Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Thank you marc:
In a message dated 1/17/02 5:30:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
msmall@roanoke.infi.net writes:
> I believe we are speaking of two different eras. My original posting was
> limited to the period prior to the later 1960's; your comments seem to be
> directed at the very period I admitted was when the change occurred, thirty
> years back.
....no we are speaking of the same period, but I am covering the entire
period, including yours. But thank you for trying to change the record.
> In any event, my Leitz literature of the era is boxed and not readily
> available and I am simply professionally swamped
.....I rather thought I would read something like that, in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Where's the beef?
>(surely, you recall those days, when you were still practicing law, though
you were >not, from your letter some years back, apparently ever a solo
practitioner, where
> everything must be dealt with by the lawyer and there are no hot-and-cold
> running associates to whom you can throw files)
.........thank you, marc, I am practicing law full time, and I have been a
solo practitioner since 1990, save for three years when I was counsel to a
New York City firm.
> But, trust me, in 1955, Leitz did suggest periodic CLA's
> and did, for that reason, offer training to franchisees in Leitz camera and
> gear repair.
I have quoted chapter and verse of every responsible, experienced Leitz
person from 1937 to the present date I could think of and contact YESTERDAY
AND TODAY to the contrary. And you want the reader to trust you? Please.
> I would be surprised if Jim Lager told you this was not the case.
.......I told you earlier today that I SPOKE TO JIM LAGER AND THE OTHERS
TODAY. Are you not reading now, marc? Or are you calling me a liar?
>I will write him, when time allows, to see if he holds to that position --
and, if
> he does, I will cheerfully put him in touch with folks who DID enjoy such
> training.
marc, don't put Jim in touch with folks who DID enjoy such training, how
about me?
Or how about Jim and me? But now, while we're talking about it, not in
September when you are less busy. That's your style, brother, dodge and bob
and weave and try to change the script. It won't work. As you say in the next
sentence, I'm too good a lawyer.
> I am surprised that an experienced and honored attorney such as
> yourself so frequently resorts to anonymous tips from "those guys on the
> telephone", but so you seem to do.
There you go again marc. Anonymous tips? You wanted names. I gave the list
names. It was today I spoke with them.
> In the case of Jim's statements, I
> strongly suspect you left a lot out of the discussion.
You can suspect what you want. I read him your post. You made a claim about
Leitz-trained outside repair people and a Leitz notice that Leicas should be
cla'd annually. What was there to leave out of the discussion?
>In any event, I will write him so that a written record exists, and I will
attempt to be
> fair in my queries.
You haven't attempted to be fair in this post. The written record is the LUG.
You wrote it. I answered it. The fact is, you're standing there with your
trousers around your ankles and it's embarrassing. It should be. And no
weasel-wording is going to change it.
> In any event, I would suggest that you and I quit sparring. You have
> nit-picked every major posting I have made on the LUG for some months, now.
> I have attempted to ignore your postings save when you begin attacking
> those, such as Erwin, who frankly need no defense from me but whom, in the
> interests of fairness, I choose to defend.
If pointing out that Erwin made a mistake is attacking him, then I guess no
one can ever correct the mistake of another. Similarly when pointing out
perfectly obvious inferences from his writings.
> I doubt if you want me to repeat here the ridiculous letter you sent me
> several years back threatening me with a defamation lawsuit.
......but you just did, didn't you, marc? No, it's ok, I don't mind at all.
Because what you put on the LUG then was defamatory.
>I suggested then, and repeat now, a suggestion that you renew your knowledge
of
> defamation law.
......and this comment from a person who not long ago on this list threatened
me that both Erwin and Leica/Solms were certain to sue me for defamation!
Tell me, marc, have you ever handled a defamation action? Case, please? Do
you try cases? Citations?
> It would be in the best interests of this List that we
> cease picking on each other and just ignore the presence of each other.
> In other words, Seth. Post what you might from here on, and I shall ignore
> it.
Your privilege.
> I request the same courtesy from you.
I do not think it discourteous to correct misinformation, especially on a
list like ours where people may rely on what they read here. And I have no
intention of refraining from doing so. I will make every effort in future to
do so without acerbity if you will do the same.
> I am entitled to hold my thoughts in private of your command of Leica lore,
and you >are entitled to hold your thoughts of mine.
Indeed we are.
>But, as I am certain at least one of your Law Professors told you, "don't
get into a >pissing contest with a skunk".
.......and you find that an acceptable way to suggest a peace treaty? marc,
what's the hell is really wrong with you?
>We both can withdraw from this contest with honor,
......while you're pissing on me?
> as we both can think ill thoughts in private of the other.
> Let us get on to important things. Just remember: if you disagree with my
> postings, hold your peace.
I don't think so.
> If I disagree with yours, I will hold mine.
As you choose.
Happy New Year, all!!!
Seth LaK 9
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html