Re: [Leica] (apo)logic

[John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>]

Maybe it is time to go off-list with this. One of my lines in the sand,
which I will not cross, is discussing the X-files on Leica-users! I am
afraid I do not see what is to be gained by killing Mike but who am I to
argue with Erwin!   ;-)

John Collier

> From: Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>

> 
> Mike wrote the following message:
>> Erwin,
>> You provoked this, not me, as anyone who has followed the thread knows
>> full well.
> 
>> Next time you want to talk about apochromatism, why not just leave me
>> out of it? I'm sure people are interested in reading what you have to
>> say all on your own, even when you are not employing me as a foil.
> 
>> - --Mike
> 
> Mike,
> To set a few things in proper perspective: you (not me) made some
> quite forceful statements about the apo-quality of enlarging lenses.
> I did not say a word and did not provoke this issue.  What you
> asserted seemed strange to me, but who am I? You are the editor of a
> photographic techniques magazine, and so you have infinite more
> resources and information that I have. You present yourself on this
> list as the editor of Photo-Techniques and so I do assume that your
> statements carry the weight of your professionalism. Now if you make
> statements of a highly technical nature and I am wondering what are
> your references to support this, I am entitled to ask you for an
> explanation. Again: you provoked the issue, not me.
> Your answer in fact boils down to a fragment of citation from a book
> by Ray, which you claim to be the definitive source. My studies
> indicate that the issue of apochromatic correction is not so simple
> as to support these fragments from Ray. So I try to explain this to
> the ones on this list who take an interest in this matter. If you
> from the beginning had given the full picture about "apo" I would not
> have jumped in. In all fairness: Mike, you provoked the whole story
> by stating the discussion, you gave information I think needs some
> counterpoint and now you are saying that I use you to talk about
> "apo". The "apo" discussion we had on this forum some year ago with
> Eric Welch and I gave my views then. As you know I never repeat my
> stories on the Lug, and would not have dreamed to rewind this topic.
> May I very humbly suggest that you stick to the facts in this case.
> Fact one: you made remarks about apo. Fact two: I asked for an
> explanation. Fact three: your explanation was insufficient to settle
> the matter. Fact four: I gave my views. Fact five: you tell me I
> provoked this and employed you as a foil.
> Inference from these facts: if you given sound information from the
> start the rest would not have taken place.
> A recent X-files installment has Mulder waking up to go to his office
> and on his way he goes to the bank, where a bank-robbery takes
> place.He is brave as usual and tries to interfere. He gets killed.
> Then he wakes up, goes to the bank and then remembers what happened
> before. So he tries to act  differently, but gets killed again. He
> wakes up a third time, goes to the bank and now acts so differently
> that Sculley is being killed. He wakes up a fourth time and now he
> goes to the root: now the the robber is killed.
> You see the lesson Mike?
> 
> Erwin
> Erwin