committee of the Control Commission. > Nothing dicey here. In fact, when the Postwar dust settled, the ONLY > 'thefts' found to have occurred were those of intellectual property by the > US Government, for which Zeiss was later awarded some $3 million by the US > courts. Perhaps it wasn't "dicey" but it was theft. Governments take from some and give to others all the time. Theft is theft, whether commited by the state or by some hoodlum with a knife. The fact that "we", did the same is irrelevant. I go to great lengths to avoid purchasing anything subsidized by the stolen money of American taxpayers. > > Second, you DID say the following: > > >I think we're going off the deep end here. I don't know when the > >Nikon or Contax was discontinued. I believe the Canon was gone by > >1970 or so. But whenever it was discontinued, by then the other two > >were long gone. Many of the lenses available have fungus growing on > >them and still command ridiculous prices by collectors. > > Again, and as others have said, I am not aware that Zeiss glass has any > greater propensity for fungus than does Leitz glass -- and I have a slew of > both! > > Marc Again, neither am I. I never said they were. I should only have refered to new lenses. I should never have continued the discussion of used lenses. I'm really sorry I did. BOY am I sorry I did! As this has gotten so far off topic that I'm feeling ill, I'll leave any further discussions on this subject to others. Peter Jon White