Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There is no queastio in my mind as to Mr. Puts' independence. I have been enjoying Leicas since the !!!F was the current model. I think I have read everything he has written(and published) and one thing stands out. He could have used MY lenses for evaluation. Where in the photographic world can you see such consistancy. Even Zwis has good and not so good samples of the same lens. If your lens doesn't measure up then look at your handling of your equiptment. Kajabbi - -- Original Message -- >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