Re: [Leica] Erwin Puts

[Robert Clark <rclark@desupernet.net>]

Maybe if you don't respond.....

"B. D. Colen" wrote:

> I know that some people are going to giggle, others are going to to choke,
> but, please....to paraphrase serial arrestee Rodney King -;-) -
>
> Can't we all just...LET THIS DAMN THREAD DIE?
>
> B. D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Dante
> Stella
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Erwin Puts
>
> I find it interesting that a lot of Europeans on the LUG get their stomachs
> in a knot when someone asks questions about conflict of interest.  Is it
> that Americans have different ideas about what a conflict of interest is?
>
> In the United States, the concept of a conflict of interest is impropriety
> or the *appearance* of impropriety.  You don't have to actually be
> influenced (or lie) by whatever drives the conflict -- it just needs to look
> like that possibility exists.  Call it a vestige of Anglo-Saxon epistemology
> (versimilitude), but it is a very powerful thing here.  In American courts,
> routinely get removed from juries for being 4th cousins to parties in a
> case, sometimes for being of the same profession as a party.  In American
> corporations, board members are required to disclose conflicts when the
> company enters certain transactions.  Some examples of apparent conflicts I
> have seen (and in relation to various reviewers):
>
> o  being given equipment, such as with Serial #0001 by a manufacturer;
>
> o  injecting references to products you sell in reviews of other products;
>
> o  receiving equipment on indefinite loan.
>
> One way to mitigate the appearance of a conflict -- and give your readers a
> chance to evaluate it -- is to disclose it.  To his credit, Erwin actually
> does disclose a potential conflict right on his Leica page:
>
> "Special thanks to Odin BV (Leica distributor in the Netherlands) for
> lending me lenses and other equipment for as long as I like or need."
>
> For BD, Erwin does not have to disclose other potential sources of conflict
> (i.e., junkets, paid trips) unless they exist.  Be this as it may, it is
> completely appropriate for Erwin to answer questions about these things --
> since it would actually *enhance* its credibility.
>
> For Erwin (and others) to conclude that such questions are "too personal" or
> "attacks" only raises more doubts in the minds of the doubtful.  While it is
> true that people are entitled to privacy, it is also true that they lose
> claim to that privacy when they come out in public (the M7 review also
> appears on a web site) and make statements that they expect to be believed
> by others.  Cross-examination is a normal and healthy part of truth-finding.
> People don't have to answer questions about their credibility or personal
> conflicts, but they shouldn't expect anyone to accept that refusal.
>
> As an aside, people wouldn't get so agitated (on both sides) if they spent
> far less time worrying what others thought of equipment and spent more time
> drawing their own conclusions.
>
> ------------
> Dante Stella
> http://www.dantestella.com
>
> >> Also, I find it sad that Erwin's integrity is being questioned like this.
> >> He certainly doesn't deserve this kind of treatment.
> >
> > I certainly got a very different "picture" of his character from that post
> > he sent to his mailing list.  I find it very interesting that some find
> the
> > questions asked of him egregious, but say nothing about the content of
> that
> > post.
> >
> > Austin
>
> --
> 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