RE: [Leica] Erwin Puts

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

I know that some people are going to giggle, others are going to to choke,
but, please....to paraphrase serial arrestee Rodney King -;-) -

Can't we all just...LET THIS DAMN THREAD DIE?

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Dante
Stella
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:40 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Erwin Puts



I find it interesting that a lot of Europeans on the LUG get their stomachs
in a knot when someone asks questions about conflict of interest.  Is it
that Americans have different ideas about what a conflict of interest is?

In the United States, the concept of a conflict of interest is impropriety
or the *appearance* of impropriety.  You don't have to actually be
influenced (or lie) by whatever drives the conflict -- it just needs to look
like that possibility exists.  Call it a vestige of Anglo-Saxon epistemology
(versimilitude), but it is a very powerful thing here.  In American courts,
routinely get removed from juries for being 4th cousins to parties in a
case, sometimes for being of the same profession as a party.  In American
corporations, board members are required to disclose conflicts when the
company enters certain transactions.  Some examples of apparent conflicts I
have seen (and in relation to various reviewers):

o  being given equipment, such as with Serial #0001 by a manufacturer;

o  injecting references to products you sell in reviews of other products;

o  receiving equipment on indefinite loan.

One way to mitigate the appearance of a conflict -- and give your readers a
chance to evaluate it -- is to disclose it.  To his credit, Erwin actually
does disclose a potential conflict right on his Leica page:

"Special thanks to Odin BV (Leica distributor in the Netherlands) for
lending me lenses and other equipment for as long as I like or need."

For BD, Erwin does not have to disclose other potential sources of conflict
(i.e., junkets, paid trips) unless they exist.  Be this as it may, it is
completely appropriate for Erwin to answer questions about these things --
since it would actually *enhance* its credibility.

For Erwin (and others) to conclude that such questions are "too personal" or
"attacks" only raises more doubts in the minds of the doubtful.  While it is
true that people are entitled to privacy, it is also true that they lose
claim to that privacy when they come out in public (the M7 review also
appears on a web site) and make statements that they expect to be believed
by others.  Cross-examination is a normal and healthy part of truth-finding.
People don't have to answer questions about their credibility or personal
conflicts, but they shouldn't expect anyone to accept that refusal.

As an aside, people wouldn't get so agitated (on both sides) if they spent
far less time worrying what others thought of equipment and spent more time
drawing their own conclusions.

- ------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com

>> Also, I find it sad that Erwin's integrity is being questioned like this.
>> He certainly doesn't deserve this kind of treatment.
>
> I certainly got a very different "picture" of his character from that post
> he sent to his mailing list.  I find it very interesting that some find
the
> questions asked of him egregious, but say nothing about the content of
that
> post.
>
> Austin



- --
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