Tadeuz Jalocha (tjalocha@puc.cl)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:34:45 -0300
Hello,
It may sound as a bad joke, but i'm asking for the Article you all are
talking about.
I made some Gold chloride using Aqua Regia time ago, but i don't knew
the real Gold content of my resulting brew. You have to know, that it is
impossible to obtain Gold Chloride at reasonble prizes in this country
(Chile; over 300US$ 1 gram P.A. grade, certified).
In respect to all the mails on this subject, i think that any kind of
Information is useful, if not with bad intentions posted. In my case,
all i knew when i started to make Gold Chloride was: "Aqua Regia
dissolves Gold", point. So i made some Aqua Regia and dissolved some
Gold in it without ANY precautions. I'm sure, that more information
reduces the risks in such cases. And to be honest, i will contiue making
Gold Chloride; so the only way is to do it well informed. I believe too,
that there are many others out there who have similar problems obtaining
Gold Chloride; so rather than discussing about the dangers of publishing
an article about a dangerous process, i find it's more useful to publish
how make this process as safe as possible.
Wishing a nice day to all,
Tadeuz Jalocha
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Kallitype wrote:
>
> > .. Look at what happened to McDonald's when some idiot
> > spilled hot coffee in her lap! And they have incredibly deep pockets and
> > a huge legal staff.
>
> Terry, again, again, again, that story has become, let's call it
> "urban myth"! McDonald's had had and ignored 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED)
> complaints about their scalding coffee, which was in fact 20 degrees
> hotter than usual restaurant coffee, even at the drive-through window.
> There were other circumstances of MacDonald's guilt, which I forget at
> this moment, but I do recall that the 88-year old (or thereabouts) woman
> required 3 skin grafts -- not to mention that the "award" was reduced to a
> fraction of the publicized figure.
>
> In fact one might argue that exactly citing this case proves that "sanity"
> has taken leave of its senses today on alt-photo. And your message seems
> to be that since I have no deep pockets and legal staff, I'm especially
> vulnerable, therefore guilty as charged... Is that nice? Does it even
> compute?
>
> But I am in any event not certain that so addressing an article you
> haven't read is fruitful and constructive. Nor do I think Sullivan's
> concern is lest I get sued, which your message could also be taken to
> imply. Rather, the sense I get from here is that the notion of lawsuit is
> seized upon as, what's the buzz phrase -- assault weapon. Having done
> something I could conceivable according to popular belief get sued for, I
> am therefore guilty. Why am I not therefore heroic?
>
> The irony, as I have heard from others offlist, is that a different *tone*
> on Sullivan's part could have led to a constructive and potentially useful
> exchange for all on issues of great interest to all. I don't think the
> .... I *will* call it assault of GOTCHA ! and THUNDER was disinterested --
> or constructive.
>
> Sorry,
>
> J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:37