Fear and Loathing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many British motorcyclists in the 70s and 80s reckoned that you had to kill at least one motorcyclist before you were admitted to the Volvo Owners Club. They seem to have reformed slightly since - or maybe others have got worse...

My favourite 'Sorry, mate, I didn't see you' story was told by someone who said, "What puzzled me was how he knew I was a motorcyclist, as I was driving a 32-seat bus at the tme."

Cheers,

R.
 
ferider said:
Being emotional about brands is just silly, and bad for the consumer since it limits competition. Plus, do we really give the right emotions to the brand, or do we follow successful marketing, feel what others tell us to ?

Take "Audi" for instance. Latin (imperative) for "Listen", or in German "Horch". You might want to check on war-time Horch cars and see who in Germany loved the brand ....

Roland.
Click to expand...
Dear Roland,

As I recall, Horch lost the right to use his own name for cars (sold the company or some such), so brought out Audi instead.

Cheers,

R.
 
ruby.monkey said:
I think it goes something like this:
  • There are many people in the world.
  • Some of these people are insane.
  • Some of these insane people express their insanity by tying their self-worth to the brands they own.
  • Some of these insane people who tie their self-worth to the brands they own, view a taste for different brands as an implication that 'their' brands are inferior.
  • ... and therefore that they are inferior.
  • ... and so they must attack these other brands (and the brands' adherents) in order to protect their own self-worth.
  • ... and, having done so, they can bask in the glow of being the stalwart defender of their brands against the onslaught of the unwashed, ignorant masses.
Or maybe they just need to go out and get laid.
Click to expand...

That was pretty classic. Perhaps its fear. What was that great line from the newer batman movie? "This is a world that you dont understand. And you alaways fear...what you dont understand."
 
Actually it is an interesting question especially with a bit of hindsight when you see how the followers of brands behaved in the 80ies and how they behave now. I remeber afriend of mine who was a camera salesmen loathing Praktica because itw was German and Miranda because it was a small company. Also people saying that Minolta and Canon were amateur brands whereas Nikon was for professionals (NOW that changed). To believe rather in a brand than in the best equipment for the job makes life easier as you don't have to worry so much.
OH yes therwas a German saying (i'll try to translate):
"One of the worlds biggest religions?
VW-beetle drivers they honestly believe in having bought a car"

PS: It's cheaper to impress people with a Leica since many mistake Voigtländers for Leicas"
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Many British motorcyclists in the 70s and 80s reckoned that you had to kill at least one motorcyclist before you were admitted to the Volvo Owners Club.

My favourite 'Sorry, mate, I didn't see you' story was told by someone who said, "What puzzled me was how he knew I was a motorcyclist, as I was driving a 32-seat bus at the tme."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

My favourite Volvo joke from the 70s and 80s:

What's the difference between a Hedgehog and a Volvo?

A Hedgehog has the pr*cks on the outside!

John
 
Roger Hicks said:
Attwo seems determined to pick a fight, and to come as close to personal insult as he dares, because he has a problem with the word 'Leicaphobia' and prefers his own interpretation of the English language to that of the Oxford English Dictionary. 'Morbid fear' is his personal fantasy. Which is why I've put him on ignore.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hey. Just to set the record straight here, those are YOUR "OED" words, not my fantasy.

Roger Hicks said:
First, look up 'phobia' in the OED: 'Fear. horror or aversion, especially of a morbid character. Psychol. An abnormal and irrational fear or dread.'

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Attwo said:
Hey. Just to set the record straight here, those are YOUR "OED" words, not my fantasy.
Click to expand...

Read what I quoted. Your chosen definition is given as 'In Psychol.', AFTER the other meanings. If you don't like the Oxford English Dictionary, go and write your own, and see if you can get it to command the same respect as the OED.

Choosing it as your sole meaning is indeed a fantasy, and flogging an extremely dead horse will not change anything. No-one except you accepts your definition as exclusive, so why don't you just give up? You say you are not looking for an argument, yet this can have been your only purpose in starting this entire thread: to prove yourself right, when no-one agrees with you.

If you don't like the OED, try Funk and Wagnall. One of their definitions (in the Encyclopedic Collegiate dictionary) is 'any strong aversion or dislike'. They don't give anything like the background that the OED does, but then, they don't have the luxury of 22 volumes. Can't find my Webster's -- don't really need it when I have a OED.

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
You say you are not looking for an argument, yet this can have been your only purpose in starting this entire thread: to prove yourself right, when no-one agrees with you.

R.
Click to expand...

I started this thread to see what the general feeling on the forum was like as I thought your sentiments a little bemusing.

FrankS explained this to some extent though I think that ruby.monkey hit the nail on the head:

ruby.monkey said:
I think it goes something like this:
  • There are many people in the world.
  • Some of these people are insane.
  • Some of these insane people express their insanity by tying their self-worth to the brands they own.
  • Some of these insane people who tie their self-worth to the brands they own, view a taste for different brands as an implication that 'their' brands are inferior.
  • ... and therefore that they are inferior.
  • ... and so they must attack these other brands (and the brands' adherents) in order to protect their own self-worth.
  • ... and, having done so, they can bask in the glow of being the stalwart defender of their brands against the onslaught of the unwashed, ignorant masses.

Or maybe they just need to go out and get laid.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to ignore me as you previously stated.
 
TLRs because I can never get used to the reversed image in the viewfinder. However (oddly) got a little GAS for one... No denying they produce excellent images.
 
I try to assess a camera based on what I see as it's utility to me, I have no love of dancing around Canon's, Nikon's, or Leica's choice of compromises. I look for cameras that inhibit my use of the camera the least. My choices are mine, obviously, but who likes having to sit at a computer longer than you have to? All the hype in the internet isn't going to decrease that time, or increase my satisfaction one bit. I don't like Canon, and I don't like Leica digital. I don't like Nikon digital all that much either. So.
 
Attwo said:
I started this thread to see what the general feeling on the forum was like as I thought your sentiments a little bemusing.

FrankS explained this to some extent though I think that ruby.monkey hit the nail on the head:

Please feel free to ignore me as you previously stated.
Click to expand...

Every now and then, I check the postings of those on my 'ignore' list (there are currently two of you, out of the whole of RFF), to see if I was too hasty. Your post about 'stay cool' looked mildly conciliatory, so I read another couple of posts. This was a mistake.

Like many people, you are reading what you want to read, not what someone else writes. The piece is about why Leicas can be good cameras for people who like them, and seeks to correct some common misapprehensions -- such as "You can't use lenses over 50mm" or "Leicas aren't suitable for use on tripods" or "Leica users are snobs and fondlers."

Where, for example, are you finding the 'stalwart defender'? You have ignore such phrases as "Fortunately there is a middle ground. It is this: if a Leica suits the way you work, it is a very nice camera. If it doesn't, it's a waste of money. Of course, you can say this about pretty much any other camera ever made. "

Or Some kinds of photography are difficult or impossible with a Leica, it's true. In particular, they are no use with very long lenses for sports or wildlife photography, or for macro, unless (in both cases) you use the Visoflex housing which converts them to rather eccentric SLRs: see The Worst DSLR in the World.

Or To be sure, there are some people who will prefer a Zeiss Ikon or a Voigtländer for specific technical reasons: a Bessa R4 for shooting wide-angles, perhaps, or a Zeiss Ikon because it fits in their hands better.

Or Leicas aren't perfect, and if you're expecting perfection, don't buy one. Anything made by man can go wrong: one of my publishers had a seized engine in the first few hundred miles of running a new Rolls Royce. But that's what guarantees are for on new cameras (and new Rolls Royces, and on second hand cameras and cars bought from dealers). Buy an elderly camera with an uncertain history, via the internet, and what can you expect?

Quite a lot of people enjoyed the piece. You declare yourself 'bemused'. Well, others are bemused at your attitude, too, not least at your rabid insistance that your definition is the only correct one, and your apparent determination to spin out an argument for argument's sake.

R.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom