Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Diagram that sentence , please. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html