[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [BKARTS] messages to Book Arts-L from museum-security.org
I wish a certain apology to be public, hence the on-list reply.
I will not reply to Mr Cremer's reply directly as i address a number
of his points here.
James Tapley wrote:
Fran ... please point out the inaccuracy (your word) in the Museum
Security Network's posting. If you can not point out the inaccuracy
then I think you should withdraw the charge and apologize.
it is true i should not have been patronizing in my last post - i
realised this before ever reading any replies. a poor choice of words
coloured my post in a way i didn't intend. for that i readily offer a
heart-felt apology. [my choice of 'lower class scum' is the phrase to
which i refer. i said 'out loud' what *some* newswire posts often
imply but do not say 'out loud'. i apologise. ]
my position in general is this: that education cutbacks, and the
social problems that hinge on this, and a general decline in various
things - respect, consideration, the increasing lack of valorization
of work that does not feed the capitalist machine[*] are all things
that hinder our growth as a society and as a species. relatedly, I
have strong opinions on (and generally low regard of) newswire
stories that decline to give a summary of events and leave it up to
the reader to fill in the blanks.
I understand, and long understood, that Mr Cremers forwards posts and
does not write them himself. I should have stated this before so that
he would understand my attacks are NOT and were never personal. My
objection to his forwarded posts is, and was, that they are often
lacking in information that would COMPLETE the information given. I
am NOT saying that they are of no interest. (if they had been of no
interest, no replies on same would ever have appeared from my hand).
If i ever gave the impression, whether through careless grammar or
[anyone's] misreading, that my attack was personal, then please
forgive me; such was never the case.
I very much believe that a line or two of information to go with all
forwarded material (whether they have a supporting URL or not) would
be highly appropriate, ie [event took place ..../05 ... in... and the
background is: .... ]. This, by the way, is standard "netiquette"
for all posts forwarded to anyone/anyplace. Indeed, usually only a
summary is provided with a link, so the interested party can go read
Why Do You take my criticism personally, Mr Cremers? i stand by my
previous assertions: Museum Security's postings [definition: the
posts Mr Cremers forwards from newswires] have been lacking in
valuable information that would further inform his readership and
offer greater credence to the items forwarded. A lack of information
renders them at best lacking, and at worst inaccurate, in that they
lack *necessary* [essential, valuable] information.
(which, as you recall, Mr Tapley, cause me to reply inappropriately
on a previous occasion. Perhaps i am too used to the informality of
another list i have been subscribed to for fifteen years? Perhaps
having strong opinions - doing one's work well, for instance - on
certain things are less and less welcome on certain stages? That is
seriously too bad, if it means that it's OK to send along information
that is missing some crucial bits... and it is therefore the reader's
problem. That's kind of like binding a book badly and making it your
customer's problem... isn't it?)
I don't know about the rest of you, but i have other things to do -
like work - that make it impossible for me to spend an indefinite
number of hours on line every day checking out every single bit of
writing that comes across my desk... therefore, my position is,
again: information forwarded deserves to be presented in a complete,
concise, and clear fashion.
apologetically, and yet still with high standards and strong opinions,
[*single mothers living in and raising their children in poverty,
cutbacks in socialised medicine, the lack of doctors and nurses and
teachers where i live, a serious lack of gov't involvement in things
they should be responsible for, and by law are. ]
If Paul Werner is unable to document his charges then they too
should be withdrawn and he should apologize. "Feelings" alone don't
cut it when making what amounts to an assault upon another's
It seems hardly fair to complain that they are "incomplete" postings
just because they do not contain all of what you perceive as
relevant data. Certainly anyone wanting more information need only
Google the story. My goodness, the most recent MSN posting even
included a link to the Hindu Times!
I don't recall you being barbqued on list. I do recall that you made
some rather startling and unfounded assumptions about and
denunciations of a library and its staff and that these were
corrected by others on list. At the time I thought that this was
done much too kindly.
Your use now of the phrase "lower class scum" when nothing in the
initial posting (check the archives please) suggested such a thing
only betrays your own prejudices. These may or may not be well
founded but they are hardly the responsibility of anyone else. Best,
The Bonefolder: an e-journal for the bookbinder and book artist
For all your subscription questions, go to the
Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
Both at: <http://www.philobiblon.com>