[Leica] (apo)logic

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Mike wrote the following message:
>Erwin,
>You provoked this, not me, as anyone who has followed the thread knows
>full well.

>Next time you want to talk about apochromatism, why not just leave me
>out of it? I'm sure people are interested in reading what you have to
>say all on your own, even when you are not employing me as a foil.

>- --Mike

Mike,
To set a few things in proper perspective: you (not me) made some 
quite forceful statements about the apo-quality of enlarging lenses. 
I did not say a word and did not provoke this issue.  What you 
asserted seemed strange to me, but who am I? You are the editor of a 
photographic techniques magazine, and so you have infinite more 
resources and information that I have. You present yourself on this 
list as the editor of Photo-Techniques and so I do assume that your 
statements carry the weight of your professionalism. Now if you make 
statements of a highly technical nature and I am wondering what are 
your references to support this, I am entitled to ask you for an 
explanation. Again: you provoked the issue, not me.
Your answer in fact boils down to a fragment of citation from a book 
by Ray, which you claim to be the definitive source. My studies 
indicate that the issue of apochromatic correction is not so simple 
as to support these fragments from Ray. So I try to explain this to 
the ones on this list who take an interest in this matter. If you 
from the beginning had given the full picture about "apo" I would not 
have jumped in. In all fairness: Mike, you provoked the whole story 
by stating the discussion, you gave information I think needs some 
counterpoint and now you are saying that I use you to talk about 
"apo". The "apo" discussion we had on this forum some year ago with 
Eric Welch and I gave my views then. As you know I never repeat my 
stories on the Lug, and would not have dreamed to rewind this topic.
May I very humbly suggest that you stick to the facts in this case. 
Fact one: you made remarks about apo. Fact two: I asked for an 
explanation. Fact three: your explanation was insufficient to settle 
the matter. Fact four: I gave my views. Fact five: you tell me I 
provoked this and employed you as a foil.
Inference from these facts: if you given sound information from the 
start the rest would not have taken place.
A recent X-files installment has Mulder waking up to go to his office 
and on his way he goes to the bank, where a bank-robbery takes 
place.He is brave as usual and tries to interfere. He gets killed. 
Then he wakes up, goes to the bank and then remembers what happened 
before. So he tries to act  differently, but gets killed again. He 
wakes up a third time, goes to the bank and now acts so differently 
that Sculley is being killed. He wakes up a fourth time and now he 
goes to the root: now the the robber is killed.
You see the lesson Mike?

Erwin
Erwin