re: [Leica] ridiculously enough off topic to ensure everyone reads it

["S London" <srlondon@yahoo.com>]

First off, I think that you're really treading on thin ice by decrying the
rape of Mother Earth which takes place while producing the steel for a
mechanical watch with no further environmental burden after its manufacture
while ignoring the fact that one of the quartz beauties ejects a metal
toxin-containing pellet into a landfill every three years or so.

As far as your accuracy argument goes, every timepiece displays an
approximation, not the "right time" unless you are wearing an atomic clock
on your wrist or one of its radio controlled quartz counterparts (a tiny
majority of clocks and watches sold today).

In addition, Leica certainly has nothing to do with basic needs.  The entire
construction of the camera is overengineered for its use, not to mention its
lenses.  If we were going to do what was absolutely necessary to make
photographs and no more, we'd all be using $10 drugstore cameras and
donating the other $2000+ to charity.

- ----------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:04:00 -0400
> From: "Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com>
> Subject: [Leica] ridiculously enough off topic to ensure everyone reads it,
> was: R E: [Leica] Rolex/Leica
>
> You totally miss the point. Rolex watches are relatively inaccurate
> comapered to swatches, and the toll on the planet to extract that iron ore
> and convert it into bits of stainless steel (assuming we're not talking
> really silly gold) seems to me a little more onerous than getting the
> plastic stuff for swatches made from oil. But that is an under-informed
> opinion. Planetary toll wasn't the point of the message anyway
>
> Rolex marketing appeals to things other than our needs - a common cause of
> many problems in the so-called developed world. My point is if you buy the
> status symbol because you dream of being RF or doing stuff like that, fine.
> Don't tell me that you need similar performance characteristics in everyday
> life "normal broad operating conditions and environment". You don't need it,
> even though you may want it. Wouldn't you rather have a watch which told you
> when it was the right time instead of knowing it was kind of maybe near a
> certain time?
>