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

["Sonny Carter" <sonc@sonc.com>]

Diagram that sentence , please.


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST


> Readers should be able to assess the independence of writers evaluating a
> subject whether it is an auditor reporting on a financial statement or a
lab
> reporting on the evaluation of some type of product.
>
> The questions posed herein are relevant to independence determination.
>
> Roland Smith
> Oakland, California
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:49 PM
> Subject: [Leica] QUESTIONS FOR ERWIN PUTS IN RESPONSE TO HIS POST
>
>
> > 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