Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Alec said:I was wondering, too.
Here is an apocryphal answer : scroll down to
Patrick (Washington, DC) , apr 02, 2002; 09:47 a.m.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002hQi
Alec ,
Thanks for pointing out this link, I've read it and found it remarkable 🙂
Did not know that he is (like me) an independent Business Consultant in IT ,and that he is a co-editor of a photo mag too!
Interesting is that he felt the urge to defense himself publicly at p.net, obviously too many folks who have the same suspect which I have. And say it publicly !
His self-defence tho is adressed to those who still play in the sandbox, and those will be happy again to take it as a confirmation of their own biased opinion. What shall this ridiculous public declaration be good for ? Does he really think we do not know how one can pay somebody without leaving a track ?
Claiming that he , as he says, "would be a stupid a**hole" if he would take money from Leica and thus destroying his own credibility I consider as an offense adressed to my own intelligence.
I mean if I were marketing manager at Leica and EP would not exist I would invent him !! He is the perfect completion of what is called Marketing Mix !
Erwin Puts is a man of public interest, because he worked hard to get one and still works hard to stay a person of public interest. As a person of public interest, who does not spread opinions all over the web but hard facts as he claims, he has to expect to get under suspect if the continuity in his results is like it is and if he spends so much time and money in tests, which earn that name not tho seen from a scientific standpoint.
So for me it is neither amoral no a prove of bad manners to speak about a suspect publicly, which is really provoked by the results and the very doubtful circumstances of their origin.
Those in the sandbox will have another POV, of course, but who cares for their
hypocritical indignation ? Not me. 😛
Regards.
Bertram