Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B. D. Colen wrote: >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