Juergen: Many people have made sensible responses to your post, and I will add mine at the risk of repeating some of their points.

Calling someone a liar and a thief is not only extremely rude, but in the UK it opens you to legal action for defamation of character. So take care.

Ken does indeed watermark pictures supplied by Nikon with his own name. That is not theft. If that is your only basis for calling him a thief then you have no legs to stand on.

Calling a preview a review is not lying. IMO a preview does not count as a review, but that is no more than sloppy use of the English language. I somehow doubt that any lawyer would consider that your example proves that he is a liar.

I don't think you are a 'sick puppy' but you are not justified in your abuse of Ken.

If you look at his web site you will see much useful information. Factual errors are rare, which is more than I can say for a Nikon system book written by a respected professional photographer. Clearly a lot of people enjoy reading Ken's web site. Personally I do not care for it as IMO he is very gear oriented, and there is little real photographic information. Also his advice is often bad if you want to do a bit more than basic beginners stuff. Go through some of the bigger forums and look at the inventive methods people have developed for astro photography, macro photography and so on. Ken cannot touch them. But those are my opinions and do not justify being abusive to the chap. After all, he might well have valid criticisms of me, and others. (Surely not?)





Quote==========================================

Slough wrote:
>
> Juergen wrote:
> > earldcox wrote:
> > > Calling someone a liar, a thief, and a big mouth on this forum is
> > > just plain out of line.
> > You may not like me to use clear words, but that's the way things are.

> I could except 'bigmouth' as a valid opinion though it is not
> particularly polite. But 'liar' and 'thief' are strong terms, and may
> well get your post removed. Perhaps you would like to explain why you

Then be it so.


> well get your post removed. Perhaps you would like to explain why you
> use such terms? Giving examples of each would help.

Of course - otherwise I wouldn't have used so very clear terms..

I call him a thief because he marks the photos e.g. on his page http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm with "kenrockwell.com". BUT that is Nikon press material e.g see http://press.nikonusa.com/... .../product.php?c=nikon/Digital_SLR/D300/
so putting a "kenrockwell.com" at material he doesn't own is what I call theft.
Maybe you call it different, for me it's theft, very clear and simple.

And for lying there is so many examples e.g on http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm he states "This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself." which is obviously not true as it is a commercial site.

Or on http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm he gives a hyperlink with the text "More Nikon Reviews" which implies the D300 page is a review, too, which of course it isn't.

Or see on http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm his lies about the "left handed F100" he claims to hav on "indefinite loan as thanks for all my input." (see section "About the left-handed camera on the home page"), not to speak of "it's not just a flipped negative" which indeed it is as uis the case with the image at hxxp://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/KenLens3k.jpg where he flipped the pic and then again flipped the "Nikon" lettering on the flash (substitute hxxp:// with http://).
So YES, I call him a thief and a liar, because of e.g. the above samples.
End Quote ======================================