Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/25

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] <no subject>
From: Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:54:54 -0400

sam jotted down the following:
 
> But buyers who DO get defective equipment SHOULD post it.

Why?  What good does it do to post it to the LUG?  It doesn't remedy his
problem, it doesn't change Leica's practices, it doesn't have any
consequences for those going to purchase gear.  It's only function is
retribution for the poster and annoyance for the rest of us.

> And if it only occurs once every six months, why should that be a problem?

Well, if it's not a problem, why write ANYTHING about it at all?

> Your response intimidates others from posting "defect" messages

Good! 

> and if
> taken to an extreme, ANY kind of message that could be dumped to
> "it's in the archives and has been covered before", so it's a dead horse.

I think that most people are capable of making the distrinction between
raising an issue which has been discussed before, either in light of
something new, or because it was not exhausted before; and raising an issue
which (a) leads nowhere, (b) generates a lot of inflammatory messages, (c)
has been exhausted.

M.

- -- 
Martin Howard                     | Armored with good intentions and
Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU       | ignorance, one is impregnable to
email: howard.390@osu.edu         | learning.
www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------