Re: [Leica] How could we create a searchable LUG archive ?(was: Disguising my M6)

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Hi everyone,

I leave Joseph's post herunder because it illustrates very well our
capacity of repeating over and over the same threads with the same
arguments and counter-arguments. Life would be much easier if the LUG
archives were searchable in an efficient way and if we could refer the
newbies (and oldbies) to them. It might help us evolve a little as well
in our ideas and opinions.

Could we help the LUG web site evolve technologically ? Anyone here
knows how to master mailing list software in an efficient way ?

Alan.

Joseph Codispoti wrote:
> 
> Sam,
> 
> My answer may seems as dumb to you as the question by the originator of the
> threads  was naïve to me.  It was not meant to demean the owner of the new
> M6, rather it was intended as a wakeup call to those who, like lemmings,
> follow dumb advise.
> 
> Perhaps to many the act of painting, disguising, masking, uglifying or
> employing other means of hiding the brand or color of the camera for the
> purpose of fooling a thief, can bring a measure of relative security (false
> as it is).  To me however it seems only a futile effort and cannot remain
> passive when I see one more individual swayed by the powerful influence of
> the LUG on the inexperienced, the fearful and the naïve.
> 
> Ted Grant just lost his R8 and related equipment. It is sad and I feel for
> him. Do you believe that obliterating the logo would have spared his camera?
> Do you believe that a thief cares a rats’ tail if a camera is a Leica or
> anything else? Besides, an experienced thief would not be fooled by any
> attempt at deception.
> I agree that my response was sarcastic. It was meant to awaken not just the
> inquiring individual but others who might be persuaded to castrate their
> camera in order to keep it from straying.
> 
> Over the past two years I helped an elderly friend dispose of his camera
> collection. It was pathetic. Every piece (80 in all) were either heavily
> masked, mutilated, modified, and nearly worthless. All because dear old
> Herb, over the years had followed his own and other’s theory of how a camera
> should look in order to make it safe, or "better".
> 
> Over the months I have read of many who have bought a Noctilux just because
> it is "awesome", or has "incredible bokeh" or is "King of the Night" only to
> discover that it is heavy, it blocks the viewfinder and requires a neutral
> density filter unless it is used by count Dracula. One individual bought his
> to use it for beach photography of all things.
> 
> So people continue to spend incredible sums of money and do (or feel that
> they must do) outlandish things in order to attain Leica nirvana, only
> because the LUG gurus have it.
> 
> Yes it may have been a dumb response. I hope it made the point clearly.
> Joseph Codispoti
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sam alexander <salex@IDT.NET>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 3:30 PM
> Subject: [Leica] Disguising my M6
> 
> >Joseph Codispoti wrote:
> >Trade it for a Minolta, you might still receive attention but you will not
> >be paranoid.
> >JC
> >
> >IMO, a sincere question on the LUG, however trying or repetitious to
> >some, does not warrant a dumb response like the one given to GG by JC.
> >
> >
> >