Thank you, Mark!
You have admirably and succinctly summarized the salient points of
weeks, if not months, of discourse. As for where we set balances, this
will depend largely, I suggest, on the interests at play.
In this instance, the question was raised as to the 'legitimacy' (or
lack of) of apparently 'genuine' Nikon/Nikkor equipment. As one poster
has phrased it, 'It either *is* or it *is not*'. There's not a whole
lot of middle ground here. The limits (balances), here, are set and
clear, and pertain to a subject on which many on this forum have
expressed a desire for clarity.
In order to establish this '*is* or *is not*' question, we require
reliable and verifiable information (i.e., 'evidence'). Here, the
limits and balances becomes somewhat more vague and flexible. What one
considers reliable, many others will want to question. (This is the
'societal' element you refer to, and we need only look at the reasons
given for military intervention Iraq as a case in point.)
Unless this 'evidence' issue can be resolved, the prior *is*/*is not*
question will remain unanswered - as is currently the case.
This situation is bound to attract opinion and comment.
Vaguely yours, (I think,...I'm flexible on this point.)
-Chris Stanford
--- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLenses
yahoogroups.com, mark1smiles <mark1smiles...> wrote:
>
> I've been following this thread with varying degrees of interest,
amusement or upset for some time now and thought it time to add my
grist to the mill.
>
> There seem to be at least two different conversations at play in
this thread. The first seems to have something to do with "Who made
such and such a Nikon-branded lens"? I buy Nikon for the quality of
it's optics, so this question interests me as it may others of you,
and I'd be less inclined to buy a lens from Nikon were I to know it
were a OEM from someone else. This is, perhaps, part of the reason
that the specific determination of manufacturer is seemingly so difficult.
>
> The second conversation seems to be something to do with making
un-substantiated statements (or statements that cannot be
substantiated) as facts. In a court of law such commentary is called
hearsay (information or rumor heard from another person, but not
verified) and is usually not admissable as testimony. I, for one, try
not to trade in rumors, and have learned that the best way to stop
them, is to not spread them. (I observe that there is a vocal
membership in this group that holds this as an unacceptable behavior
of a well known Nikon reviewer).
>
> Each community selects and is shaped by its norms of behavior,
including tolerable limits on gossip, rumor and innuendo.
Conversations limited to "Just the facts, ma'am"; tend to be the most
credibly reliable, but they do lack the energy of emotion laden
opinion. Where do we set the balance here Chris and Bill?
>
> Mark
.
