[Leica] Evaluation?

["Erwin Puts" <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Mr Johnston wrote in part:
"They're exactly the same questions I had to ask myself in evaluating Erwin
as a contributor to _PHOTO
Techniques_ (where evaluating the expertise and reliability of authors was
a"continual part of my job responsibility).  My conclusion was that his
expertise is suspect,............"
This part of the story is remarkable. First of all the true facts and I will
stand to court to prove it. I wrote an article about the Noctilux and sent
the text to Mr Johnston. He reviewed it and found it acceptable for
publication. He even gave some flattering comments about it and would
publish it without any alteration, except some English language changes. He
never asked for any credentials and of any evalution procedure I am unaware.
If Mr Johnston checked my expertise and reliability as an author, I was NOT
informed of  that act and he never gave me any indication that he questioned
my qualities or even would ask other individuals to evaluate what I wrote.
If Mr Johnston had some evaluation procedure, and actually used that on me,
he did not tell me and if he did it really, he never gave me the results. I
must presume that I passed the test, because the article has been published.
After sending the text and illustrations nothing happened. Many months later
I asked him what was the status and Mr Johnston told me that he had lost all
the slides and even the text and he blamed his assistent for this. He
specifically asked to send me the text and new illustrations again. This
happened at leat three months after the first shipment. Now if Mr Johnston
had an evaluation procedure running he had ample time and arguments to get
rid of me. Still after several months he did not inform me of any such
procedure, nor of any suspicions about my credibility.
He specifically asked for this article as he was sure it would be very well
received in the market.
After publication of this first article, Mr Johnston asked if I would
prepare a new article on the achievements of Mr Mandler and expressed his
interest in continuing our relationship. He still did not mention any
results of his evaluation, nor did he mention the fact that he was
conducting an evaluation, nor was he expressing his doubts about my
qualities. On the contrary! Mr. Johnston asked me several times about the
Mandler article and I must assume that he did do this after being satisfied
by his evaluation that I was good enough as a contributor to his magazine.
To be frank: Mr Johnston NEVER asked me any question about my credentials,
he NEVER said a word to me that his evaluation had given him second thoughts
about my qualities or that I was suspect as an author and he urged me
several times to write more articles.
I really feel unhappy about the way things are developing, but Mr Johnstons
statement that he found me suspect as an author for his magazine after
evaluation of my credentials, is a gross lie. I refused to write for this
magazine, and he never wrote me a letter stating that his investigations
into my credibility would force him to discontinue our relationship.
I think that if an editor has evidence that a contributor is not qualified,
he should not publish his articles. I have to assume that Mr Johnston did
his research BEFORE he agreed to publish my article. Fact is that is has
been published. I also assume that if Mr Johnston had evidence that I was
suspect in his eyes as a contributor, he would have informed me and gave me
the source of his trouble and would give me a chance to answer to these
assertions. NOTHING of this happened.
Mr Johnston NEVER told me he conducted an investigation into my qualities,
he NEVER gave me any reports that gave support to his hesitance about me, he
NEVER informed me that he would stop using articles from me based on his
evaluation and he NEVER even told me that he had information that questioned
my qualities.
If Mr Johnston at whatever moment in time felt that my qualities as a
contributor were questioned, I think I would be the frst to be informed.
That did not happen.
I have only two facts: Mr Johnston published my article and asked for more,
specifically a story about Mr Mandler. That was HIS proposal, not mine, and
as this came several months after publication of the Noctilux article ( an
article that was more than 6 months in the making) I assume that Mr Johnston
had ample time for his evaluation. He did and I repeat he did not give any
indication in all our correspondence that I was suspect as an author. In
fact, he kept inquiring when my next article would be ready.
If Mr Johnston's conclusion as he states it, is that my expertise is subject
and that he reached this conclusion when evaluating me as a contributor  to
Photo-Techniques, I wonder why he published the article and why he announced
the issue specifically on the Lug and why he asked me several times to
produce more articles.
On a moral level, I wonder why Mr Johnston has never informed me of his
investigations into my qualities, or about his results.
I would never have disclosed these facts, where it not that Mr Johnston felt
it necessary to start acting as a presidential candidate. Well I can testify
I never have been convicted for being drunk at the steering wheel and yes I
smoked mariuhana and used LSD and I am not a photographer. Now that he has
found it necessary to publish this story in public, I can no longer be
silent.

Erwin