A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Books
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Making books your own



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 24th 04, 04:12 PM
R. Totale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 24th 04, 06:18 PM
Bill Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 24th 04, 11:53 PM
Bill Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

  #24  
Old August 25th 04, 12:16 AM
Bill Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Giltedge04) wrote in message ...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Todd T" wrote in message
news

"Mark Healey" wrote in message


t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC,
(Bill
Palmer) wrote:




A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.


What a shame public libraries dont see things that way? Appears to me that
they are one of the largest destroyers or vandalisers of books collectable or
not.


That is absoulutely true in that the
administrators of many libraries, by
their lack of imagination in ensuring
that their staffs take proper care
of books, show that they the library
administrators are people who view books
only as sources of information. They
would in many cases seem to have no
feeling for the book itself, apart from
the book's information. That is why they
allow books to be mutilated: they feel
that the basic information contained in
the book is still intact, despite all
the library junk they uglify the book
with.

Consider too the way that some libraries
go bananas over computers, even to extent
of spending book money on computers and
dumping books to make room for computers.
Before long, everyone who has a tv is
likely going to have a computer. The
library does not need to provide computers
for the masses any more than they need to
provide radio and tv for the masses. Of
course, a library will need some computers,
but normal people will possess, and know how
to use, a computer of some sort for their
basic information needs. Some libraries
should donate their computers to the poor
people and should get back to books.


Mr. Palmer
Room 314 in the upstairs office

Stan

  #25  
Old August 25th 04, 01:07 AM
Bud Webster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 obvoiusly been harboring for many
years.


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.

  #27  
Old August 25th 04, 06:16 AM
Bill Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 25th 04, 08:44 AM
Bill Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 25th 04, 03:43 PM
Todd T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 25th 04, 05:59 PM
Bill Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:18 PM
Book signing information Ted Kupczyk Autographs 6 November 2nd 03 03:04 PM
UPCOMING BOOK SIGNINGS Todd F. Autographs 5 August 4th 03 06:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.