If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:25:03 -0500, "Scrooge"
wrote: Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but apparently there's a move on to save each and every character of every Usenet post and not bother to trim any.... |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"michael adams" wrote in message ...
"Bill Palmer" wrote in message om... snip Full marks for effort Palmer, but you've been in the cupboard reply-wise for some time now, and look likely to remain so for the immedite future. I don't know anything about your "cupboard" fantasies. You made some remarks on this thread, and, while for the most part you seemed reasonable enough, there were a couple of places where I felt more explanation was needed. Since you obviously feel that no attempt at rebuttal on your part regarding my earlier comments was called for, I conclude I got my points across effectively, and that's fine with me. Frankly a few people have been having a wonderful time flogging a strawman of their own creation which they named "Bill Palmer," and they look perfectly ridiculous doing that. (Ever stop and think how silly a bunch of supposed adults look vigorously whipping a strawman they made, and behaving as though they are rebutting someone with their exhibition?) Their strawman sloshes bleach over books, soaks books in buckets overnight to remove ink impressions left by library stamps, pastes like-new condition books full of cut-out pictures, etc. Of course, I am not responsible for the fact that they have slapped my name on that strawman of theirs, any more than I am responsible for their fatuous behavior in general in rec.collecting.books. Cheers. Mr. Palmer Room 314 (in the upstairs office) me or my successful Oh and get your last month's PR3457A Petrol Requisition chits onto my desk as soon as possible Palmer. You've been told about this before, I believe. Colonel Dalby Mr. Palmer Room 314. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"michael adams" wrote in message ...
"Bill Palmer" wrote in message om... "michael adams" wrote in message news:2p0gm5Ff4jbfU1@uni- snip Full marks for effort Palmer, but you've been in the cupboard reply-wise for some time now, and look likely to remain so for the immedite future. Of course, I am not responsible for the fact that they have slapped my name on that strawman of theirs, any more than I am responsible for their fatuous behavior in general in rec.collecting.books. Cheers. You knew very well the effect any mention of the word "bleach" would have on this NewsGroup, Palmer. And don't pretend you didn't. Now, not so fast there. Yes, it is true that I hoped the word "bleach" would get the readers' attention. Too many Usenet posters pay too little heed to the wording of their subject lines and then they wonder why they don't get read. Since I felt I had something of a topical and informative nature to share with rec.collecting.books readers in the first place, then I wanted to share it with as many of them as possible. Oddly, your own wording seems to imply that trying one's best to grab readers' attention is somehow a sign of insincerity in one's posted remarks. If that is your implication, then your implication is unfair and wrong. Everything I reported about my bleach experiment was absolutely true, and I fail to see how that sharing such information can hurt anyone. If you will recall, I put stress on the need to be careful, and I said something to the effect that people who have a problem working with books carefully should not even consider trying to imitate my experiment. So, you see, Mr. Adams, what you say above is basically correct as a statement of fact. Nonetheless, one has to question your motivation in posting an observation that should have been clear to any intelligent reader: that I was simply doing something that any thoughtful poster SHOULD be doing in his subject line: explaining succinctly the topic of the message while trying to grab the attention of as many readers as possible. You might say that I was expecting some reader reactions sort of like, "Bleach on rare books?? What is this chap saying here?!!" Then, my intention was that they would read the post and come to realize that their knee-jerk reaction was based more on stereotypes and extreme cases than on reality, and that bleach really DOES have some advantages regarding removing unwanted ink impressions on page edges. I felt that my post had the gift of knowledge, and in fact some readers accepted that graciously, while others reacted with an unseemly anger and resentment because I forced them to confront some stereotypes which they had obvoiusly been harboring for many years. I might add that some people hurt themselves by being overly rigid and as a result failing to experiment. I have had people even tell me not to wash books. (I use a very careful process which I don't want to take the time to explain here.) Taken as a hard and fast rule, "Don't wash books with dish soap and water," is absurd. Many books, including most paperbacks, can be carefully washed with no harm to them at all. Of course, some books can be ruined by careless washing, while others can be ruined by any washing at all. Sensible people learn the differences, and work around those. They don't let them- selves be guided by needlessly unwavering rules insuring that dirty books remain dirty, even in people's homes, when there is no good reason for tolerating that. Of course, there are far fewer instances where bleach instead of water should be used on a book. What I was trying to share was the knowledge of a very special situation in which a careful application of bleach can have astonishing results. I do hope this clarifies things for you, Mr. Adams. It seems to me that I have already explained matters thoroughly, and perhaps it is now time to move on to other issues in book collecting. Mr. Palmer Room 312 (In the office upstairs from rec.arts.prose) Colonel Danby Promoted in 1974, for the benefit of any pedants. Mr. Palmer Room 314 (in the upstairs office) But not for much longer. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd T" wrote in message ...
future. All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying something vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd have to feel is pretty minor. You have added some thought-provoking comments to this thread, so I don't wish to quibble. However, speaking as the "OP" I don't think you have characterized the situation quite accurately above. To begin with, I obtained for a paltry sum a Scribner classic. Copies in like condition (EXCEPT for the library junk) are offered on Abebooks for over one-hundred dollars -- and there aren't many of them listed at all. This book is quite rare even for a Sribner's of the same seventy year old vintage. Had I wanted to sell the book -- and I did not -- I probably could have gotten perhaps between $30 and $40 on the net , even with the library stuff, because, as I have said, the book is otherwise in very good condition Further, since it is one of those Scribners with an attractive color plate (showing very little wear) attached to the front board, it would look very appealing in a listing photograph. Okay, so you should be able to see that this book was not "crummy" when I obtained it. It WAS "adulterated," yes, by the library which discarded it. All I did was improve the overall looks of the book and make it more suitable for my home. You might even say I customized the book That term may rankle a few of our stuffier types. Too bad. "Customization" -- though a term with a bit of commercial baggage in its connotation -- does not have to be pejorative. It was a wonderful book, and it still is a wonderful book. Of course, being somewhat in touch with reality, I readily admit that if I took it to a dealer in San Diego, I would get a long spiel about the book's defects and maybe an offer of $5 if the dealer was feeling more generous as usual. Then, in the event I took the offer and walked out of the shop, the dealer would likely put the Scribners on sale for at least $50 because of the book's striking appearance. (Hell, the A----a Gallery down on Silverado in La Jolla would put it in the window and ask $75 for it. Not that I blame them -- the traffic will bear more where they are located.) As a result, while I am sure you meant no slur, I want to assure you that in no way is the book which inspired this thread a "crummy" book. The overall book design is masterful, the color plates are delightful, and the quality of the materials used to make the book are top grade. Anyway, despite some discomfort with your phrasing above, I do appreciate your interesting input. Mr. Palmer Room 314 (in the upstairs office) I agree entirely about giving thought before discarding something. - Todd T. A good point. - TT |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bud Webster wrote in message . ..
On 24 Aug 2004 15:53:47 -0700, (Bill Palmer) wrote: You might say that I was expecting some reader reactions sort of like, "Bleach on rare books?? What is this chap saying here?!!" Then, my intention was that they would read the post and come to realize that their knee-jerk reaction was based more on stereotypes and extreme cases than on reality, and that bleach really DOES have some advantages regarding removing unwanted ink impressions on page edges. I felt that my post had the gift of knowledge, and in fact some readers accepted that graciously, while others reacted with an unseemly anger and resentment because I forced them to confront some stereotypes which they had obviously been harboring for many years. Mr. Webster, while I have bent over backwards to treat you with more courtesy than you have accorded me since you first accosted me with your harsh, unfair and derisive remarks, I am now getting a bit exasperated. In fact, you have almost brought me to the point where I will visit the chemistry department of U.C. San Diego and see if I can get a couple of volunteer grad students to run a test on my book and then determine if there is even potentially enough bleach remaining at those page edges to cause any future damage to the volume. Simply put, I don't think any such residue will be detected, at least not in a potentially harmful quantity. In part, that will be due to the gentle water rinse I performed as soon as the bleach had removed the ink impression -- a key matter you have been told of but have ignored in your peevish fit, Mr. Webster. You further fail to understand that there is a point at which enough of an accelerant to oxidation will be removed to stop the process. Basically, that is just common sense. Have you never used bleach to remove a stain on a white cotton T shirt? Of course, when doing that intelligently, you don't let the bleach stand. You don't pour it over the stain and then go watch television for an hour. You remain and watch the spot disappear. Then you immediately and thoroughly rinse the bleach from the cotton cloth of the shirt. According to the illogical assertions of you and some other knee-jerk reactors, it would be impossible to remove spots from T-shirts in such an everyday manner, because the bleach would just keep eating through the T-shirt long after you thoroughly rinsed the cotton. And don't bother telling me that paper is different from cotton. I KNOW it is very different in many respects, but in this case there are enough similarities to make my analogy a valid one. One of the valuable characteristics of bleach is that, regarding the cleaning of many substances, it can be removed immediately once it has done its job. Saying that "bleach will ultimately damage paper" is no more sensible than saying that bleach will "ultimately damage" that white cotton T-shirt you removed the coffee or tea stain from. Bleach will only ultimately damage things when enough of it is allowed to remain to do that in the first place. Were it otherwise, heaven forbid you should get any bleach on your hands. You would have to rush to the hospital and have a few layers of skin tissue surgically peeled off, since of course rinsing the bleach from your hands under the water tap would be out of the question to sensible personages such as yourself, Mr. Webster. You simply choose to ignore the fact that enough of this particular can be accelerant can be removed to permanently halt the oxidation process, Mr. Webster. That does not speak well for your powers of reasoning. Should I visit the UCSD chemistry department as I am contemplating, I may even try to get a signed letter from a credentialed expert to post stating precisely the results of the chemical analysis. That statement of results might be accommpanied by a scholarly opinion or two regarding whether or not there is enough bleach found around those pages edges to cause future harm to the book. (If the results prove me mistaken, I will still share them forthrightly.) By Jiminey Cricket, you have just about gotten me riled up enough to do that, Mr. Webster. Mr. Palmer Room 342 in the upstairs office. Palmer, as many of the (far more knowledgeable than you) collectors have told you multiple times, bleach WILL ULTIMATELY DAMAGE PAPER, NO MATTER HOW CAREFULLY YOU USE IT. That's why library and museum conservators DON'T USE IT. Do you understand this very simple fact? Do you understand that chlorine bleach is an accelerant to oxidation, and that oxidation DESTROYS PAPER? There are NO "advantages" to using bleach to remove marks on a book, under ANY circumstances, unless you're dishonest, or just plain stupid. And I frankly don't care which you are. Your post did NOT have "the gift of knowledge," and any anger and resentment your post garnered from your betters here was absolutely warrented. You posted in a newsgroup devoted to the care and collecting of books a message about a quick-fix method of removing ink from a book THAT WILL DESTROY THE BOOK. If you honestly cannot understand this, if you truly cannot accept that there are people here with far more experience and far more knowledge of the care and feeding of books, then you are just as ignorant, stupid and willfully self-delusional as your reputation has it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Palmer" wrote in message om... (snipped clarification) Indeed I meant no slur with my loose terminology such as "crummy". Really all I meant to say was that the changes you talked about didn't seem to amount to much loss of utility to society from the volume, when it passes out of your hands. It still seems that way to me. The discussion had veered away from monetary value (though even there, if you somehow did reduce your own wealth, why should we care) and towards preservation of cultural artifacts. - Todd T. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"RWF" wrote in message ...
"Bill Palmer" wrote in message om... "RWF" wrote in message ... Don't you ever tire of destroying books Mr. Troll? Back under your bridge now. Probably most readers understand who the real troll is here. Yes, they know it is you, your fatuous ass. Nonsense. You had pestered me with your unwelcome attentions before I had even noticed your trivial presence in the group. Since you've showed up here, you've done nother but advocate the detruction of books in a series of trollish posts designed to look serious. Fiddlesticks. Were you able to read with a halfway intelligent mind, you would have noticed I am standing by my remarks, and in fact I may even take the book in question to the chemistry laboratory of a distinguished university to have the page edges analyzed, because I have every confidence that such an analysis will support my contention. Now you make a pathetic attempt to take the heat off your trollish tactics by accusing ME of being a troll. You ARE a troll, Finnan. An unpleasant, attention- starved little local troll who habitually pesters his betters for 15 seconds of attention. Nice try. Didn't work though. But you DID make it to my kill file, That's wonderful. Having no shortage of readers, I will be delighted not to have you continue to pester me. where you will reside with such other notable assholes as adumbs and Barker. That is your fantasy. In fact, as you cower behind your killfile, I will continue to write for the intelligent readers of the group. Now get back under your bridge Mr. Troll! You have worn that one out, haven't you? No doubt that is why you have never tried to expand your trolling to other groups -- even as a lowly troll in the Usenet community, your paucity of originality limits you. Cheers. Mr. Palmer Room 314 in the upstairs office |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making of America Books - on-line books | Mark Sornson | Books | 2 | May 24th 04 04:24 PM |
rec.collecting.books FAQ | Hardy-Boys.net | Books | 0 | May 9th 04 08:39 PM |
[FAQ] rec.collecting.books FAQ | Mike Berro | Books | 0 | December 26th 03 08:18 PM |
Book signing information | Ted Kupczyk | Autographs | 6 | November 2nd 03 02:04 PM |
UPCOMING BOOK SIGNINGS | Todd F. | Autographs | 5 | August 4th 03 06:54 AM |