WJC
Well-known member
160316
Hi Phil, Mark:
Just as I have honored Mark’s request to “Take a powder,” and not post to any thread on the open forum for 90 days (and this will be my last post, here), I must also honor the opportunity to answer your vitriolic charges against me, my book, and even one of my several “Signatures.”
Although this will be a longer than a normal post, it will assuredly be much shorter than what would have been posted should I have remained on the forum.
THUS, I HUMBLY ASK FOR THE INDULGENCE OF COGNIZANT PARTIES.
Being so worked up, you would undoubtedly ask: Why the curmudgeon mystique that annoys us so much?
I will be glad to answer that. But first, let me offer something for YOU to think about:
Why is it my manner bothers YOU, when it doesn’t even rate the attention of so many others—the like of which have addressed me, expressing a little venom directed at you guys? Could it be that, over the years, they have invested the time to correspond with me, to get to know me, to understand what I try so hard to accomplish, and agree with it? Have either of you bothered to communicate with me to understand? Have I not offered my email address several times and offered my help to all who might have need of it, MANY times? I may be wrong. But, as I see it, it is just easier to attack someone who does not present himself to your way of thinking.
While I would certainly like to be a friend to all, I didn’t come to BF to win a popularity contest. And, without the means to carry out a useful mission, I have no need or desire to be here. I know to some it is life itself. To me, it is not. I’m just a pudgy little screw turner, but I have many friends who are heavy hitters in optical engineering who think I am nuts for even coming to Internet binocular forums.
Now to your question:
“Give it to ‘em straight and hard; they’ll remember it, then.”—Gen. George S. Patton (attributed)
I didn’t start out that way. Over the years, however, I saw the need! And although it frequently caused me to turn away from so much of what I hold dear, I continued; I saw the proof in the pudding.
Are there things that push me to the limits of my patience and endurance. Oh, yes, I freely admit it.
EXAMPLE ONE: After the thread about Leupold being a binocular MANUFACTURER had been going on for some time, I piped up, hopefully to put it to rest. Did I make a dent? No! When I indicated I had been in the bowels of the plant, did that make a dent? It did not! When I said I had been told by my Leupold rep that they “only ASSEMBLE a couple of pocket models” in the Beaverton plant, did that make a dent? It did not! And, of course, the thread went on its merry way. On BF, as other bino forums, FACTS often can’t hold a candle to CONJECTURE.
Finally, when Steve C—who lives in the area and likewise has been into the plant—backed up my story, things subsided … a bit.
But then, in order to have the last word, the question came up if ASSEMBLY was not the same thing as MANUFACTURE. Oh, just shoot me now! No, it’s not.
As a matter of fact, to put that issue to rest on Cloudy Nights, I offered either $50 or $100 for anyone who could PROVE Leupold MANUFACTURED binoculars. After that, the thread went on for THREE MORE DAYS, with people sending me photos of women cleaning lenses for RIFLESCOPES as proof they made BINOCULARS. After those 3 days, I still had my money and the topic died down even more, except for the person who said I had been “Talking trash” about Leupold.
That’s right: talking trash! That’s what most people do when showing up with resume in hand, right?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t see how stating the truth is “talking trash” about anything. Can you see what I have been willing to deal with—for the benefit of others—for years? Would it not take a toll on you?
EXAMPLE TWO: Discussing AR coatings is another thing that, while it should never be stopped, should most certainly take a bit deeper thinking. Members often claim to be able to see the difference in the performance of AR coatings of one “ALPHA” binocular from another.
Going from magnesium fluoride to multi-coatings, you gain (average) about 13 percent more light throughput. However, once in that realm—errant opinions notwithstanding—most people don’t have the receptors to note the difference. What they see as a better image resultant from coatings alone is really the result of:
* Blackening
* Baffling
* Size and position of the field stop
* Slotted prisms, if a Porro
* Design
* Glass types
* Smoothness of the surfaces
* Complexity of the eyepiece
But for many, having heard so much about coatings and not considering those things, it HAS to be the coatings. That’s the reality; but, did I win that battle? Nope.
I see BF as a place to learn and share learning. It would seem that for some it is just a place to opine, speculate, and chat. I love chatting, too. However, the act should not be mutually exclusive.
Recently, some have been taken to task for talking about … fish. But really, which is more important: realistic talk about fish, fishing, and cooking fish, or pie in the sky talk about binoculars that might go on for days and solve nothing?
Now, let’s have a look at the conversation leading up to the latest attack on me.
Originally Posted by WJC
“A person from Central Arkansas complaining about bottom feeders!? 'Must be a Florida transplant. Aah, breaded catfish, yum! Please pass the ketchup--as opposed to catsup!
Bill”
I was responding to Nixterdemus who said:
“Carp aren't popular Stateside. They supposedly eat all the trash from the bottom and hence the name "bottom feeders" . You can read all about the history here. Really interesting. http://www.nps.gov/miss/learn/nature/carphist.htm”
Although my comment was about as straightforward as I could make it, having a little fun in the process, I was slammed by Subzero888 who READ TOO FAST and said:
"Bottom feeders" are who rely on others for a living.”
Was there ANYTHING in what I said that would have led a rational person to believe THAT is how I meant it!? Parsing his words I was insulted even more:
—If you haven't guessed it is an insult
—This is a putdown about people in supposedly poorer states like Arkansas who supposedly live off Federal dollars.
—Arkansas is actually better off compared to Idaho(home of the insulter and Texas(home of the LMAO'er and I).
—I'll let WJC finish off with any other hidden insults unperceived.
Wow, 4 putdowns in one small paragraph; that’s a record, I think. But, like so much crap thrown at me, it has NO RELATIONSHIP TO REALITY. By the way, Subzero888 saw he was mistaken, and apologized! That’s what gentlemen do when they’re wrong.
I should not have had to do so, but I pointed out to my attacker that much of my life, my high school diploma, my first degree, my draft card, and my first wife all came from Northeast Arkansas.
Then Phil piped in post #36:
“Well ... That's the funniest thing I've read on this forum in a long time. The most insulting person on this forum is you. I don't know which is sadder - that you do this, or that you think you don't......”
I guess if not taking the time to water down my thoughts, so as to be unmistakable to people from all regions of the States and all foreign countries, it COULD be insulting. But as Maljunulo says: “All behavior offends someone.” And, as I have said, your concerns could have been lessened had you made the slightest attempt at getting to know me. But then, maybe that required too much effort.
And, this just in … literally:
“You should have told them to go ____ themselves.* At least that’s what I would have done. You’re too nice Bill.”
What; Bill being too nice!? What does that fellow know that you two don’t? Or, was this long-time member just another nut case, incapable of seeing things clearly?
Maybe my insensitivity comes from always having to watch my back; Wild Bill failed once and that’s all it took. When Jack McCall, the murderer who shot Bill in the BACK of the head, was asked why he shot the man from behind, he responded:
“Hell, man, I wasn’t crazy enough to try it from the front.”
AND MORE
Regarding your intake of the ever-so-deadly UV rays, I said:
“As has been pointed out, just putting a bino to your eyes DRAMATICALLY cuts your intake of UVA, UVB, Blue light, IR, and M-O-U-S-E.”
IMMEDIATELY, someone with no real credentials in optics—but who seems to think that challenging a professional is tantamount to having some—said:
“Binoculars with very low loss multicoating and exit pupils near the size of yours, IN POINT OF FACT, DO NOT ‘DRAMATICALLY’ REDUCE LIGHT.”
In point of fact? Really? I would have liked to have quaked at the challenge, but I couldn’t bring myself to do so. While some OVERTHOUGHT my assessment, it was accurate and I stood by it. And, of course, it was verified by others.
Henry (post 28) said: “The reduction in total light entering the eye with a binocular blocking the peripheral light outside the AFOV is still plenty DRAMATIC".
And
Ed (post 51) said: “According to the attached chart, UVA, UVB, and UVC ARE VIRTUALLY EXTINGUISHED BY THE BINOCULARS.”
But, why should we believe anything Ed says? You know how those senior scientists from NASA can be!
Did I say ANYTHING about AR coatings—single layer or multi-coatings? I did not!
Did I say ANYTHING about the exit pupils matching the ray bundle? I don’t think so!
But, pulling his own set of “facts” and talking points OUT OF THE AIR, and making a statement as bold as:
“… IN POINT OF FACT, DO NOT ‘DRAMATICALLY’ REDUCE LIGHT,” this person had a good shot at self-importance.
Before I get into my Signature or book, both of which you have challenged, I would like to share something from another binocular forum—from memory, lest I be shown to be a liar:
“Mr. Cook: When I came to this forum, I thought you were the biggest jerk in the world. After being here a while, and learning a lot more about binoculars, I see you’ve been right about things right down the line. I misjudged, you have taught me a lot. Thank you.—Mttafire”
MY SIGNATURE: I change it quite often as to give onlookers something new to think about; I’m sorry the act does not seem to you to match my personality.
ABOUT MY “CRANKYPUSS” BOOK:
Answering Mark:
—“And no, I'm not angry at all. You don't want to see me angry.”
L’il out of control are we? That last sentence sounded like a threat; and you say snotty things about me. Hmmm!
—You say no publisher with an “ounce of sense” would publish my book, and that if I self-publish, I might sell “100 copies.” I will let those libelous remarks pass and hop right to the realities. First, half that many have already been spoken for (preposition at the end and all). Secondly, self-publishing was established months ago, with the legitimate and well-thought-out reasons given, for all to see—as in the complete Preface that will be attached to this post.
Sadly, it is written in a non-milquetoast manner. You know: “Give it to ‘em straight and hard; they’ll remember it, then.”
And I do take on idiotic, misleading, and fraudulent ads, and have fun with the over-the-top nonsense on cleaning lens. Thus, I wouldn’t expect either of you to waste your money, just to learn something.
I’ve gotta go now; I just got two email messages from Red_Shoulder. He needs my snotty help.
Finally (shut up, Perterra), for offenses I have caused either of you, you have my sincerest apology! Since, however, it has been established that I NEVER really mean such things, I feel certain you won’t take my offer seriously. But then, the horse can drink if he chooses.
See you guys on June 11. :cat:
Hi Phil, Mark:
Just as I have honored Mark’s request to “Take a powder,” and not post to any thread on the open forum for 90 days (and this will be my last post, here), I must also honor the opportunity to answer your vitriolic charges against me, my book, and even one of my several “Signatures.”
Although this will be a longer than a normal post, it will assuredly be much shorter than what would have been posted should I have remained on the forum.
THUS, I HUMBLY ASK FOR THE INDULGENCE OF COGNIZANT PARTIES.
Being so worked up, you would undoubtedly ask: Why the curmudgeon mystique that annoys us so much?
I will be glad to answer that. But first, let me offer something for YOU to think about:
Why is it my manner bothers YOU, when it doesn’t even rate the attention of so many others—the like of which have addressed me, expressing a little venom directed at you guys? Could it be that, over the years, they have invested the time to correspond with me, to get to know me, to understand what I try so hard to accomplish, and agree with it? Have either of you bothered to communicate with me to understand? Have I not offered my email address several times and offered my help to all who might have need of it, MANY times? I may be wrong. But, as I see it, it is just easier to attack someone who does not present himself to your way of thinking.
While I would certainly like to be a friend to all, I didn’t come to BF to win a popularity contest. And, without the means to carry out a useful mission, I have no need or desire to be here. I know to some it is life itself. To me, it is not. I’m just a pudgy little screw turner, but I have many friends who are heavy hitters in optical engineering who think I am nuts for even coming to Internet binocular forums.
Now to your question:
“Give it to ‘em straight and hard; they’ll remember it, then.”—Gen. George S. Patton (attributed)
I didn’t start out that way. Over the years, however, I saw the need! And although it frequently caused me to turn away from so much of what I hold dear, I continued; I saw the proof in the pudding.
Are there things that push me to the limits of my patience and endurance. Oh, yes, I freely admit it.
EXAMPLE ONE: After the thread about Leupold being a binocular MANUFACTURER had been going on for some time, I piped up, hopefully to put it to rest. Did I make a dent? No! When I indicated I had been in the bowels of the plant, did that make a dent? It did not! When I said I had been told by my Leupold rep that they “only ASSEMBLE a couple of pocket models” in the Beaverton plant, did that make a dent? It did not! And, of course, the thread went on its merry way. On BF, as other bino forums, FACTS often can’t hold a candle to CONJECTURE.
Finally, when Steve C—who lives in the area and likewise has been into the plant—backed up my story, things subsided … a bit.
But then, in order to have the last word, the question came up if ASSEMBLY was not the same thing as MANUFACTURE. Oh, just shoot me now! No, it’s not.
As a matter of fact, to put that issue to rest on Cloudy Nights, I offered either $50 or $100 for anyone who could PROVE Leupold MANUFACTURED binoculars. After that, the thread went on for THREE MORE DAYS, with people sending me photos of women cleaning lenses for RIFLESCOPES as proof they made BINOCULARS. After those 3 days, I still had my money and the topic died down even more, except for the person who said I had been “Talking trash” about Leupold.
That’s right: talking trash! That’s what most people do when showing up with resume in hand, right?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t see how stating the truth is “talking trash” about anything. Can you see what I have been willing to deal with—for the benefit of others—for years? Would it not take a toll on you?
EXAMPLE TWO: Discussing AR coatings is another thing that, while it should never be stopped, should most certainly take a bit deeper thinking. Members often claim to be able to see the difference in the performance of AR coatings of one “ALPHA” binocular from another.
Going from magnesium fluoride to multi-coatings, you gain (average) about 13 percent more light throughput. However, once in that realm—errant opinions notwithstanding—most people don’t have the receptors to note the difference. What they see as a better image resultant from coatings alone is really the result of:
* Blackening
* Baffling
* Size and position of the field stop
* Slotted prisms, if a Porro
* Design
* Glass types
* Smoothness of the surfaces
* Complexity of the eyepiece
But for many, having heard so much about coatings and not considering those things, it HAS to be the coatings. That’s the reality; but, did I win that battle? Nope.
I see BF as a place to learn and share learning. It would seem that for some it is just a place to opine, speculate, and chat. I love chatting, too. However, the act should not be mutually exclusive.
Recently, some have been taken to task for talking about … fish. But really, which is more important: realistic talk about fish, fishing, and cooking fish, or pie in the sky talk about binoculars that might go on for days and solve nothing?
Now, let’s have a look at the conversation leading up to the latest attack on me.
Originally Posted by WJC
“A person from Central Arkansas complaining about bottom feeders!? 'Must be a Florida transplant. Aah, breaded catfish, yum! Please pass the ketchup--as opposed to catsup!
Bill”
I was responding to Nixterdemus who said:
“Carp aren't popular Stateside. They supposedly eat all the trash from the bottom and hence the name "bottom feeders" . You can read all about the history here. Really interesting. http://www.nps.gov/miss/learn/nature/carphist.htm”
Although my comment was about as straightforward as I could make it, having a little fun in the process, I was slammed by Subzero888 who READ TOO FAST and said:
"Bottom feeders" are who rely on others for a living.”
Was there ANYTHING in what I said that would have led a rational person to believe THAT is how I meant it!? Parsing his words I was insulted even more:
—If you haven't guessed it is an insult
—This is a putdown about people in supposedly poorer states like Arkansas who supposedly live off Federal dollars.
—Arkansas is actually better off compared to Idaho(home of the insulter
and Texas(home of the LMAO'er and I). —I'll let WJC finish off with any other hidden insults unperceived.
Wow, 4 putdowns in one small paragraph; that’s a record, I think. But, like so much crap thrown at me, it has NO RELATIONSHIP TO REALITY. By the way, Subzero888 saw he was mistaken, and apologized! That’s what gentlemen do when they’re wrong.
I should not have had to do so, but I pointed out to my attacker that much of my life, my high school diploma, my first degree, my draft card, and my first wife all came from Northeast Arkansas.
Then Phil piped in post #36:
“Well ... That's the funniest thing I've read on this forum in a long time. The most insulting person on this forum is you. I don't know which is sadder - that you do this, or that you think you don't......”
I guess if not taking the time to water down my thoughts, so as to be unmistakable to people from all regions of the States and all foreign countries, it COULD be insulting. But as Maljunulo says: “All behavior offends someone.” And, as I have said, your concerns could have been lessened had you made the slightest attempt at getting to know me. But then, maybe that required too much effort.
And, this just in … literally:
“You should have told them to go ____ themselves.* At least that’s what I would have done. You’re too nice Bill.”
What; Bill being too nice!? What does that fellow know that you two don’t? Or, was this long-time member just another nut case, incapable of seeing things clearly?
Maybe my insensitivity comes from always having to watch my back; Wild Bill failed once and that’s all it took. When Jack McCall, the murderer who shot Bill in the BACK of the head, was asked why he shot the man from behind, he responded:
“Hell, man, I wasn’t crazy enough to try it from the front.”
AND MORE
Regarding your intake of the ever-so-deadly UV rays, I said:
“As has been pointed out, just putting a bino to your eyes DRAMATICALLY cuts your intake of UVA, UVB, Blue light, IR, and M-O-U-S-E.”
IMMEDIATELY, someone with no real credentials in optics—but who seems to think that challenging a professional is tantamount to having some—said:
“Binoculars with very low loss multicoating and exit pupils near the size of yours, IN POINT OF FACT, DO NOT ‘DRAMATICALLY’ REDUCE LIGHT.”
In point of fact? Really? I would have liked to have quaked at the challenge, but I couldn’t bring myself to do so. While some OVERTHOUGHT my assessment, it was accurate and I stood by it. And, of course, it was verified by others.
Henry (post 28) said: “The reduction in total light entering the eye with a binocular blocking the peripheral light outside the AFOV is still plenty DRAMATIC".
And
Ed (post 51) said: “According to the attached chart, UVA, UVB, and UVC ARE VIRTUALLY EXTINGUISHED BY THE BINOCULARS.”
But, why should we believe anything Ed says? You know how those senior scientists from NASA can be!
Did I say ANYTHING about AR coatings—single layer or multi-coatings? I did not!
Did I say ANYTHING about the exit pupils matching the ray bundle? I don’t think so!
But, pulling his own set of “facts” and talking points OUT OF THE AIR, and making a statement as bold as:
“… IN POINT OF FACT, DO NOT ‘DRAMATICALLY’ REDUCE LIGHT,” this person had a good shot at self-importance.
Before I get into my Signature or book, both of which you have challenged, I would like to share something from another binocular forum—from memory, lest I be shown to be a liar:
“Mr. Cook: When I came to this forum, I thought you were the biggest jerk in the world. After being here a while, and learning a lot more about binoculars, I see you’ve been right about things right down the line. I misjudged, you have taught me a lot. Thank you.—Mttafire”
MY SIGNATURE: I change it quite often as to give onlookers something new to think about; I’m sorry the act does not seem to you to match my personality.
ABOUT MY “CRANKYPUSS” BOOK:
Answering Mark:
—“And no, I'm not angry at all. You don't want to see me angry.”
L’il out of control are we? That last sentence sounded like a threat; and you say snotty things about me. Hmmm!
—You say no publisher with an “ounce of sense” would publish my book, and that if I self-publish, I might sell “100 copies.” I will let those libelous remarks pass and hop right to the realities. First, half that many have already been spoken for (preposition at the end and all). Secondly, self-publishing was established months ago, with the legitimate and well-thought-out reasons given, for all to see—as in the complete Preface that will be attached to this post.
Sadly, it is written in a non-milquetoast manner. You know: “Give it to ‘em straight and hard; they’ll remember it, then.”
And I do take on idiotic, misleading, and fraudulent ads, and have fun with the over-the-top nonsense on cleaning lens. Thus, I wouldn’t expect either of you to waste your money, just to learn something.
I’ve gotta go now; I just got two email messages from Red_Shoulder. He needs my snotty help.
Finally (shut up, Perterra), for offenses I have caused either of you, you have my sincerest apology! Since, however, it has been established that I NEVER really mean such things, I feel certain you won’t take my offer seriously. But then, the horse can drink if he chooses.
See you guys on June 11. :cat:
Last edited:
