Re: [Leica] anti-Leica-ism?

["Bruce Feldman" <brucef@ti.cz>]

Erwin,

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to answer the following questions, which I
hope you'll find relevant to the present discussion:

Precisely what is your relationship with Leica?  Are you in any way
receiving payment, gratuities, or other considerations which might
compromise your ability to render independent judgments concerning Leica
products and services?

The reason I ask is that I wouldn't *normally* find credible, say, a film
review written by a critic with ties to the studio.  I don't consider it a
question of dishonesty -- so please, I hope you aren't offended in this
way -- but merely one of human nature.  I wonder whether such a critic would
really be (consciously or not) totally free to express dislike for a film
from that studio if he felt so inclined.

You've implied from time to time an unusual degree of access to the folks at
Leica, and a seeming carte blanche as far as obtaining equipment to "test."
A full disclosure by you of your ties to the company would, I think, do much
to assist LUG members in assessing your posts.

There are those who claim that there is no such thing as value-free
research; ie, that bias inevitably seeps into the experimental process at
some point.  That is an extreme position and I'm not certain that I could
fully support it.  Nonetheless, I'm sure you'll agree that full disclosure
of ties could only help a credible researcher remain as such.

Thank you for considering this request.

Bruce Feldman
Prague



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Erwin Puts [mailto:imxputs@knoware.nl]
>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 1999 1:48 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Leica] anti-Leica-ism?
>
>
>This list nowadays seems to be dominated by a very small fragment of the
>group who are as blatantly anti-Leica as unjustified. We have individuals
>who profess their very obvious dislike of the Leica products, individuals
>who obsessively scrutinize anything Leica produces or announces to find
>even the most minor typing error and we have individuals who seem to
>believe that Leica's strategy and product range is focused on extinction.
>
>Now I do think a well reasoned and factsupported stance is to be wellcomed
>in a list that indeed might be inclined to see the Leica marque through
>tinted glasses and be benign to all kinds of errors the factory could make.
>
>I do think too that this list is composed of humorous, well educated
>enthousiasts for the Leica marque in all its aspects, technical.
>historical, and artistical. These hundreds of individuals deserve and
>demand respect for their expertise, knowledge and use of the Leica products
>and they also know how to get support and replacements if anything goes
>wrong with the product or when a product is defective. So it is with
>Porsche, BMW, Rolls Royce and Nikon, Zeiss etc.
>It is gratefully acknowledged as someone notes a defect that seems to be
>structural in stead of incidental. It is also gratefully accepted if
>someone has really factbased information about the marque and its  products
>to share it with this list.
>But the "i-heard-from-my-local-dealer-who-knows-a-Leica-rep-who-knows-..."
>type of topics should be presented in a responsable way so that everybody
>can assess as rumour.  If then somebody wants to make this topic into a
>thread we all can ignore it.
>
>This list might evolve into a mature and resourcefull body of Leica info
>(as I once hoped it would automatically  grow to this stature). We all
>share the responsibility to keep this list interesting. We should spend all
>this considerable energy (scores of posts a day!!) being focused on
>positive and constructive experience sharing about Leica.
>
>
>Erwin