RE: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST

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

Oh please, Barney. I have just as much right to express my opinion as any
one else, including Erwin. Nikon or Canon's guy? I own,USE, and generate
income Barney, with three M6s, a 21 ASPH, 28 Summicron ASPH, 35 Summilux
ASPH, and 90 Summicron. I love me Leica gear. I am a photographer who uses
Leica. I also use Nikon SLR gear because I needed it for the longer lenses,
and I want the 'do everything' flash capability, the autofocus for certain
things, and the ability, on occasion, to get really close with superwides.

IF Erwin is Leica's guy on the LUG, I certainly have no problem with that,
but I would like to know it. As ANY Leica owner who reads Erwin's review
would - or certainly should - want to know it: because it helps in judging
what's written.

In my last post I simply posed some very simple questions regarding areas of
possible conflict of interest. If, Barney, you read and rely on Erwin's
reviews to any degree, how could you NOT want to know the answers to those
questions?



- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Barney
Quinn
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:38 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST


BD,

Can this please, please be taken off list. If you don't like Erwin's
stuff take a pill, get a grip, delete the post, and get on with life.
It's only a camera. It's not Watergate or curing world hunger. It
certainly fails the Ted test - it doesn't produce a single image. What
if Erwin is Leica's guy on the LUG. Are you Nikon's with a stealth
mission to discredit everything he says? Who's Canon's guy? How about
the CIA's?

Where does this stop? Erwin's review of the M7 appeared on the LUG. You
raised some objections. Your right to do so. Erwin has responded.
Frankly I think that his reply is reasoned and well stated. You counter
reply. I experienced your reply as far more aggressive than is necessary
under the circumstances. You might want to tone it down some, because,
to be blunt, it appears to some that you have a personal problem with
Erwin.

Barney

"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

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html