[AJD] Unusual looking Model L

[Mitchell Daly]

As a side thought to J.R.'s well worded comments, I've often had people comment to me on an issue that "they read it in the paper" and they take it to be "GOSPEL". My comment back to them has always been " have you ever read anything in the paper that you really know a lot about and have you seen many errors in what you've read?" I remind them that the writers are usually given a topic and told to put together an article with a short time frame in which to complete and in most cases on a subject that they know little, if anything about.  We just can't assume that the author is the expert.  We need to rely on those who know a lot about the subject for our "correct" information.  Just my 2 cents worth.
Mitch Daly
md31043 at msn.com<mailto:md31043 at msn.com>
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: J.R. Hobbs<mailto:jrhobbs2004 at yahoo.com> 
  To: Antique John Deere mailing list<mailto:antique-johndeere at lists.antique-tractor.com> 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [AJD] Unusual looking Model L


  Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion.  Parts of the story are true, sort of, but development of a small tractor didn't begin at Deere at the behest of just one man. No doubt that the man mentioned  certainly may have had some input on the design, and may have done some field testing, but I know for a fact that work had begun before 1936.  There are other errors in the story as well, but I won't dwell on them. The first "Y", and "62" Tractors certainly didn't sell for $375.00. The timeline described in the story just plain is not true.  There were other inaccuracies as well----The President of Deere at the time was Charles Deere Wiman, not John Deere Wyman, etc.
   
  The point is, when this kind of stuff gets published, it somehow becomes "fact", and I guess that I just don't like to see inaccurate information published. I have no problem with a tribute to someone. I just want it to be factual, because these kinds of errors do the hobby a disservice, in my view. 
   
  And, quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the "correct police" bullshit, which is a favorite term on a website I won't bother to mention.  I don't believe that being correct as possible with information and/or restoration is wrong.  The term is misunderstood, anyway, as it was coined to describe those people who think they know it all, but actually don't know much of anything, yet feel that they have the right to criticize the work of others. I've not yet seen a restoration I couldn't find a flaw in if I looked hard enough, but it's not my business to say anything about it to the owner.  Most people do the best they can with the knowledge they have, and the budget they have to work with. On the other hand, there are people who take no little pride in doing as many things as wrong as they can, because they somehow percieve that it's going to irritate people. That's their choice, I guess.