Re: [Leica] lower classes don't use leicas?

[Barney Quinn <barney@ncep.noaa.gov>]

If this is how you feel then perhaps it would be best if you left.

Barney

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I tend to value the quality of discussion more highly than the number of people
> I can keep subscribed to a list; after all, if all one wants is numbers, it's
> pretty easy to build a list that will have tens of thousands of members, but no
> worthwhile discussion at all (cf. Usenet).  However, you may have different
> priorities, and perhaps having thousands of people calmly echoing each other's
> opinions on liquors, lizard-skin camera bodies, and the bokeh of 55-year-old
> lenses is more important and interesting to you than discussions of real-world
> Leica-based photography involving include actual differences of opinion among
> smaller numbers of more tolerant and individual participants who occasionally
> take real pictures.
>
> For what it's worth, I note that out of 1200 people, only a dozen or so post
> with any frequency.  Personal attacks directed at me attract attention only
> because so little else of substance passes over the list for weeks at a time,
> and most of it is small talk and people patting each other on the back.
> Virtually none of the active participants seems to be a real photographer, and
> very few of the examples of Leica photography I've seen here seem to be much
> more than test shots intended solely to redistribute the lubricants in someone's
> Leica gear.  In fact, I think that the overwhelming impression the average
> person might get from reading this list and its many off-topic or extremely
> esoteric threads is that Leica owners as a whole are indeed crusty old codgers
> with money but no talent who fiddle with Leica equipment because they can afford
> it and because they really don't know how to take decent pictures with it (or
> with any other brand of gear).  I'd almost say that the conversations I see here
> are doing more damage than good to the reputation of Leica and Leica owners, as
> they seem to involve just about everything except _Leica photography_.
>
> The only reason I've participated here at all is that I really do take
> photography seriously and I happen to own some Leica equipment that I like to
> use in that pursuit for a number of reasons (all of which are relevant to the
> art and science of photography, and not to status symbols, investments,
> collections of rare objects, scotch, obscure camera bags, the D-Day invasion, or
> anything of that sort).  There aren't too many Leica lists around, and very few
> people actually own Leicas, so my choices are limited, unfortunately.  I keep
> hoping that Leicas might become interesting to a more varied and cosmopolitan
> population of photographers, but I am not optimistic, and some of the drivel I
> see here would probably scare off a lot of prospects, anyway, as it reinforces
> the worst stereotypes of Leica owners.
>
> In any case, just remember that you often don't know what you've got until it's
> gone.  If you want a thousand dilletantes discussing how many angels can dance
> on the shutter-speed dial of an M4 over cognac and cigars in the lodge, you're
> on the right path; if you want any number of real photographers using Leicas
> discussing photography and Leica equipment, I think the train left the rails
> quite a while ago, and tossing anyone who doesn't want to follow the rules of
> the old boys' club will only make it worse.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Reid" <reid@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 23:41
> Subject: Re: [Leica] lower classes don't use leicas?
>
> > A year or two ago I booted Anthony from the LUG because his postings to it
> always made it a worse place. I may or may not have formed an opinion about his
> personality; my choice to remove him was based on the effect that his postings
> have on others. There are 1200 people on the LUG, and perhaps only 1 or 2 or 3
> of them consistenly annoy others. Anthony, for whatever reason, seems to annoy
> more people than anybody else.
> >
> > Anthony, I have no idea whether you understand the effect that your in-writing
> personality has on people, so I don't know whether you are doing it on purpose.
> If you are doing it on purpose, please take this as a warning to back off. If
> you don't understand what we are talking about, don't do this on purpose, but
> are simply doing what you do, then I have to warn you that I am seriously
> contemplating blocking you again. In this forum you are defined by what you say
> and not who you are, and what you say is, in my opinion, not valuable to the LUG
> in toto.
> >
> > One of the intriguing properties of evaluating people by what they say and not
> by who they are is that it doesn't really matter what email address you used.
> When "mxsmanic" joined the LUG, it was instantly obvious that this was the same
> person as anthony@atkielski.com.
> >
> > I've kicked about a dozen people off the LUG in the 10 years that it has
> existed. I normally don't even announce it; I just do it. The person vanishes,
> and nobody ever knows why. One person was kicked off for using an assumed name
> to say obscene things about another LUGger; I guess he thought I couldn't trace
> him. He has come back under a new email address but has totally behaved himself
> since his return, so his staying here is fine with me. You came back under a new
> email address and have not, in my opinion, behaved yourself since your return.
> >
> > I will decide what to do about 'the Anthony problem' this weekend. I would
> like to remind everyone else that 'express scorn with silence' is a good policy.
> >
> > Brian Reid
> > Barkeeper
> >