Leatherbound Dickens 1909

michael adams wrote:

who exactly is it, who you are claiming regards the books as
having little value ? As not worth having ?

Here's the post I responded to:

The Bobino wrote:
Michel wrote:
If anyone can tell me anything about these books, I would love
to hear it.
They would make great fuel if you run out of logs for your
woodstove this winter.

Nitwits with newly acquired McMansions like to buy them for their
"library" so that they can look well read.
(http://tinyurl.com/gg7tj)

So, to answer your question, it is someone called Michel (a troll,
perhaps?) who regards the books as having little value and not being
worth having (he thinks they should be burned). Bob comes into it by
adding to that the comment that rich nitwits might like them.

Now, just what the hell is wrong with pointing out that they are *not*
fit for burning and not *only* fit for rich nitwits? What's with you -
and Bob for that matter?

Note that I said it in the context of a previous poster
facetiously suggesting that they should be burned.

Nope

Uh, *read* it please, Michael. Bob begins by quoting the other poster's
twaddle about burning them and adds that they are fit for rich nitwits.
That's the context. Got it?

I agree with Bob's point

The above strongly implies that you don't.

Nonsense. I *specifically* agreed with him, saying:

That may sometimes be the case

Bob's comment can be read as being totally non-judgemental.

It can be read in lots of ways, Michael. Perhaps we could end this
rather pointless discussion now, and get back to books.

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org

"John R. Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jack Campin wrote:

you appear to be an offensive foul-mouthed ****wit with
some kind of obsessional grudge nobody else on this
group cares about. Go away.

Michael Adams replied:

John actually started it, by calling New Reformed Bob
here "a cantankerous old git"...

Hold on, Michael. What I actually said was:

Bob, you are a cantankerous old git, and proud of it.
Nothing wrong with that...

And there isn't. You've been around the group long enough to know that
that's Bob's trademark. In fact, in days before he and I fell out, I
believe I called him something of the sort in an e-mail. Or was it
"curmudgeonly old sod"? Anyway, it was something along those lines and
he took it as the compliment it was meant to be.

....

Yes but he seems to have changed of late. He's given short but helpful
responses to one or two queries outside of his speciality. And in
making the original observation I don't think he was expecting to be
called on it, by anyone. As he saw maybe, he was simply stating an
unexeptional fact.

....


...simply by virue of the fact that NRB simply alluded to
"Nitwits with newly acquired McMansions".

Not at all. I called him a cantankerous old git because he was labelling
me as insane and illogical and insisting on calling me by a silly name:

....

Sorry. My mistake. Illogical plus the Spam thing.

....


no sane, logical person would have inferred that from
my post.

Oh, that's right - it's Mr. Spamamoto. Sorry.

Michael goes on to say that my jibe

was deliberately intended to provoke New Reformed Bob,
back into his former ways. Back into a vicious cycle
of abuse and recrimination.

I'm sorry you think so badly of me.

....

Well, things have been a bit slow around here of late.
You know how it is.

....

If Bob is so newly reformed, perhaps
he might like to stop calling people by silly nicknames and insist that
anyone who makes a point that differs from his own is illogical and
insane.

....

Yebutt. He needn't necessarily have been "making a point". If he thought he
was stating unexeptional fact, then anyone that differs from him, is doing
what exactly?

....


When like me, you've been accused by Bob Finnon ( NRB
as was ) of sniffing little boys bicycle seats, and
being labelled "Adumbs" for months on end, then
perhaps then you'll have something to complain of.
As it is you haven't.

Yes, you've been on the receiving end of his venom almost as much as I
have. If you feel I was out of order that carries weight with me, but
I'm a bit surprised nevertheless.

....

Nobody can be held responsible for their personal appearance or
deformities if any. Even if true. Which in the main is what you've
bben accused of by Bob in the past ISTR.

Whereas sniffing little boys bicycle seats is a conscious choice.
Being wrongly accused of this is far, far more damaging and hurtful
IMO

....


I happen to welcome sinners back into the fold who repent.
Whatever their past wrongdoings.

OK. Well, I won't be outdone as a Jesus figure by you, my man, and if
it's all about letting bygones be bygones, well, by all means, let's do
it.

Frankly, I like Bob's cantankerousness. I'd be sorry to see a
butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-mouth Bob. I do get tired of the abuse,
though, and hope that he does reform in that direction.

....

I was wondering if he's undergone a life changing event. But he
wouldn't respond.

....


I can only suggest you direct own your laughable attempts at
foul-mouthed repartee to local Glasgow Groups
where it may be better appreciated.

Yes, there was a certain irony in his remark ("foulmouthed ****wit")
which did rather undermine his point!

Still, he gave a jolly good summary of the Nelson editions of Dickens,
so credit where credit is due.

In addition Finnon also happens to like animals.

Does he eat them, though?

His cat(s) certainly do(es).


Which is good enough for me.

Let's not get too carried away here; the founder of the Imperial Fascist
League was an animal-lover, as was the antisemitic author of *Tarka the
Otter*, just to mention a couple of small fry in that league.


As well as old nibs himself, of course. Except he tested the poison
on his own alsations in the bunker, rather than let them leave early
and start a new life of their own on a farm somewhere So that totally
blots his copy book on that score, for me. ( Funny priorities some
people have. )

Williamson wrote something about his experiences in the Great War
which I've read, and forgotten.

Both Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer quite possibly hated animals
with a vengeance, for all I know. Just to put the icing on the cake.


michael adams

....


John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org

John R. Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
You mean you think I posted off-topic just to annoy you? Actually, I've
been away for the past two months, during which time I only snatched an
occasional look at this newsgroup via Google groups. I hadn't realised
that you were now posting as "the Bobino", though looking back I see you
responded in a hostile way to something else I wrote a couple of weeks
ago, and if I'd been reading messages more thoroughly I'd have put two
and two together.

What?!?! You go out of your way to annoy me?!?!?! Never!!!!!
FYI: I'm now posting under the sobriquet of "Doo Wop Daddy-O" - don't
want you to get confused.
TTFN
-
Crabby Old Bob

"John R. Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

who exactly is it, who you are claiming regards the books as
having little value ? As not worth having ?

Here's the post I responded to:

The Bobino wrote:
Michel wrote:
If anyone can tell me anything about these books, I would love
to hear it.
They would make great fuel if you run out of logs for your
woodstove this winter.

Nitwits with newly acquired McMansions like to buy them for their
"library" so that they can look well read.
(http://tinyurl.com/gg7tj)

So, to answer your question, it is someone called Michel (a troll,
perhaps?) who regards the books as having little value and not being
worth having (he thinks they should be burned). Bob comes into it by
adding to that the comment that rich nitwits might like them.

Now, just what the hell is wrong with pointing out that they are *not*
fit for burning and not *only* fit for rich nitwits? What's with you -
and Bob for that matter?

....

Maybe we're not very good at explaining ourselves.

Bob isn't claiming they're only fit for rich nitwits is he ?

That's the point.

The first poster claimed

"They would make great fuel if you run out of logs for your woodstove
this winter ".

Now if it was a choice between freezing to death, or burning a set of
Dickens, which would you choose ?

The fact that given the choice, anyone might burn the books rather than
freeze to death, doesn't mean that under more favourable circumstances
they wouldn't regard them a set of nice books, as valuable literature,
examplars of the Victorian printer's art, or whatever.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

And the same applies to Bob's example.

The fact is, that some people do purchase sets of Dickens as library
furniture. However this in itself is a tacit recognition on their part,
that in the eyes of those people they are seeking to emulate, sets of
Dickens are indeed recognised as books worth having. Otherwise they'd
be merely filling their "libraries" with old telephone directories,
encyclopaedias and the like. Would they not?


michael adams

snippage



John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org

Michael Adams, catching the tail end of the silly season, wrote:

Now if it was a choice between freezing to death, or burning a
set of Dickens, which would you choose ?

"Ah, yes. I remember that winter. Harsh as a pre-NRB riposte, snow
falling on cedars, me without a penny to my name or a home to call my own...

"Thank God for that Nelson edition, though. Saved our lives, it did. I
remember me old dad (bless his heart!), tearing off the bindings with
his bare hands, fanning the endpapers into flames, laying the spines on
in strips and adding chunks of board until the fire was well kindled.

"And me dear old mum, heating up chunks of snow and boiling David
Copperfield, one leaf at a time, muttering, "Here's to better times, my
loves," as she passed the pot around to us kids..."

"Wait a minute, wait a minute! You had a *pot*? *And* a decent set of
Dickens to chew on? You had it soft, then! I remember that winter, we
lived on nothing but barbecued paperbacks for three months, huddled
under a pile of old newspapers..."

"Newspapers? You had newspapers? Talk about the life of Riley! We had
nothing between us and the cold except a few old Buddhist textbooks..."

"Buddhist textbooks? God, I'd have given my back teeth for a luxury like
that. We had to make do with a Readers' Digest copy of propositions from
Wittgenstein. Mother would read them to us to help us sleep at night..."

"Your mother could *read*?!..."

Etc.

On the subject of bookish dilemmas, the Exlibris archives have a whole
lot of stuff that should appeal to you on whether to save books or cats
in the event of a library fire. I think it starts he

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byfor.../msg00131.html

It then spreads itself over several threads, most of which you can find
he

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/cgi-b...brissearch.cgi

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org