Re: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

Readers should be able to assess the independence of writers evaluating a
subject whether it is an auditor reporting on a financial statement or a lab
reporting on the evaluation of some type of product.

The questions posed herein are relevant to independence determination.

Roland Smith
Oakland, California

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST


> Since you have chosen to responded directly Erwin - and I quite sincerely
> apologize for misspelling your name - I have trouble with my own - let me
> take this opportunity to pose a set of direct questions, which you can
> obviously tell me I have no right to ask
>
> Have you ever received any bodies or lenses from Leica that you have not
> been required to return after a normal period for testing?
>
> Have any of your trips to Leica facilities, or your stays in the areas of
> those facilities, been paid for by Leica?
>
> Has Leica ever financed any of your testing, or provided you with any
> equipment with which to do that testing?
>
> Have you ever submitted any of your test results to Leica for review prior
> to posting them public ally?
>
> Have you ever received any payments, gifts, equipment, of any kind, which
I
> haven't specifically asked about?
>
> If the answer to all my question is an unqualified no, then I, for one,
will
> take you at your word, 'eat crow, and offer sincere apologies for the
> statements I've made questioning your independence as a tester of Leica
> equipment.
>
> B. D. Colen
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Erwin Puts
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] M7 review and comments by D.B
>
>
> Some friends sent me a copy of an email to the LUG, written by Dr.
Blacktape
> that starts with this question.
>
> DR. BLACKTAPE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS
> QUESTION REGARDING ERWIN PUTTS' "REVIEW OF THE NEW M7...
>
> B.D., the name is Puts, Erwin Puts and I have no licence to kill, nor
would
> I want one.
> May I welcome you to that small band of individuals, who have over the
years
> questioned my credibility and independence . Every year or so, quite
> predictably, the same ritual is restaged. While the demagogic question is
> that I can not be independent and truly objective, as defined by any
neutral
> observer,(and I do presume that you would like to qualify for that post?),
I
> wonder what facts you have to support your answer that my prose is on the
> same level if not identical to press releases and ' endorsements
> from photographers to whom it [Leica?] gives free cameras'.
> You are not expected to believe anything I write. It may have escaped you,
> but we live in that priviledged area of the globe where free speech, free
> thinking and free exchange offacts and opinions are allowed. At least I do
> not expect this from you. If you feel (I do presume that the 'we' in your
> question is just academic?) compelled to have to believe anything you do
not
> want, I would like to ask you, when and where did I ever force you to
accept
> my findings or opinions. If the 'we' refers to your audience, I wonder why
> you want to question their ability to think and judge for themselves.
> Is it not ironic, B.D., that you want to think for others?
>
> The 'facts' you present to judge my prose as irrelevant are a remarkable
act
> of spin doctoring.
>
> "Erwin Putts gets an M7 ONE YEAR ahead of release"
> Where did you read that in my report. I noted that I tested a Leica M7
that
> had been in use for over a year and I said that I have been able to use an
> m7 prototype  during some time. It is some leap of imagination to merge
both
> facts into the statement quoted above. It might be tempting to conclude
> this, but would that neutral and unbiased observer not be careful enough
to
> inquire by the person who wrote the article if this conjecture is true. In
> fact it is not. You just want to believe this,as it seems to suit your
> purpose.
> Then you make another remarkable observation. I get an M7 "- when Leica is
> denying that there will ever BE an M7". I fail to see the relevance of the
> juxtaposition of these remarks.
>
> Then this really perceptive remark, that exposes my links to Leica.
> "He gets extensive tours of the factory prior to release, so that he can
> describe in worshipful prose the ancient sewing machines, manned by the
> skilled Portuguese seamstress sewing the shutter curtain".
> I wrote: "I happened to be in the Portugal factory when the first new
M7šs
> started to be manufactured.".
> Did I say 'extensive tours (more than one!)'?
> As far as I know many Luggers have visited the Portugal factory and
reported
> on their observations. Many journalists get factory tours in Solms and
> Portugal. So the very fact of visiting the factory is, according to your
> rules of neutral observancy,  credible  evidence of becoming an extension
of
> the PR-department. You have indeed exposed in stark detail  the subtle
> persuasions of the modern marketing conspiracy?
> Again, would a careful observer who wants to be "independent and truly
> objective", not want to verify his conjectures? Check and double check is
a
> scientific and journalistic rule. But not for you, it seems.
> When I do observe a detail, that  visitors before me did not spot or did
not
> deem important enough to report upon: that ancient sewing machine and the
> skilled and beautiful young worker (maybe I saw her first and then the
> machine?), does that make my report a Leica advertisement? You seem to
imply
> this as this seamstress is your strongest case, it seems.
> Again I fail to see why my genuine admiration for somebody's skills makes
me
> a suspect and un untrustworthy person. But then you claim to be a neutral
> observer, so please enlighten me why admiration for skills is suspect in
> your value scheme.
> You seem to imply that independent thinking is impossible after having
used
> a product in advance of the release date, after visiting a factory and
> observing a seamstress working on shutter curtains.
> I am deeply impressed by this remarkable imtellectual edifice you have
> erected! And by your followers who have jumped on this bandwaggon.
>
> Erwin
> Erwin
>
>
>
> Are we really expected to continue to believe that Erwin and his reports
are
> what any neutral observer would call "independent" of Leica and truly
> objective?  We would suggest that we should judge his reports just as we
> judge Leica's advertising materials, press releases, and the.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html