Re: [Leica] The Machiavellian LUG

["Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>]

Necromancer necroshmanser. I don't need no stinking necromancy, I use
filters (thanks Jim) and I can tell you that four individuals (so far) don't
bother me no more.

With filters I don't need to read messages from he who needs to comment on
every issue, nor from he who has an inferiority complex and cannot stand not
having the last word. No longer do I  have to be subjected to the imperious
words of he who considers himself an expert on just about everything.
Finally I don't have to read the smart-aleck who needs a lot of attention
and tries to get it by responding to most posts in a corny and derisive one
liners.

Thank you Bill Gates for those wonderful filters.

Joseph Codispoti


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Buzz Hausner" <Buzz@marianmanor.org>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] The Machiavellian LUG


> Mike, Mike, Mike...take it easy.  Rest assured that your reputation among
> the lumpen LUG subscribers is secured by your thoughtful contribution to
> various discussions.  As to Mark Rabiner, certainly my least favorite
> contributor, I suggest that we take up a contribution so that the poor man
> can take a basic literacy course and perhaps earn his GED.  Failing that,
> perhaps we can hire a necromancer who can devise a spell which will simply
> make him shut up.  Trust me, regardless of his few vocal defenders, a
great
> many people share this opinion.
>
> Buzz Hausner
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:michaeljohnston@ameritech.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 5:22 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> 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
>