Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:42 PM 3/12/98 -0500, Tore Larsen wrote: >Gee, I think the Press was flowing over with anonymously "leaked" stories >these days. Didn't the Post just publish President Clintons deposition in >the Paula Jones case? Should we ask them to study their Ombudsmann page or >congratulate them on jornalism well done? You're confusing apples and oranges. The POST HAS a copy of the Deposition, and has quoted it at length: no one questions that they have this or its authenticity. To draw an analogy with the LUG, the cases would be identical IF someone here comes up with an official Leica document conceding that design has gone to the dogs and quality control is now in the pits, and reproduces it. There are times when a source requests anonymity: I have posted to the LUG comments that I am satisfied emenate from those 'in the know' and have set this out in my post. But these are on relatively benign areas such as release dates for new lenses and the like. Similarly, I have a great source over on the Rollei List who is quite well connected but who wishes to remain anonymous: he FAXes me factory documents which I then extract for the List. But, again, these are on harmless matters such as the part numbers for the adapters on the Mutar lenses. But anonymously citing some mysterious 'dealer' somewhere who has, at some time, made some hear-say remark is simply a worthless repetition of a rumour. Simply put, if you wish to cite someone, then cite someone. But, pray, don't simply repeat scuttlebutt! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!