Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/13

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Konicagate
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:39:32 -0400

At 08:31 PM 5/13/2001 +0200, Erwin Puts wrote:
>What we have here is the very classical case of negating the evidence, 

Erwin

What we have here is a problem of reaction.  You post your findings to a
List of some 500 members, give or take, and three react negatively.  The
other 497, I suspect, honor and value your findings as worthy of respect
and attention.  

Ignore the three.  Stephen Gandy sells Konica cameras or lenses, I suspect,
and has a fiscal axe to grind.  The Cummer Family have a long history of
seeking consensus and "hey, guys, let's all get along with each other, and
no one be firm!", while Dante has, on frequent occasion, shown himself to
be an insightful observer of things Leica, though I have often disagreed
with his conclusions.

Ignore the carpers, Erwin.  The nay-sayers are ignoring the worth of your
analysis and the depth of your expertise.  Thank you for the posting of
your analysis and conclusions!

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

Replies: Reply from Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> (Re: [Leica] Konicagate)
Reply from Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> (Re: [Leica] Konicagate)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Konicagate)
Reply from Stephen Gandy <Stephen@CameraQuest.com> (Re: [Leica] Konicagate)