The Sour Grapes Duo

[pklein]

Dan:

[chrism]

It's time for the two principals in this matter to keep quiet and hope it is soon forgotten. I'm willing to do my part (ie the forgetting). My respect for Sean's reviews and Mike's blog is intact and this will soon be ancient history.

Chris
Something about the internet amplifies the silliness of many an argument, and I'm sure there's a PhD in psychology waiting for someone with enough patience to study it.

[Vivek Iyer]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

I believe - and I'm prepared to stand corrected - that the poster was implying that you deliberately overreacted to the post by starting this thread in order to draw attention to your site.

That's my reading of it - and remember don't shoot the messenger.

Exactly what I meant.

Now, anyone has any thoughts on that M9? Or is it strictly pay per view?

(I am going to check it out when the dealer around the block has one available.)

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by chrism

It's time for the two principals in this matter to keep quiet and hope it is soon forgotten........

Chris - As a guess I'd say you haven't read this new piece from Mike Johnston on TOP titled The Ethics of Reviewing :

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...wing.html#more

................... Chris

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Chris - As a guess I'd say you haven't read this new piece from Mike Johnston on TOP titled The Ethics of Reviewing :

The Online Photographer: The Ethics of Reviewing

................... Chris

That, at least, gets to the question generally. It doesn't impugn anyone. If Howard had written something like that it could have been the start of an interesting discussion.

In a nutshell, my feelings on this are as I mentioned a little earlier today. As an individual, a reviewer has to decide whether or not he/she is going to report truthfully or not. The Leica press trip was nothing particularly glamorous and most of it was spent meeting with people at Leica. Press trips like that are common all over the place and, frankly, if a reviewer is influenced by something as simple as that then he or she is suspect to all kinds of influence.

In the end, people will use the cameras and lenses we write about. And either they'll see that we gave a fairly good description of them or we didn't. That's the litmus test. A reviewer can't cover everything but what he or she does cover should be basically on the money (and preferably backed up with picture examples when possible).

On the web, I often see these reviews that are mostly negative and people praise the writer for "telling the truth". But a writer who talks about, for example, "the M9's long shutter lag" isn't giving an accurate description of the camera. I've seen several cameras bashed by information that, in my experience, wasn't quite true. A reviewer who fails to describe a cameras strengths is, in my mind, as problematic as one who fails to describe its weaknesses.

I think the decision to trust or not trust a reviewer largely comes down to how accurately they've told the story. Once one gets the actual camera or lens in hand, is it as the reviewer said - more or less? That's the main thing.

That, I think, matters much more than all the factors that *might* influence a reviewer. The proof really is in the pudding.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

[The Ethics of Reviewing]........ If Howard had written something like that it could have been the start of an interesting discussion........

Hi Sean - Agreed; if started from a less frenzied place than where we've arrived. But I know you had to defend yourself, and from some of the posts I've read in the last 24 hours [not LUF mostly] I wonder if King Canute had an easier job trying to keep the in-coming tide from rolling in. There's a well known political saying here in the UK; 'a lie is half-way around the World before truth has got it's boots on', I think that pretty much describes how the internet functions at its worst, as has been your misfortune to experience these last days.

..................... Chris

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Hi Sean - Agreed; if started from a less frenzied place than where we've arrived. But I know you had to defend yourself, and from some of the posts I've read in the last 24 hours [not LUF mostly] I wonder if King Canute had an easier job trying to keep the in-coming tide from rolling in. There's a well known political saying here in the UK; 'a lie is half-way around the World before truth has got it's boots on', I think that pretty much describes how the internet functions at its worst, as has been your misfortune to experience these last days.

..................... Chris

Watch TOP for a new post. That may help to clear things up.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...log_index.html

I wish more people would be sure of the facts before they started responding. Thank you to those who did assume this was actually true.

Cheers,

Sean

[malland]

Mike Johnston has issued the following clarification on his blog –The Online Photographer:

I'm happy to say that Sean Reid of Reid Reviews and I have had an exchange of emails and have come to an understanding. He says I misunderstood him regarding the lawsuit issue. It's true that he never said "I intend to proceed with a lawsuit against TOP." What he said, specifically, was that he would consult with his attorney to see if what Howard French wrote on my site was "slander" (libel would really be the correct term) and actionable. I interpreted several such comments to be a threat of legal action against TOP. He says he never had any intention of suing TOP, which I accept.

We both regret the many misunderstandings and miscommunications that have characterized this disagreement from the start.

I still read and recommend Reid Reviews. Please note that at no time did I ever mean to impugn Sean's professional integrity, directly or indirectly.

TOP will continue to publish a variety of divergent viewpoints from a variety of guest authors and readers.

—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Scratching the Surface©

I've long had trouble taking Mr. Puts seriously but he just dropped another notch.

I'm having trouble taking Mr. Reid seriously but he just dropped a notch dragging TOP through this on this thread which is a mess.

[sean_reid]

I dragged TOP? You must be kidding because you've got it backwards.

You posted the link to TOP and started the thread here ..........you chose to drag this matter through this forum . You could have put a comment on your site

[sean_reid]

I wanted to call Howard and Erwin on their BS but that had nothing to do with this supposed lawsuit.

[bbrodeur]

What actions do you think? BB

[sean_reid]

I don't understand your question.

[ljclark]

Originally Posted by Dan States

Someone needs to find a major flaw in the M9 before we have a pundplosion.

(I am hereby coining the word "pundplosion" meaning the implosion of pundits upon themselves due to a lack of meaningful pundit-meat.)

Hmmm. "Pundplosion" sounds like the opposite, physiologically speaking, of the classic "cranial-rectal inversion".

[sandymc]

Originally Posted by pklein

There seems to be an underlying assumption that Leica paid for somebody's plane ticket. I don't recall reading that anywhere.

At least one person's ticket: Who Pays? - Luminous Landscape Forum

Sandy

[fajar]

What Mike Johnston said about the 'supposedly' lawsuit from Sean Reid and I quote from his website:

"What he said, specifically, was that he would consult with his attorney to see if what Howard French wrote on my site was "slander" (libel would really be the correct term) and actionable."



I don't know.... if I'm in a heated argument, someone would say he will contact a lawyer and see if there's anything actionable against me, I will take it as a threat of a lawsuit.

You just don't go saying to someone: "I'm gonna call my lawyer about this" and not escaping with the impression that you are going to sue that person.

Mike Johnston is certainly NOT wrong at all if he's under the impression he was gonna be sued, I think any normal person would think the same thing. It's really a shame assuming these two have a good relationship but yet one has to resort with "I'm calling my lawyer" thing when there's a disagreement (the comment was not even written by MJ and MJ frequently featured comments that he even disagreed)

I think what was surprising is to find out the real power of TOP and the support for MJ around the internet something that Sean Reid has learned in a hard way.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by fajar

What Mike Johnston said about the 'supposedly' lawsuit from Sean Reid and I quote from his website:

"What he said, specifically, was that he would consult with his attorney to see if what Howard French wrote on my site was "slander" (libel would really be the correct term) and actionable."



I don't know.... if I'm in a heated argument, someone would say he will contact a lawyer and see if there's anything actionable against me, I will take it as a threat of a lawsuit.

You just don't go saying to someone: "I'm gonna call my lawyer about this" and not escaping with the impression that you are going to sue that person.

Mike Johnston is certainly NOT wrong at all if he's under the impression he was gonna be sued, I think any normal person would think the same thing. It's really a shame assuming these two have a good relationship but yet one has to resort with "I'm calling my lawyer" thing when there's a disagreement (the comment was not even written by MJ and MJ frequently featured comments that he even disagreed)

I think what was surprising is to find out the real power of TOP and the support for MJ around the internet something that Sean Reid has learned in a hard way.

Come on! The participants in this affair have come to an understanding and you specifically enter this forum to fan the flames. Don't.

[dcoombs]

Yes, time to put this behind us here on the forum. After all, the principals involved have.

Doug

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

Not much of a vacation - mostly meetings and some time shooting. Most of my M9 testing was done in the USA and Canada. Press trips are common for all reviewers of all kinds of things, they don't affect objectivity unless one is not very committed to it to start with. In other words, there's nothing a press trip could offer me that would be worth the damage to one's reputation which would come from false reporting.

I do pride myself on being as thorough, fair and objective as I can be. That's not to say any one review of mine can possibly cover everything about a camera or lens but I try hard to describe the thing accurately. For Mr. French to malign my work without having read it does indeed piss me off.

Sean, my post was about the appearance of the relationships not about the reviews. I assume that your reviews are not pure science and that there is a lot of judgement in them and this is the area that gets cloudy. In my work I often get sent to scope out possible equipment for use by the U.S. Federal agency I work for. The agency pays for our own travel and I am not allowed to accept anything from the vendor, not a beer or a pretzel. This is because favors influence judgement. I have the idea that Leica had you over to Germany as a favor or they would have just Fedexed the camera to you to review. If you did a press trip for the NY Times then you'd go over there at the paper's expense and the paper would pay your salary and room and board too. I don't know the particulars of who paid for what but the appearance of this kind of thing is not good and is not professional. At the very least Leica had you over so you'd know them personally and know their point of view. I think the reviewer's job is to know the end user's point of view, period. This is all I intended to say and it is entirely aside from your reviews. Dan