I don't often go to the dpreview forums (I was banned long ago, which has turned out to be a time-saver), but this thread had me giggling.
The OP implicated our friend John Sexton in a matter about which I doubt very much the real John has an opinion. Several people point out that the article under disputation (from L-L) was written by one Richard Sexton, not John Sexton; shortly thereafter, another participant, unarmed even with the clues provided him in the short and simple thread up to that point, waded in to ask belligerently who John Sexton is and why anyone should care what he thinks. Surprisingly, he immediately found an equally clueless kindred spirit, who helpfully provided John's website.
By this time, I've got the giggles. It's become a little like an American political discussion, which is to say, like a bunch of lunatics shouting into the air past each others' ears.
Okay, it's not that funny. But sometimes, some things just hit you that way, you know? Each time someone in the thread accused the L-L writer of not having his facts straight it made me giggle more. I mean, considering the gang of 'em hadn't quite managed to sort out between them exactly who it was they were talking about.
Later, another person answered the same earlier question by again posting John's website. Does no one who participates in these threads read them?
When someone concluded, talking about the L-L article again, "Writing and layout is awful. Conclusion is wrong," and the post immediately following says, "Thank you. Going to read," well, it was a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of coffee....*
Too funny. Poor John—he's been imputed to have controversial opinions about Micro 4/3 and had his good judgment soundly slandered. And yet I'm reasonably certain "his" alleged opinions would come as news to him.
UPDATE 5/8/12: It appears the dpreview thread has been deleted; I'm told John had entered the discussion there, and I'm sure that once he brought it to the attention of the moderators they preferred to correct the OP's error. —Ed. (Thanks to S. Chris for pointing this out.)
*The second post was not responding to the one above it. It just appeared to.
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by [the real] John Sexton: "Mike, Things have been insanely busy around here the past few days, and I have not been able to check emails much. This morning when I was attempting to catch up on things I became aware of the article I allegedly wrote on the Luminous Landscape, and also found your post.
"Indeed, I don't have any opinions on the merits of the Micro 4/3 format. I likely may have ideas to communicate about the not-so-micro 4x5" film format that I still use. I appreciate you coming to my 'aid' here on The Online Photographer.
"It brings to mind one of my favorite quotations...a statement that the noted painter and photographer Charles Sheeler made to Ansel Adams many years ago: 'Isn't it amazing how photography has advanced without improving!'"