Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] The diatribes of Mr. Puts
From: Barney Quinn <barney@ncep.noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 17:51:01 -0400 (EDT)

And who, Peter K are you? For whom do you work? Nikon, Minolta? Canon?

Barney


>>>>> ""Kotsinadelis," == "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com> writes:

"Kotsinadelis,> Well Erwin,
"Kotsinadelis,> Since you won't be reading this reply to your diatribe and since you quoted
"Kotsinadelis,> the McCarthy era, let me point out that this reinds me of the OJ trial.
"Kotsinadelis,> Since you refuse to explain who you are, and people have told you not to
"Kotsinadelis,> respond to these posts (which I did not start by the way) it is only logical
"Kotsinadelis,> that you attack the questioner.  Its easier to attack a person to hide the
"Kotsinadelis,> facts, if indeed they are to be hidden.  It appears you have never found a
"Kotsinadelis,> Leica lens to your disliking, hence the questions. You are entitled to
"Kotsinadelis,> ignore my posts, so be it, this is your right.  All that was asked of you
"Kotsinadelis,> was who you are.  Outside of taking some girlie pictures that you post on
"Kotsinadelis,> your website (nice looking girls for the most part) we know nothing else.  

"Kotsinadelis,> Peter K

>> ----------
>> From: 	Erwin Puts[SMTP:imxputs@knoware.nl]
>> Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>> Sent: 	Tuesday, May 11, 1999 6:55 AM
>> To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>> Subject: 	[Leica] the dialectics of Mr Kotsinadelis
>> 
>> Mr Kotsinadelis seems to follow a dialectical logic. He professes to be
>> our
>> staunchest attacker of every perceived glimpse of censorship, especially
>> when he happens to note a glimmer of it in his self defined enigmatic
>> "gang
>> of five". He defends his right to say whatever he likes based on a simple
>> law of freedom that says that whenever you do not like his (or any other
>> persons) postings, you simply  ignore them or use the delete button. I
>> fully agree with this position. As I noted some time ago I will not
>> respond
>> to any of Mr K's postings (referring to the same basic freedom). So I
>> filter out all messages by this sender as I am fully entitled to do. Now
>> Mr. Kotsinadelis asks me a question which I am free to ignore. But what
>> happens then. Now the cruisader against censorship becomes the enforcer of
>> some self appointed rules, stating that I must answer his question and
>> immediately so and if I fail to comply to Mr Kotsinadelis' demands I will
>> loose any credibility I might have.
>> This train of dialectical logic reminds me of the McCarthy period in the
>> fifties.
>> 
>> I am grateful for the many posts (public and private) of Luggers who find
>> my writings enjoyable, instructive and informative. The many discussions
>> resulting from my reports 'force' me to make them better through time. I
>> learn from what people tell me. I write to inform and to evaluate. And I
>> am
>> a Leica fan.
>> On the other hand I am deeply troubled by all these posts trying to
>> convince Mr. Kotsinadelis and his followers. By responding we give
>> substance to Mr. Kotsinadelis' stance. That is a pity. Some person noted
>> that no one on the LUG should get involved in "Mr Puts' fight".  Well I am
>> not aware of any fight on my side. I conduct  research on Leica image
>> quality and report my findings on the Lug and elsewhere. If someone wants
>> to challenge my content, he or she is free to do so. If one does not
>> believe what I report, be my guest. I write for the large group of persons
>> who like to share my findings and respond to its conclusions by phone or
>> mail or letter.
>> Now Mr. Kotsinadelis and followers:
>> first of all: as a writer for Shutterbug Mr K. may know Mr Bob Shell. I
>> talked indepth with Mr. Shell about my  work and my background. Feel free
>> to ask him what his opinion is.
>> secondly: if you challenge my quality I would gladly invite you to comment
>> in a rational way to my findings in any of my reports.  If you find faults
>> in my assessment, have proven evidence that contradicts or undermines my
>> conclusions. I will be most happy to correct my reports. If you feel that
>> my reports are too subjective to be acceptable, then go to PopPhoto where
>> you will find any hard numbers to your liking or go to Photodo, which also
>> has any string of graphics that supposedly are based on rockhard facts.
>> Then study these graphs and numbers, compare them to my semi-standardized
>> formulations and if you find my reports faulty, please tell me. I will be
>> most grateful for your effort to improve the standards of quality of the
>> Lug.
>> 
>> As an aside: im my Report on the 70-180 I gave the following info:
>> 
>> "BTW 1: I am not an employee of Leica. I just happen to have some interest
>> in
>> "the products of this company and use part of my free time to collect some
>> "facts about some of the products. I get some help from the Dutch importer
>> as
>> "he provides me with samples of lense to test and I am allowed to use them
>> as
>> "long as I like. In the case of the 70-180 more than two months."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Erwin
>>