Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What seems at times to get forgotten here is that while Erwin is a wonderful fellow, who clearly has forgotten more about optics in general, and Leica optics in particular, than most of us will learn in our life times, he is, in fact, a fellow just like the rest of us - a guy who is opinionated as all get out and who puts his pants on one leg at a time. We are, as others have pointed out, a quite disputatious lot - everyone learns that after reading a few hours worth of posts. It is a bit troubling that we are expected to respond to Erwin differently than we would respond to anyone else on this list - at times joking, at times praising, and at times saying "you're full of shit!" There is no question this list would be poorer for Erwin's absence, but, by the same token, it would also be poorer if it's nature changed to accommodate Erwin. And, let me add, as a reporter of many many years, that the questions raised by Walt are perfectly reasonable questions to ask someone who, like Erwin, seems to have such an "in" with a particular manufacturer. It's not insulting to ask those questions - but is rather bizarre to not have them asked. B. D. Jim Brick wrote: > At 08:30 AM 11/3/00 -0500, ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote: > >Your remarks regarding Erwin were uncalled for and really rude. Arthur > > > > I agree with you Arthur. > > Both Horst and Walt, for some reason, seem to delight in putting down Erwin > who is, indeed, completely immersed in the world of photography, has more > energy than most LUG folks, and is willing to discuss, in great detail, his > research findings, publish articles, and maintain a state of the art > web/information site. > > I don't get it? There is no need to write degrading posts about someone who > is providing us with information that we cannot easily get elsewhere. As > far as being 100% correct, Erwin's posts are probably more correct than > most of the information that is bandied about on the LUG from other sources. > > I remember Walt telling everyone that you had to take an M6 apart in order > to adjust the vertical RF alignment. I did correct him but had I not seen > his post, many would still be thinking that M6 RF alignment is a major > operation. Not true, of course. Like all other M cameras, it is through an > easily accessible hole in the front of the camera. Nothing has to be "taken > apart." It is actually very simple. > > Jim