Re: [Leica] The Machiavellian LUG

["rlb" <rlb@triad.rr.com>]

Mike:

A.    Sorry, I didn't know that you don't have a Leica.  You never mentioned
this to me and I could care less if             you do or don't.

B.    Your mind is in overdrive.  You are making things up and assuming
things that don't exist.  Why an editor             of a major photo
magazine is  "laying their balls" on the line like this is a mystery to me.

C.    Mark has been a dependable and credible source of darkroom
information.  I trust his knowledge                     and his character.

D.    I don't recall ever discussing you or anything that you have said with
Mark.

I'll be damn if I am going to waste anymore time than this on these stupid,
unimportant and baseless assumptions.  I refuse to be sucked into this
childish game.

Over  and Out!

Bob




- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Johnston" <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 2:21 AM
Subject: [Leica] The Machiavellian LUG


> Ah, the little light bulb above my head just flashed on.
>
> I get it.
>
> I was puzzled by Mark Rabiner's post of yesterday, in which he taunted
> me at length about "my own" Summicron and whether I had been doing any
> shooting with my Leicas and so forth.
>
> Then I remembered something. A few weeks ago, I was contacted privately
> by Bob Bedwell ("rlb"), who offered me sympathetic advice in what he
> professed to be a "fatherly" vein (in fact he said twice that he wished
> he could adopt me--which I thought was a bit peculiar, but whatever).
>
> Naturally, in the way of cordial e-mails when people intend to make
> friends, we began sharing details of our lives and so forth.
>
> But then something strange happened; concurrent with our private
> conversation, Bob said something on the LUG about me in a curt and
> unkind tone, which I thought was strangely at odds with the persona of
> his private messages. He explained himself in private, but that sent up
> the red flares to me, so I brought my correspondence with him to a
> close.
>
> So when Mark's taunting message came through the Digest, I was
> mystified. Until I remembered--I had mentioned to Bob in private that I
> don't own a Leica. I said something like "don't repeat this on the LUG,
> or I might get kicked off!"
>
> The second thing I remembered was that Bob had explained his unpleasant
> comment about me by saying that it was meant to be in support of Mark
> R., who is his friend.
>
> So what Mark said yesterday was based on information about me provided
> to him by Bob, and was intended to humiliate me. I get it now.
>
> Mark probably assumed that the information I posted about Gary Reese's
> lens tests was an attempt to justify the fact that I shoot with Olympus
> and can't afford Leica. Which might be the way HE would feel. Only
> problem with that idea is that I don't shoot with Olympus. I shot with
> the Summicron much more recently than I shot with the Zuiko. I haven't
> had the Zuiko for years.
>
> Bob and Mark are playing Machiavellian games here. Bob falsely poses as
> a friend, plies me for personal information in private, then provides
> the information to Mark, who exposes it in public and imagines he has
> made some sort of coup.
>
> Which is pretty interesting. I have to say I'm amazed at the lengths to
> which some people will go around here to play evil games! You guys are
> sick!
>
> Unfortunately for our earnest Machiavellian duo, I don't care. Here's
> the scoop: I use whatever cameras I want to. I don't own my own cameras,
> except intermittently as the mood strikes. Right now I'm using a Mamiya
> 645AF, a Deardorff 8x10 with a Ries tripod, and a Leica M4 with a
> Nokton. Nothing but the Nokton belongs to me (a birthday gift from dear
> Mom), and I simply bought that because it will be a few months before
> THK would be able to provide one to me to try for free. Maybe next month
> it will be a Maxxum 9, a Linhof Kardan M, or a Contax 645. Who knows?
>
> Here's the main reason I don't own my own cameras: because I review them
> as a part of my job. I wrote our recent cover story on the Contax Aria
> (_PHOTO Techniques_, Nov/Dec 1999), and I write our year-end "World's 25
> Best Cameras" feature every year. I simply think that to write honest
> reviews, a reviewer needs to be using the camera in question on a
> day-in, day-out basis for real work. I don't think it's fair to "try" a
> camera in a superficial way and then fall back on one's "real" equipment
> whenever there's actual work to be done. The last job for pay I did was
> two weekends ago, a bat-mitzvah portrait. I did it with the 645AF. First
> time I'd ever used the camera. You learn more when you're under pressure
> to perform.
>
> In the interests of full disclosure, I have to say I *do* own a few
> cameras and lenses, but they're basically detritus: odds and ends, old
> junk that isn't worth trying to sell, or point-and-shoots that were sent
> to me to try that the manufacturers don't want to restock. I try to keep
> the cabinet cleaned out, but it gets ahead of me. And I do have a few
> antique cameras, but they're all heirlooms.
>
> So, dudes, nice try. (You're creeps, but nice try). Leica sends me
> whatever I want to try. I can get my hands on just about anything that's
> remotely of interest to me. The same is true for films, chemicals, and
> papers; enlargers, enlarging lenses, and other darkroom equipment; and
> digital equipment. Whatever.
>
> And in any case, it's more a responsibility than anything else. I got
> over the "toy store" aspect of my job back in the late '80s. But
> congratulations on your own good taste, guys. I'm sure your own
> photography is much better, and much more valued by gallery owners, book
> publishers, museum curators, photo editors, and the public, because
> you've got the right brand name on your equipment.
>
> I can only imagine how difficult it is for you to buy clothes.
>
> --Mike
>