Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: David Watson on February 04, 2011, 05:18:11 pm
-
I read with great interest and not a little sympathy about Michael's desire to be more commercial about this site. I am sure that we are all grateful for the many items of advice and excellent product reviews which have been done on, if I understand it correctly, what is strictly on a non-profit pro-bono basis. In fact I have made many purchases of printers, software and cameras and lenses based on Michael's excellent reviews.
But (there is always a but) I have a concern - not about 95% of the products we all use, and read about on Micahel's site, but exclusively about the pronounced bias that this site shows towards the products manufactured by Phase One at the expense IMO of the only other player - Hasselblad. Michael is aware of my views and that these views are echoed by many many photographers both professional and amateur. In fact we have exchanged emails on this subject and the root of the problem seems to be some sort of personality clash between Michael and the former chief of Hasselblad about the "closure" of their system. On this subject I think that many people accept the inevitability of all MF format systems ending up as closed systems and it is not the purpose of this post to re-hash these arguments.
We have just seen a series of sequential articles extolling the features and benefits of the new Phase One IQ80 digital back but to my recollection I have never seen a review of the latest Hasselblad system to enable me to compare and judge for myself. Given the imminent appearance of advertising are we to now have sequential product reviews associated with a variety of promotions and offers from Phase One?
Now I would like to quote Michael's own words when setting out his new advertising policy:-
About our Corporate Relationships
No one involved in the photographic industry as long as we have been can be apart from it. One gets to know a great many of the executives who work in it, and in some cases who run or even own the various companies that comprise the industry.
But, just because we know people and may even have personal relationships with some of them doesn't mean that we can not be objective. We have, and indeed have always had strong policies on loaners and test samples. Our policy on this is clearly stated in our Full Disclosure statement, which has been online for the past couple of years.
As far as our policy regarding advertisers goes, the rules are similar. There is a so-called Chinese Wall between our editorial and our advertising activities. Absolutely no preference or favoritism is or will be shown to any company or product, whether they advertise on this site or not. Period!
Michael Reichmann
Last Updated – January, 2011
One further quote from Michael's own bio.:-
My Biases
I have been a photographer since I was a child; more than half a century now. I teach, write, review and consult, but I am first and foremost a photographer. This makes my primary bias one of appreciating photographic products that help me accomplish my task. Ones that get in the way because of bad design, poor ergonomics, or sub-standard image quality are what I dislike, not companies.
I couldn't care less about "brands" and corporations, countries of origin, or anything that doesn't directly contribute to providing me with tools that do the best possible job of turning what I see and want to record into finished images.
Now I like and respect Michael admire his integrity and value his opinions in every respect but one and that his continuing animosity towards Hasselbald. If these statements are to have any substance I would ask Michael to bury the hatchet, put aside his past grievances and open the door to a fair and balanced review or opinion about the Hasselblad system.
As a final point I would just like to say that, although I am a Hasselblad user at present and value the many benefits of their system, I also appreciate that Phase One are a great company also with many fine products. Their respective systems just need to be compared, as Michael almost says on their merits and without any baggage.
I am not employed by Hasselblad or any of its dealers but just a part time professional with a great deal of admiration for both companies.
-
There is no hatchet that needs buying. I have great respect for Hasselblad. Any time that company would like me to test or review its products they just have to make the offer.
I also have no particular allegiance to Phase One. They have engaged my in dialog for several years, offered me products for review, and when it came time to buy a replacement for my Kodak DCS Pro back (used on a Hasselblad H1, I might add) I chose a P45 because it seemed like the best choice at the time. Since then I have become friendly with one of the VP's, but that's a personal not a business matter.
I switched to a Phase AF and then DF body because I was unable to stick with my H1 then H2 bodies because of Hasselblad's closure of the platform. I likely would have stuck with Hassy bodies and lenses if I had the choice. As did many hundreds if not thousands of otherwise loyal Hassy users.
I regarded Hasselblad's decision to close their bodies to other company's backs as bone-headed then, and nothing has made me change my mind since.
Finally, I have nothing against reviews of Hassy equipment. They just have never offered me any. Mark Dubovoy went out of his way a year ago to test an H3D II 50 Multishot (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml) on these pages. Mark is also an ex-Hassy user who switched for the same reason that I did – we tested and ended up preferring Phase One backs and then like me he got locked out of the Hassy body and lenses.
So – please get off the kick that I have anything against Hasselblad the company or Hasselblad the camera.
Any time they or one of their dealers would like to make their latest gear available for me to test, I'll jump at the chance.
Michael
-
I am a Hasselblad user
may be you can share your H w/ Michael so that he can review it ?
-
may be you can share your H w/ Michael so that he can review it ?
Good idea!
-
I switched to a Phase AF and then DF body because I was unable to stick with my H1 then H2 bodies because of Hasselblad's closure of the platform. I likely would have stuck with Hassy bodies and lenses if I had the choice. As did many hundreds if not thousands of otherwise loyal Hassy users.
My H1 system sits dormant in the closest for the same reasons, and I've just never gotten around to try and sell it.
-
Hi,
Everyone has a bias. Some stuff we like, some we don't.
That said, some companies do something very smart, they communicate. That is what Phase One does with Claus Mølgaard's funny videos with deeply frozen Pxx backs and so on. That is what Leica did when they invited a bunch of well known photographers to Solms and discussed the M9 and the S2.
Regarding Michael Reichmans's bias he wants to put the back of his preference on his camera. He also wants a camera that doesn't loose the front lens assembly in the middle of Namibia, and a vendor that would replace such a lens ASAP and without cost.
Another issue is that Hasselblad may not be the ultimate camera. Recently, Lloyd Chambers was testing a Hasselblad H4 and found it lacking in several respects. Above all, neither one of the two lenses he tested were satisfactory. He also tested the Leica S2. With the S2 he found usability issues but the lenses were in another league than the Hasselblad lenses. He demonstrated this with both images and MTF data. May be Hasselblad needs to work on their lenses.
Lloyd found the S2 much more suited to his kind of shooting than the Hasselblad. Right now he is testing the Pentax 645D, in his view the most workable MF camera this far, but he has issues with most lenses.
Hasselblad may be have the best set of accessories, they may have the widest options of rentals, be best at tethered shooting and so on, but they may not be the best for what Michael does.
As a final notice. This site is much about the experience by Michael Reichmann and his co writers. It's not a site with benchmark data.
Best regards
Erik
I read with great interest and not a little sympathy about Michael's desire to be more commercial about this site. I am sure that we are all grateful for the many items of advice and excellent product reviews which have been done on, if I understand it correctly, what is strictly on a non-profit pro-bono basis. In fact I have made many purchases of printers, software and cameras and lenses based on Michael's excellent reviews.
But (there is always a but) I have a concern - not about 95% of the products we all use, and read about on Micahel's site, but exclusively about the pronounced bias that this site shows towards the products manufactured by Phase One at the expense IMO of the only other player - Hasselblad. Michael is aware of my views and that these views are echoed by many many photographers both professional and amateur. In fact we have exchanged emails on this subject and the root of the problem seems to be some sort of personality clash between Michael and the former chief of Hasselblad about the "closure" of their system. On this subject I think that many people accept the inevitability of all MF format systems ending up as closed systems and it is not the purpose of this post to re-hash these arguments.
We have just seen a series of sequential articles extolling the features and benefits of the new Phase One IQ80 digital back but to my recollection I have never seen a review of the latest Hasselblad system to enable me to compare and judge for myself. Given the imminent appearance of advertising are we to now have sequential product reviews associated with a variety of promotions and offers from Phase One?
Now I would like to quote Michael's own words when setting out his new advertising policy:-
About our Corporate Relationships
No one involved in the photographic industry as long as we have been can be apart from it. One gets to know a great many of the executives who work in it, and in some cases who run or even own the various companies that comprise the industry.
But, just because we know people and may even have personal relationships with some of them doesn't mean that we can not be objective. We have, and indeed have always had strong policies on loaners and test samples. Our policy on this is clearly stated in our Full Disclosure statement, which has been online for the past couple of years.
As far as our policy regarding advertisers goes, the rules are similar. There is a so-called Chinese Wall between our editorial and our advertising activities. Absolutely no preference or favoritism is or will be shown to any company or product, whether they advertise on this site or not. Period!
Michael Reichmann
Last Updated – January, 2011
One further quote from Michael's own bio.:-
My Biases
I have been a photographer since I was a child; more than half a century now. I teach, write, review and consult, but I am first and foremost a photographer. This makes my primary bias one of appreciating photographic products that help me accomplish my task. Ones that get in the way because of bad design, poor ergonomics, or sub-standard image quality are what I dislike, not companies.
I couldn't care less about "brands" and corporations, countries of origin, or anything that doesn't directly contribute to providing me with tools that do the best possible job of turning what I see and want to record into finished images.
Now I like and respect Michael admire his integrity and value his opinions in every respect but one and that his continuing animosity towards Hasselbald. If these statements are to have any substance I would ask Michael to bury the hatchet, put aside his past grievances and open the door to a fair and balanced review or opinion about the Hasselblad system.
As a final point I would just like to say that, although I am a Hasselblad user at present and value the many benefits of their system, I also appreciate that Phase One are a great company also with many fine products. Their respective systems just need to be compared, as Michael almost says on their merits and without any baggage.
I am not employed by Hasselblad or any of its dealers but just a part time professional with a great deal of admiration for both companies.
-
There is no hatchet that needs buying. I have great respect for Hasselblad. Any time that company would like me to test or review its products they just have to make the offer.
I also have no particular allegiance to Phase One. They have engaged my in dialog for several years, offered me products for review, and when it came time to buy a replacement for my Kodak DCS Pro back (used on a Hasselblad H1, I might add) I chose a P45 because it seemed like the best choice at the time. Since then I have become friendly with one of the VP's, but that's a personal not a business matter.
I switched to a Phase AF and then DF body because I was unable to stick with my H1 then H2 bodies because of Hasselblad's closure of the platform. I likely would have stuck with Hassy bodies and lenses if I had the choice. As did many hundreds if not thousands of otherwise loyal Hassy users.
I regarded Hasselblad's decision to close their bodies to other company's backs as bone-headed then, and nothing has made me change my mind since.
Finally, I have nothing against reviews of Hassy equipment. They just have never offered me any. Mark Dubovoy went out of his way a year ago to test an H3D II 50 Multishot (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml) on these pages. Mark is also an ex-Hassy user who switched for the same reason that I did – we tested and ended up preferring Phase One backs and then like me he got locked out of the Hassy body and lenses.
So – please get off the kick that I have anything against Hasselblad the company or Hasselblad the camera.
Any time they or one of their dealers would like to make their latest gear available for me to test, I'll jump at the chance.
Michael
Thank you Michael - a positive and as always helpful response. I hope that Hasselblad will respond to your invitation and get you some equipment to try.
Erik - thank you also for your comments.
IMO when discussing these issues we have to understand what this kind of web site is all about nowadays. LuLa has moved beyond (well beyond IMO) simply a blog for Michael and his friends and colleagues. It has become something of an institution and many thousands of readers and contributors rely on it for advice and expect (reasonably in my view) impartiality. One can argue this point but once LuLa starts accepting advertising then we are in a different ball game and, again IMO, the site does not just need to be impartial it needs to proactively demonstrate impartiality. That does not prevent the expression of an opinion by the writer once all the facts are there. The reader can then make his or her own mind up and rely or not on the opinion of the writer.
Now turning to the issue of bias - we can have a positive bias (the site exhibits a structural preference for one supplier or another) or an inadvertent bias (the site simply does not mention a competing product). IMO LuLa has an inadvertent bias against Hasselblad because the contributors have not sought out products to review and Hasselblad has been less than proactive in engaging with the site.
Who loses by this? Perhaps Hasselblad but that is not my point as the real losers are the thousands of readers who are prevented from making their own minds up about the merits or otherwise of a particular product.
What would I like to see in this particular instance? I would like to see a new comparison of the two MF systems - cameras, backs, software, lenses and support not just a focus on which back is best. I am not qualified to carry out that test but a great article would be a head to head studio and location test of a Phase One p65 and Hasselblad H4D60 each with three lenses most used by pros in the studio and on location. This review IMO should set out the features and benefits of each system in respect of both types of shooting so that the reader can determine which is best for his own purposes. Michael says that he would welcome the opportunity to review the Hasselblad and I think that we can trust he to be impartial and objective in his comments.
Bring it on!
-
Hi,
Thanks for your careful comments. A few points:
Luminous Landscape is not a test site, it's about experience.
The Diglloyd site I mentioned does more meticulous tests, but Lloyd is also much about experience. The equipment Lloyd tested did not come out on top. In general I'd suggest that Hasselblad could do more to get favorable tests, like giving well known test sites well calibrated equipment to test.
On the other hand, if you are satisfied with your stuff, why do you need tests? Tests will never tell you what your experience would be with your equipment. Just take an example, the Canon 100-400 IS gets very good test results, but in many cases independent users are less than satisfied (yes, it's very convenient but not really sharp). It may be that the lens is very sensitive to wear. Testers get a brand new copy and get very good results, owners may then find the lens less than excellent. This is just a guess. But in the end what you have is what matters.
Recommended reading: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
Best regards
Erik
Thank you Michael - a positive and as always helpful response. I hope that Hasselblad will respond to your invitation and get you some equipment to try.
Erik - thank you also for your comments.
IMO when discussing these issues we have to understand what this kind of web site is all about nowadays. LuLa has moved beyond (well beyond IMO) simply a blog for Michael and his friends and colleagues. It has become something of an institution and many thousands of readers and contributors rely on it for advice and expect (reasonably in my view) impartiality. One can argue this point but once LuLa starts accepting advertising then we are in a different ball game and, again IMO, the site does not just need to be impartial it needs to proactively demonstrate impartiality. That does not prevent the expression of an opinion by the writer once all the facts are there. The reader can then make his or her own mind up and rely or not on the opinion of the writer.
Now turning to the issue of bias - we can have a positive bias (the site exhibits a structural preference for one supplier or another) or an inadvertent bias (the site simply does not mention a competing product). IMO LuLa has an inadvertent bias against Hasselblad because the contributors have not sought out products to review and Hasselblad has been less than proactive in engaging with the site.
Who loses by this? Perhaps Hasselblad but that is not my point as the real losers are the thousands of readers who are prevented from making their own minds up about the merits or otherwise of a particular product.
What would I like to see in this particular instance? I would like to see a new comparison of the two MF systems - cameras, backs, software, lenses and support not just a focus on which back is best. I am not qualified to carry out that test but a great article would be a head to head studio and location test of a Phase One p65 and Hasselblad H4D60 each with three lenses most used by pros in the studio and on location. This review IMO should set out the features and benefits of each system in respect of both types of shooting so that the reader can determine which is best for his own purposes. Michael says that he would welcome the opportunity to review the Hasselblad and I think that we can trust he to be impartial and objective in his comments.
Bring it on!
-
Hi,
Thanks for your careful comments. A few points:
Luminous Landscape is not a test site, it's about experience.
Hi Erik
Interesting stuff and very detailed thank you for the link. Couldn't agree more about having a properly calibrated camera for a test and have said as much to Hasselblad. I agree about the experience v. tests. THis is why I think that a hands-on studio and location test of both systems (with identical sensors) would give the readers the best advice.
Let's see what, if anything happens.
Best wishes
David
-
I'll weigh in cautiously! I don't believe that this site is set up to be the "Consumer Reports" on cameras, tools, etc. In my view the primary function is to provide a forum for discussion, the posing and answering of questions (even if one might not like the answer) and let the greater community know what is new. There are others out there whose sites are primarily designed to test stuff (and of course we all at some time take issue with their testing protocols and results). From time to time there have been head to head tests of things (most recently the Devlin/Segal MF comparison of the Pentax and Phase One cameras; and even that was pretty resource intensive on the part of the individuals who did the work). As long as we respect the fact that these tests are not designed to be the final word on "A" is better than "B", I think such postings are informative. I know from my own vantage point that I'm never going to own (or even contemplate buying), 98% of the equipment that is so heatedly discussed but nonetheless find the discussions fascinating.
-
What happened to the concept that a man's forum is an extension of his home?
Rob C
-
Hahahaha! That's a good one, Rob!
What happened to the concept that a man's forum is an extension of his home?
Rob C
-
Hasselblad's marketing is questionable in my opinion. The recent (Feb 4th, 2011) introduction of the Hasselblad online store is another interesting development. It basically offers an opportunity to bypass ordering from a hasselblad dealer and instead provides customers with the option of ordering directly from Hasselblad, without any commission going to a dealer and 100% of the price going to Hasselblad. This is a complete departure from how cameras are sold.
While you can indicate on the order form which dealer you work with, this is an option and not a requirement. You can simply say you do not have a dealer. This basially means that Hasselblad dealers are going to lose sales. How much remains to be seen. I don't see how this can help the relationship between Hasselblad and their dealers either.
-
Hasselblad's marketing is questionable in my opinion. The recent (Feb 4th, 2011) introduction of the Hasselblad online store is another interesting development. It basically offers an opportunity to bypass ordering from a hasselblad dealer and instead provides customers with the option of ordering directly from Hasselblad, without any commission going to a dealer and 100% of the price going to Hasselblad. This is a complete departure from how cameras are sold.
While you can indicate on the order form which dealer you work with, this is an option and not a requirement. You can simply say you do not have a dealer. This basially means that Hasselblad dealers are going to lose sales. How much remains to be seen. I don't see how this can help the relationship between Hasselblad and their dealers either.
Nikon has been doing this for some time and there have been several examples where new lenses were available from the Nikon on-line store before the dealers. Additionally, they were at full price and not the slighter discount expected from some of the mega-suppliers (you know who they are; one has a link on this site). I don't think this is such a new departure and is similar to many other products these days.
-
Hi Alan,
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the explanation. I suppose that if the manufacturer's site offers no discount then there is an incentive to buy from the dealer.
-
Hasselblad's marketing is questionable in my opinion. The recent (Feb 4th, 2011) introduction of the Hasselblad online store is another interesting development. It basically offers an opportunity to bypass ordering from a hasselblad dealer and instead provides customers with the option of ordering directly from Hasselblad, without any commission going to a dealer and 100% of the price going to Hasselblad. This is a complete departure from how cameras are sold.
While you can indicate on the order form which dealer you work with, this is an option and not a requirement. You can simply say you do not have a dealer. This basially means that Hasselblad dealers are going to lose sales. How much remains to be seen. I don't see how this can help the relationship between Hasselblad and their dealers either.
Hi Alain
Hasselblad have been selling direct in Europe for some time through their wholly owned subsidiary in London. Furthermore having dealt with a number of their dealers, many of whom have been dealers for many years, it is questionable in my view if they add any value. I suspect that this announcement is a precursor to a shakeup of their dealer network.
Dealers who genuinely add value by having demo equipment, accept part exchanges and have product knowledge will, I suspect, be supported and those who are simply order takers will not. Just a guess on my part but I think this is part of the ongoing evolution of MF camera systems as integrated solutions (camera/back/software) and the associated increase in cost and complexity.
BTW I am a huge admirer and have bought a number of your books and DVD's - keep up your very good work.
-
Hi David,
I agree that unless dealers offer more than just gear (for example real-life demos, teaching opportunities and the like) then it doesn't matter where you buy the equipment. It comes down to making a decision on the basis of price, and in that case whoever offers the lowest price wins.
What we are seeing with digital medium format marketing is a shift to selling on the basis of service instead of price alone. However, I don't see where Hasselblad is offering added service through their online store besides maybe getting hard to find gear quickly?
Thank you for your compliments on my work. I appreciate it.
Alain
-
Well we are drifting off topic here...
The new web store has been built in conjunction with the dealers and they will get compensated for sales going through the store. It also means that people without a local dealer can get direct support from hasselblad.
Nick-T
-
Best ad that I've seen so far is the one for "Casa Lula." Mi casa es su casa!! Well done, but I wonder how much the owner paid to run this.
-
Quote David Watson
One can argue this point but once LuLa starts accepting advertising then we are in a different ball game and, again IMO, the site does not just need to be impartial it needs to proactively demonstrate impartiality.
Unquote
Two points.
First, why does he NEED to be impartial? It is a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. Anyone one who uses a camera system becomes consciously or unconsciously biased towards it. If someone shows a bias then judge for yourself the merits of what is said.
Secondly if there wasn't any advertisements would this automatically mean that there isn't any bias in Michael's statements? The site started out as a way for him to make his opinions heard. Can anyone on here state that they are truly unbiased? :)
-
Quote David Watson
One can argue this point but once LuLa starts accepting advertising then we are in a different ball game and, again IMO, the site does not just need to be impartial it needs to proactively demonstrate impartiality.
Unquote
Two points.
First, why does he NEED to be impartial? It is a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. Anyone one who uses a camera system becomes consciously or unconsciously biased towards it. If someone shows a bias then judge for yourself the merits of what is said.
Secondly if there wasn't any advertisements would this automatically mean that there isn't any bias in Michael's statements? The site started out as a way for him to make his opinions heard. Can anyone on here state that they are truly unbiased? :)
This is an interesting point. Perhaps I can illustrate my own point of view with an analogy.
When most people read the news in a national newspaper they have a reasonable expectation that what they are reading is a fair and accurate representation of the truth. Whilst we all know that this is sometimes not the case most would argue that it should be.
Web sites like Michael's are really no different to a newspaper in that they are published and have a readership and now accept advertising. They may have begun as a medium for a proprietor to express a view or an opinion, biased or not, but commercial reality and, some would argue, a duty to the readership rapidly ensures that they try and tell the truth.
What is the truth as opposed to opinion? A review on Michael's site should clearly state the features, benefits and shortcomings of a product as a matter of fact and then in addition the writer's opinion. This enables the reader to make his or her own judgement on the facts and then include the opinion of the writer when weighing up a decision to agree/disagree and/or purchase the item. What is also expected is that products will be compared, with other similar products in respect of their respective strengths and weaknesses.
LuLa has become something of an institution in the upper end of the photographic market place and is widely read by a global body of photographers who reasonably expect the information on the site to be fair and accurate and in particular not be skewed in favour of one supplier or another particularly if that supplier is also an advertiser. IMO if that were to happen that could be construed as misrepresentation.
Now Michael writes very well and 95% of the content has and presumably always will be fair and accurate. There is one area however where there is a widely perceived bias in Michael's reporting and that is in the area of high end MF systems. Now why that bias exists and how it came about has been debated extensively and Michael has generously responded by stating that he is happy to address this perception by subjecting the equipment in question to a fair and honest appraisal.
I know that we all look forward to reading this promised review and Michael's, as always, entertaining perspective on the system. Whatever the perception is or was I do know that Michael will be scrupulously fair in his assessment notwithstanding his preference for the competitors system and their advertising spend on this site.
-
Quote
When most people read the news in a national newspaper they have a reasonable expectation that what they are reading is a fair and accurate representation of the truth. Whilst we all know that this is sometimes not the case most would argue that it should be.
Unquote
This morning buy half a dozen newspapers and read about the crisis in Egypt and then state which one is telling the "truth"? Getting back to the subject it looks to me that you are are trying to nail down Michael for stating something that is at odds to your own "bias". This isn't personal but we all have a bias? The obvious answer to all of this is to read what Michael states and find another half dozen sites to read and then make up your own mind. I have even read Ken Rockwell's opinions on camera matters - he is entitled to one - in making up my mind. This site is at the top - imo - when it comes to fair opinions. 8)
-
Quote
When most people read the news in a national newspaper they have a reasonable expectation that what they are reading is a fair and accurate representation of the truth. Whilst we all know that this is sometimes not the case most would argue that it should be.
Unquote
This morning buy half a dozen newspapers and read about the crisis in Egypt and then state which one is telling the "truth"? Getting back to the subject it looks to me that you are are trying to nail down Michael for stating something that is at odds to your own "bias". This isn't personal but we all have a bias? The obvious answer to all of this is to read what Michael states and find another half dozen sites to read and then make up your own mind. I have even read Ken Rockwell's opinions on camera matters - he is entitled to one - in making up my mind. This site is at the top - imo - when it comes to fair opinions. 8)
I didn't say that newspapers always tell the truth but I think most people expect them to at least try. I do not disagree that we all have a "bias" - BTW the word "preference" works better for me - and I do not disagree that 95% of the content on LuLa is first class. There is a subtle (or maybe not so subtle) difference between LuLa and a newspaper. Many articles on this site describe a product and people rely on the information published to make a purchasing decision.
Whilst I currently have a preference for Hasselblad as a system I can see the features and benefits of Phase One that would make that an attractive choice too. I am not wedded to my current system and could envisage a time when Phase One would be a better choice for me. However when and if I make that decision I would like to be able to rely on this site to give me the information and expert opinions to assist with my decision making process. That means being able to read a review and a comparison of the two systems. I don't mind at all if Michael expresses a preference for Phase One or that in his opinion it is a better system for him - that is his prerogative.
I also agree that I could read possibly reviews on other sites but IMHO this site is a much much better than the rest for this sector of the market.
-
Yes, personal preferences are unavoidable. One of the strength of this site is its disclosure policy. As long as they disclose relationships/circumstances around tests and reviews - and they have been very good in that respect - readers have the data they need.
-
But you public spirited guys miss the crucial point: Michael has stated ad nauseam that he does NOT do reviews, that doing so would bore him to death, something with which I can express total empathy.
It is up to the readership to accept that policy - or damn well discover it by doing more reading - and take the site for what it is: the best free lunch you are ever likely to get. Bon appetite.
Rob C
-
... take the site for what it is: the best free lunch you are ever likely to get.
Rob, I don’t mean to single you out, but merely to use your quote as a reflection of an idea I’ve read many times in this forum.
Yes, this web site is free, but so are most news and entertainment programs on TV and radio and most newspapers and magazines via the internet. My point being that just because something is free doesn’t mean it’s above criticism or expectations of behavior.
-
Rob, I don’t mean to single you out, but merely to use your quote as a reflection of an idea I’ve read many times in this forum.
Yes, this web site is free, but so are most news and entertainment programs on TV and radio and most newspapers and magazines via the internet. My point being that just because something is free doesn’t mean it’s above criticism or expectations of behavior.
Exactly!
-
There aren't many sites that would allow posters to criticise the owner, not once - no matter how justified? - but several times, even after the owner has given a detailed explanation of his thinking. A lot of them would have hit the delete button and the posters would have been none the wiser. I think this thread has run it's course? :)
-
Rob, I don’t mean to single you out, but merely to use your quote as a reflection of an idea I’ve read many times in this forum.
Yes, this web site is free, but so are most news and entertainment programs on TV and radio and most newspapers and magazines via the internet. My point being that just because something is free doesn’t mean it’s above criticism or expectations of behavior.
But it is free, and so I do believe that it is also free to appear in exactly the manner its owner(s) elect for it. None of us has paid a price of admission nor of purchase to read or write here. Criticism? We can all vote with our feet - as stamper suggests, we have a pretty tolerant host and to imply, however gently, that he might care to alter his thinking is not something with which I feel I can agree. Certainly not something I'd lose sleep about, though; I think Big Daddy is perfectly capable of looking after himself!
;-)
Rob C
-
There aren't many sites that would allow posters to criticise the owner, not once - no matter how justified? - but several times, even after the owner has given a detailed explanation of his thinking. A lot of them would have hit the delete button and the posters would have been none the wiser. I think this thread has run it's course? :)
I don't think we have been criticising Michael at all really in fact I for one have taken great pains to praise the many good things that he has done. If anything all that has been asked for is the correction of an ommission which has resulted in a perception of bias. Something that Michael has confirmed he is happy to do.
But I agree that the argument has run its course save for one small point.
Yes access to this forum is apparently free but not in reality. It is no more free than a free sheet newspaper or an advertising bill board. The payment is indirectly made by giving access to a group of customers through sponsorship and advertising. There are no free lunches anymore.
-
Criticism? We can all vote with our feet -
Rob C
Rob, does your rationale apply equally to all other free media or do you believe that this web site is somehow exempt from the norm?
What you seem to be suggesting is so far out of the normal expectation in a free society that I wonder if perhaps I do not understand your position.
-
As a regular reader of this forum and many other sites (which I register for BTW), I receive many e-mails about the products that I view and inquire about. I receive e-mail promotions from MFDB manufacturers and browse the on-line adds. I have never received a response from Hasselblad or a "spam-vertising" from them.
I'd suggest that the ball is in their court regarding placement of promotions and reviews.
-
Rob, does your rationale apply equally to all other free media or do you believe that this web site is somehow exempt from the norm?
What you seem to be suggesting is so far out of the normal expectation in a free society that I wonder if perhaps I do not understand your position.
I don't know what your 'norm' is.
My stance, more or less, is that whoever owns this site is free to do with it as he pleases. Period.
It strikes me that 'society' holds a large vocal group very good at sticking its nose into other people's business. It has been doing that for centuries, and I fail to see the benefits beyond just more of the individual's control over his domain being stolen from under his nose. I suppose an extension of your positiion concerning 'free society' may be that squatters are within their rights to take someone's home. I'd shoot the mothers, no questions asked and no quarter given. Same for Mr Bloody Wikileaks: a major threat to the order of life and the 'norm' of diplomatic behaviour, the necessity for which everybody understands and uses in their daily private life too. You can't survive without it.
As for other freebies, I avoid them; I'm willing to buy something if I need it and can afford it. This site is an exception to the freebie rule and I hope it stays that way.
I pee on the interfering busybodies that assume the representation of a society and claim to speak on its behalf. We've had them wring their knickers in dismay over Eva Herzigova saying 'hello, boys' and on and on ever since, right to today where they are trying to put their stamp of control on all advertising.
;-)
Rob C
-
I don't know what your 'norm' is.
My stance, more or less, is that whoever owns this site is free to do with it as he pleases. Period.
It strikes me that 'society' holds a large vocal group very good at sticking its nose into other people's business. It has been doing that for centuries, and I fail to see the benefits beyond just more of the individual's control over his domain being stolen from under his nose. I suppose an extension of your positiion concerning 'free society' may be that squatters are within their rights to take someone's home. I'd shoot the mothers, no questions asked and no quarter given. Same for Mr Bloody Wikileaks: a major threat to the order of life and the 'norm' of diplomatic behaviour, the necessity for which everybody understands and uses in their daily private life too. You can't survive without it.
As for other freebies, I avoid them; I'm willing to buy something if I need it and can afford it. This site is an exception to the freebie rule and I hope it stays that way.
I pee on the interfering busybodies that assume the representation of a society and claim to speak on its behalf. We've had them wring their knickers in dismay over Eva Herzigova saying 'hello, boys' and on and on ever since, right to today where they are trying to put their stamp of control on all advertising.
;-)
Rob C
Hi Rob
Always entertained by your quite frankly bizarre but strangely often entirely correct perspective on how life should be. Sadly that isn't how it is and you are not the "norm" and the "norm" has to be protected against those who are cleverer, stronger, more ruthless, richer, and finally have ideologically different perspectives. This does mean, I regret, that some "busybodies will inadvertently poke their nose in your business.
We have wandered a long way off the thread here but I would just like to disabuse you of one fallacy in your argument. There are no and never were any freebies anywhere. There is always a price. In the case of a free to air medium like this web site it is the willingness to be influenced by the opinions expressed here which, the sponsors hope, will direct your attention to their product rather than the other.
Keep the good stuff coming.
David
-
Web sites like Michael's are really no different to a newspaper in that they are published and have a readership and now accept advertising. They may have begun as a medium for a proprietor to express a view or an opinion, biased or not, but commercial reality and, some would argue, a duty to the readership rapidly ensures that they try and tell the truth.
Not all media is created equal. You think LuLa is like a newspaper? I don't...I see it more as a special interest magazine providing information, not news–although some info may be "newsworthy". There is a big difference between a reporter reporting the news and a writer writing a magazine article
A news story does indeed need to be a factual and accurate report (or should be). A magazine article doesn't have the same sort of strict journalistic requirements. An article is much more like an editorial. Pretty much all of the articles posted on LuLa are combinations of information and opinions. Only rarely does LuLa actually report news such as events that may happen at trade shows. And, as far as I know, nobody has ever accuse LuLa of misreporting the news.
Knowing the principals of LuLa, I'm very sure that advertising that may be placed on LuLa will have no sway on the opinions of the authors of articles nor the editorial direction. While some people may not be able to believe that, time will tell the story.
-
My stance, more or less, is that whoever owns this site is free to do with it as he pleases. Period.
Amen, brother!
-
Not all media is created equal. You think LuLa is like a newspaper? I don't...I see it more as a special interest magazine providing information, not news–although some info may be "newsworthy". There is a big difference between a reporter reporting the news and a writer writing a magazine article
A news story does indeed need to be a factual and accurate report (or should be). A magazine article doesn't have the same sort of strict journalistic requirements. An article is much more like an editorial. Pretty much all of the articles posted on LuLa are combinations of information and opinions. Only rarely does LuLa actually report news such as events that may happen at trade shows. And, as far as I know, nobody has ever accuse LuLa of misreporting the news.
Knowing the principals of LuLa, I'm very sure that advertising that may be placed on LuLa will have no sway on the opinions of the authors of articles nor the editorial direction. While some people may not be able to believe that, time will tell the story.
You are quite correct LuLa is not a newspaper but it is a medium for communicating information which people rely on when making decisions about what or not to buy. Where that information is incomplete or biased then it is not information it is misinformation - some would say propaganda. Furthermore once a medium accepts paid for advertising it is not enough to simply say that advertising will not sway opinions it has to be proactively demonstrated by being open to opinions and facts that may not sit comfortably with the preferences of the principals.
-
Amen, brother!
Where do you draw the line?
-
Where do you draw the line?
Is anybody forcing you to visit Michael's site?
I am totally with Rob C and Tokengirl on this: "My stance, more or less, is that whoever owns this site is free to do with it as he pleases. Period."
Eric
-
Where that information is incomplete or biased then it is not information it is misinformation - some would say propaganda.
Well, at least you now accept that LuLa doesn't have to behave like a newspaper...the problem I see is you have an agenda about your perception that Mike is anti-Hasselblad which actually I dispute. Mike would LOVE to love Hasselblad in fact used to love Hasselblad until Christian Poulsen decided to close the system.
I'm still pissed that Hasselblad closed their system because about that same time, Imacon/Hasselblad also quit supporting DNG as an option in their backs. They HAD it in the backs and a firmware update removed DNG as an option...they "claimed" it was because DNG was deficient even though they never even tried to talk to Thomas Knoll about support for their lens data inside of DNG–which of course, DNG can now support but Hasselblad has not returned to offer DNG as an option.
So far, other than getting rid of Christian, Hasselblad hasn't changed. Which is why Mike bought a Phase One and so did I. What, you want us to NOT use our equipment? Should Mike NOT write about Phase One?
You saw Mike's response (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50982.msg421079#msg421079) up–thread. What part of that don't you understand or believe?
-
Well, at least you now accept that LuLa doesn't have to behave like a newspaper...the problem I see is you have an agenda about your perception that Mike is anti-Hasselblad which actually I dispute. Mike would LOVE to love Hasselblad in fact used to love Hasselblad until Christian Poulsen decided to close the system.
I'm still pissed that Hasselblad closed their system because about that same time, Imacon/Hasselblad also quit supporting DNG as an option in their backs. They HAD it in the backs and a firmware update removed DNG as an option...they "claimed" it was because DNG was deficient even though they never even tried to talk to Thomas Knoll about support for their lens data inside of DNG–which of course, DNG can now support but Hasselblad has not returned to offer DNG as an option.
So far, other than getting rid of Christian, Hasselblad hasn't changed. Which is why Mike bought a Phase One and so did I. What, you want us to NOT use our equipment? Should Mike NOT write about Phase One?
You saw Mike's response (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50982.msg421079#msg421079) up–thread. What part of that don't you understand or believe?
Not at all - what you guys use and talk about is your affair. I would just like to see an end to the being pissed off with Hasselblad thing. Christian is history, life is too short and the large number of ongoing Hasselblad users out their would, I am sure, love to hear Michael's opinions of their equipment without going over old ground again.
-
I would just like to see an end to the being pissed off with Hasselblad thing.
Why? Has Hasselblad changed? As long as the situation remains the same, the reasons for being pissed off remain. Exactly how do you get un-pissed off if no change occurs? Heck, I've sold all my 'Blad equipment, there's really no going back for me.
So, it seems that you're still sticking to your personal agenda...at least you let LuLa off the hook for being held to the same journalistic requirements as a newspaper. Mike has indicated a willingness to try a Hasselblad again. Maybe Hasselblad will take notice and make that happen. If the company doesn't, are you suggesting Mike buy a Hasselbald on his own? I think we've already covered that ground, right?
LuLa is under no obligation to be anything other that what it has been...a source of useful information if it fits your needs. If not, move on.
-
Why? Has Hasselblad changed? As long as the situation remains the same, the reasons for being pissed off remain. Exactly how do you get un-pissed off if no change occurs? Heck, I've sold all my 'Blad equipment, there's really no going back for me.
So, it seems that you're still sticking to your personal agenda...at least you let LuLa off the hook for being held to the same journalistic requirements as a newspaper. Mike has indicated a willingness to try a Hasselblad again. Maybe Hasselblad will take notice and make that happen. If the company doesn't, are you suggesting Mike buy a Hasselbald on his own? I think we've already covered that ground, right?
LuLa is under no obligation to be anything other that what it has been...a source of useful information if it fits your needs. If not, move on.
Yes Hasselblad has changed; changed its management and upped its game technically and commercially IMO. I don't think they will be going back to an open system any time soon and I don't think they should as they would be the losers. Anyway my guess is that P1 is heading in just the same direction.
No I don't expect you or Mike to buy a Hasselblad and have never suggested that should happen.
Yes I think Hasselblad should supply a system for review and I think that this in the best interests of LuLa's audience (apart from the "pissed off" brigade)
Will they? I hope so.
BTW I got pissed off with a car manufacturer many years ago and vowed never to buy another car from them; time passed; management changed; new models came out and I realised that the only person I was hurting by continuing to be pissed off was myself so I bought another car from them and have continued to do so. I guess I sort of grew up and learned the value of an open mind.
-
Yes I think Hasselblad should supply a system for review and I think that this in the best interests of LuLa's audience (apart from the "pissed off" brigade)
Will they? I hope so.
Might I respectfully suggest that you should perhaps be talking to Hasselblad rather to LuLa?
Eric
-
I suppose an extension of your positiion concerning 'free society' may be that squatters are within their rights to take someone's home. I'd shoot the mothers, no questions asked and no quarter given. Same for Mr Bloody Wikileaks: ...
Rob, you leaped, from a discussion about whether free media should be exempt from criticism, to home invasions and killing people. Who can argue with such logic?
I’m still a little confused, however. You seem to say that free web sites should be exempt from criticism, but at the same time you criticize Wikileaks, a free web site. So, which is it? Should free web sites and other free media be exempt from criticism, or maybe you’re just exempt from the standards you want others to follow?
As for other freebies, I avoid them; I'm willing to buy something if I need it and can afford it. This site is an exception to the freebie rule and I hope it stays that way.
So, Rob, I take it that you don’t watch TV, listen to radio, read newspapers or magazines on line, or visit web sites, if they are freebies? You must live a very sheltered life indeed.
-
... just because something is free doesn’t mean it’s above criticism or expectations of behavior.
And when exactly has this site been closed for criticism?
Some threads do get locked when they run their course, and they do so when the only reason OP continues to badger everyone else is to satisfy his desperate need for attention, hearing his own voice and admiring the beauty of his own arguments. Which, coincidentally, appears to be the course this thread is taking.
-
... so far out of the normal expectation in a free society...
And which "normal" expectation would that be? The sense of entitlement that someone is obliged to take care of you, protect you from your own decisions, shield you from responsibility for your own actions, provide you with an "objective", "unbiased" opinion so that you do not have to do your own legwork of comparing other opinions, other sources and yourself analyzing the facts? And that "someone" is supposed to do it at their own expense? And proactively demonstrate they have your best interest at heart?
-
... how life should be. Sadly that isn't how it is and you are not the "norm" and the "norm" has to be protected against those who are cleverer, stronger, more ruthless, richer, and finally have ideologically different perspectives. This does mean, I regret, that some "busybodies will inadvertently poke their nose in your business...
Ah, have not heard such an eloquent socialist manifesto for quite some time.
-
... a duty to the readership rapidly ensures that they try and tell the truth.
What is the truth as opposed to opinion? A review on David Watson's site should clearly state the features, benefits and shortcomings of a product as a matter of fact and then in addition the writer's opinion. This enables the reader to make his or her own judgement on the facts and then include the opinion of the writer when weighing up a decision to agree/disagree and/or purchase the item. What is also expected is that products will be compared, with other similar products in respect of their respective strengths and weaknesses...
Strangely, as much as I tried, I could not find your review site on the web. An alpha/beta stage perhaps? Not yet open to the public? I am looking forward to its public premiere though, and heck, might even consider paying for such high standards, objectivity and lack of bias. So, please keep us posted.
-
1. Rob, you leaped, from a discussion about whether free media should be exempt from criticism, to home invasions and killing people. Who can argue with such logic?I’m still a little confused, however. You seem to say that free web sites should be exempt from criticism,2. but at the same time you criticize Wikileaks, a free web site. So, which is it? Should free web sites and other free media be exempt from criticism, or maybe you’re just exempt from the standards you want others to follow?
3. So, Rob, I take it that you don’t watch TV, listen to radio, read newspapers or magazines on line, or visit web sites, if they are freebies? You must live a very sheltered life indeed.
Wow what a smell of burning hay!
1. Clearly, you don't understand 'thinking out of the box'. You should, by now, the phrase is almost obsolete having been around so long!
2. Wikileaks, the problem, has nothing to do with free or otherwise: it is a disgrace that such dangerous and unhelpful sites are allowed to exist. As I see it, the man is nothing but a trouble maker of the first waters. Does he - or you, for that matter - imagine that messing about with international relations is a brilliant stroke of universal helpfulness? Do either of you really imagine that any relationship, personal, business, never mind international, is ever, can ever, work to a satisfactory end if it is totally transparent? Assuming you have a wife - would you really want to know if she has slept with your best friend - or vice versa if guilt was yours - and do you imagine that the world's salivating masses are the first people you'd like to inform of such an event, to tell of her peccadillos or yours? I'd hope not, for both your sakes.
3. I don't look upon tv as freebies. It's there, whether I subscribe to it or not and I do not. I watch news and documentaries and that's about it. The ads are often muted (when I can find the button) and I sometimes watch in that mode and they become rather entertaining, inadvertently. Okay, weak pun intended. But regarding press freebies, no, I don't pick them up at the supermarket nor any of the other places they get stuck. Neither do I look at the goddam leaflets that get pushed into the letter boxes here. An Indian restaurant used to stick little ads under the wiper blades on cars; I had one gum itself so hard it had to be scraped; I can assure you I wouldn't dream of patronizing that place.
Rob C
-
Ah, have not heard such an eloquent socialist manifesto for quite some time.
Thank you for all your compliments tongue in cheek as they may be! When and if I ever had the energy and enthusiasm to do what Michael has so admirably done and create a site like Luminous Landscape I will be sure to ask you to be our sternest critic. Please be aware that in line with my so-called socialist principles all participants will be means tested and only the poorest and dumbest will be able to read the reviews free of charge. In fact we might even arrange for the richer members to pay the poorer members to join. ;D
-
... only the poorest and dumbest will be able to read the reviews free of charge...
Hehe... that is why I offered to pay ;)
-
And when exactly has this site been closed for criticism?
Some threads do get locked when they run their course, and they do so when the only reason OP continues to badger everyone else is to satisfy his desperate need for attention, hearing his own voice and admiring the beauty of his own arguments. Which, coincidentally, appears to be the course this thread is taking.
And which "normal" expectation would that be? The sense of entitlement that someone is obliged to take care of you, protect you from your own decisions, shield you from responsibility for your own actions, provide you with an "objective", "unbiased" opinion so that you do not have to do your own legwork of comparing other opinions, other sources and yourself analyzing the facts? And that "someone" is supposed to do it at their own expense? And proactively demonstrate they have your best interest at heart?
Slobodan, you’ve taken my words out of context and twisted my meaning beyond any recognition. I won’t otherwise respond to your ridiculous straw men.
-
Slobodan, you’ve taken my words out of context and twisted my meaning beyond any recognition. I won’t otherwise respond to your ridiculous straw men.
Just connecting the dots and reading between the lines.
You know, as Cardinal Richelieu used to say: “Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him” ;) Metaphorically, of course (i.e., in my case). And you would be much better sparring with me than with Rob in his trigger-happy mood :D
-
2. Wikileaks, the problem, has nothing to do with free or otherwise: it is a disgrace that such dangerous and unhelpful sites are allowed to exist. As I international, is ever, can ever, work to a satisfactory end if it is totally transparent? Assuming you have a wife - would you really want to know if she has slept with your best friend - or vice versa if guilt was yours - and do you imagine that the world's salivating masses are the first people
Typically, in what we generally accept as a democratic society, individuals are entitled to privacy and governments are supposed to be transparent and accountable. Of course, that's only the theory...
-
"My stance, more or less, is that whoever owns this site is free to do with it as he pleases. Period. "
Amen, brother!
I'm sure Silvio Berlusconi would agree.
-
I'm sure Silvio Berlusconi would agree.
I'm sure Mr B would, and were Michael a politician I'm sure he'd agree too. As I'm neither Silvio, Michael not anyone other than myself, I feel happy to form and live with my own ideas, as I'm sure do you. However, comparing the relative positions and clout of Mr B and Mr R in an attempt to draw a parallel is an absurdity.
Only thing, I'm not about to stuff my opinions down anyone's throat unless they first try to tell me what I should think or do and try to smoke-screen the fact with claptrap about the 'accepted' views of some mythical society that we are supposed to live in, but sounds like nothing but the theoretical Marxist control-society that failed to survive in its own, vast, powerful place of greatest and total domination and strength.
The individual is the best we've got or are ever going to get; from great individuals came the best of what we have in the world today. From collectives come and came nothing but doom and mental slavery accompanied by fiscal poverty for the huge majority, not something we suffer from much in our western society today. And don't bullshit me with tales of the poor in the cities: whilst they can blow their daily bread on drugs, whores, music, bars and betting shops, my heart refuses to bleed. Its called initiative and pulling yourself up by your own efforts. And many have shown those efforts to work. Just look at the vast array of illiterate millionaires on tv or in other inescapable media outlets. If they can, anyone can; you don't need the 'privileged' option of university to make it in life. Come to think of it, the wealthiest men I personally know/knew had no such qualifications whatsoever.
So there you go - you become what you already are.
Rob C
-
Objectivity, by all appearances to me at least, can only be imagined by a group who already agree or are predisposed to agreeing. Deciding someone is objective is very subjective.
Discussion forums are virtual homes. The host chooses to invite people and they choose whether or not to continue to accept the hospitality based mostly on the choices and rules of the homeowner.
Once I can appreciate a poster's leaning I find the writing more informative. The world is imbued with advertising, I have come to appreciate the more honest overt style - the paid kind.
-
Might I respectfully suggest that you should perhaps be talking to Hasselblad rather to LuLa?
Eric
+1, Despite some allegations Michael has already stated he is "not" pissed at Hasselblad and would jump at the opportunity to get the use of one of their systems for some time to do a thorough test.
-
+1, Despite some allegations Michael has already stated he is "not" pissed at Hasselblad and would jump at the opportunity to get the use of one of their systems for some time to do a thorough test.
Where is the end of the queue?
I too am not pissed off with Hasselblad and would dearly love to put one through a cursory and unrigorous test. In fact, I'm quite indifferent towards Hasselblad. They'd have no fences to mend with me.
Come and get me Hassy - I'll be your Valentine.
-
However, comparing the relative positions and clout of Mr B and Mr R in an attempt to draw a parallel is an absurdity.
I agree, it is an absurdity. However, jeremyrh didn’t make such comparison. You did, Rob.
-
Ah, have not heard such an eloquent socialist manifesto for quite some time.
I think you may need to brush up on the meaning of "socialist".
-
I think you may need to brush up on the meaning of "socialist".
Interesting... you are telling this to a guy who was born and raised in a socialist country (white-glove type), worked for years in a true communist country (as an expat, and in post-Soviet era), lived and worked in Western Europe (typically considered "socialist" in comparison to the U.S.), and ultimately lives and works here, in the good, old, U.S.A.... so, please, by all means, do enlighten me about socialism.
-
Here are the words you quoted as "an eloquent socialist manifesto".
“… how life should be. Sadly that isn't how it is and you are not the "norm" and the "norm" has to be protected against those who are cleverer, stronger, more ruthless, richer, and finally have ideologically different perspectives. This does mean, I regret, that some "busybodies will inadvertently poke their nose in your business...”
A typical definition of “socialism” is a social system that advocates vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. The words you quoted as "an eloquent socialist manifesto" say absolutely nothing even remotely connected to the common meaning of “socialism”.
-
... A typical definition of “socialism” is a social system that advocates vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. The words you quoted as "an eloquent socialist manifesto" say absolutely nothing even remotely connected to the common meaning of “socialism”.
Socialism is also a state of mind, a view of the world, vastly overshadowing the dry economic definition, restricted to "the means of production". It has also philosophical and sociological roots and permeates through almost all other aspect of life, including arts.
In one of its many incarnations, it also means that the "society" or "the community as a whole" (and especially "the chosen ones" to represent it) determine what the "norm" is and take it upon themselves, often by force, to impose those view to the community as a whole, and especially to "protect against those who are cleverer, stronger, more ruthless, richer, and finally have ideologically different perspectives".
So you might hide as much as you want behind semantics of the "common meaning" of socialism, but I can recognize its broader meaning... heck, smell it... miles away.
-
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Alice in Wonderland
-
Slobodan, you’ve taken my words out of context and twisted my meaning beyond any recognition. I won’t otherwise respond to your ridiculous straw men.
So, at what point can we expect that you keep to your words?
And exactly what does this have to do with LuLa?
You're prolly close to getting yet another thread locked if you can't stay on topic...
-
I think we're about done.
If anyone has more to add on the main topic, start a new thread if you wish.
Michael