From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unfortunately, Rob, Tom is not correct. With all due respect, and with the
extra-added reminder that anyone on here is free to hold his or her own
opinion, what some less-than-respectful members of this list have done is
pretty much destroy what I, and a number of others here, have been working
to achieve for several years now, which is a relationship with Pentax
based on mutual respect and civility.
I'm not correct in WHAT Doug? I do not feel responsible for apologizing for
something I did not do. Nor do I feel that because others on the list may
be jackasses that it reflects any on me (I'm quite capable of hee-hawing all
on my own). :-) An apology only makes sense if it comes from the one(s)
giving offense. The PDML is not that body.
I have personally visited Pentax headquarters in Colorado, and had
conversations with many employees leading toward this relationship. I have
sat at a conference table showing off the PUG on a big digital projector
and talked up the list and its members as an invaluable resource of
opinion, both good and bad, about the Pentax product line. I have
considered it my honor to carry the PDML banner wherever I thought it
necessary, from GFM to camera shops and workshops and into the Pentax USA
offices.
I don't want to belittle those efforts. This is the first time I've heard
mention on the list from you that you did that. What feedback has Pentax
given to the list? What feedback has Pentax given to you to pass on to the
list? I haven't heard any. I don't see that this relationship is a shared
one between the PDML and Pentax. I'm not meaning any disrespect. It seems
this is more a relationship between yourself and Pentax. That being said,
I'm sure myself and others appreciate and thank you for anything you may
have said or done that represents our interests.
And I am not alone. Other members of this list have developed ties to
Pentax reps and other employees, carrying that same banner.
I'm not sure I get the 'banner' part. The members of this list are so
diverse and even those that participate frequently disagree with each other
on what they want to see out of Pentax. Aside from those such as yourself
who may have had first hand contact with Pentax, how has the list benefitted
from this relationship? I am asking only because relationships generally
benefit all parties and as far as I know Pentax has been silent. I'm not
trying to be a wise-guy, I'm sincerely asking.
It has hurt me to read the hateful things that have been said about Pentax
employees over my years here. These are hard-working, regular people with
families, who are doing the best job they can, and when they are vilified,
attacked personally, it's been all I could do to hold my tongue.
Sure they are. We are all pretty much the same in that respect. Whoever
wrote the insulting e-mails did a bad thing and it was unjustified, no doubt
about it.
You are using the plural here, so I have to ask what Pentax employees? What
things over the years? Was more than one attacked personally? I'm assuming
you must be referring to Marco as one, and who else? Pentax collectively?
This is actually the first time I've known any Pentax employee to have even
written the list. So the attacks you're referring to must have gone beneath
my radar.
I hope you're not referring to a widely-shared, though not universally held
opinion, that Pentax has not been going in the direction some would hope.
I was here long before Aaron left. I remember his first faltering steps in
his business. When Frank forwarded Aaron's email from Marco, I trusted
that it was legit, and when the follow-up came, that any questions could
be sent to Marco's direct email address at Pentax Canada, it sealed the
deal. Here was a regular guy, asking other regular guys, to show off a few
photos, at no risk whatsoever.
Sure that's all it was. Except he was representing Pentax Canada. There
are some of us here on the list that did not write those terrible e-mails
(which appear to be tightly and secretly guarded), yet we had additional
questions because we did not see all the earmarks of a corporation
requesting photo submissions. A number of list members have vilified us as
*suspicious*, *not understanding copyright laws*, and otherwise ridiculed
myself and those who simply raised those questions.
And then, to have the whole thing blow up because some list members
apparently don't have the good sense and respect to write civil inquiries
just shocks and saddens me. Adding insult to injury, now there is a hue
and cry that someone Pentax Canada owes them an apology. No. No. No.
Who do you mean by "them" in that last sentence? The ones that wrote the
uncivil inquires? No one here suggested that THOSE persons deserved an
apology.
When I wrote I was referring to those that had inquired sincerely and had
spent some small amount of time preparing submissions. Even then, a hue and
cry? Really? You don't think that's just a slight exaggeration? I think my
words were prefaced by "If anything". That was neither a demand, a request,
or an expectation.
I don't call anyone a jackass and then demand an apology for my doing so.
The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am
ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't
Pentax Canada.
Neither did I. I don't think the PDML has a black eye. I think those
individual members do, and hopefully they're too embarassed to do anything
but lurk. I really would have thought that Pentax Canada and/or it's
employees would be big enough to simpy, very simply, ignore those who wrote
the insulting e-mails, and continue with the project.
What was the real reason behind writing to those respectful contributors,
such as myself, and saying 'it's not worth it'? We still haven't heard the
real answer for that. What made it 'not worth it'? There's only been
speculation.
It would be nice to know, because if all members of the PDML are being
punished because of a few, that's just as unfair and thoughtless as the
offensive e-mails that were sent in the first place.
If on the other hand it's because Pentax Canada's legal department got
involved and decided that something more should have occured on their side
before making the request for photo submissions, then that gives some
legitimacy to those additional questions that were raised in a civilized and
respectful manner.
In all honesty Doug, I'm sure that you have a lot of emotional investment in
the list, seeing how you personally maintain it, and have done so for years.
I likely would was well. That emotional investment is leaking out a
little. That's understandable. I think though we are confusing the list
with an organization, when it's simply a loose collection of individuals.
Tom C.
