[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: to squabble or not..
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Rosae Reeder wrote:
> personally, I would rather read information pertaining to alternative photo
> processes or the like rather than silly squabbling over who's warning
> message was most important.
The problem Rosae is when every warning is raised to fever pitch -- or
used as a club to beat us with, as Bob's generally are (for some years
now, all with this tone) -- then they lose effectiveness. Is this
truly concern for our welfare, or an opportunity to scold?
Every "chemical" has a hazard, many more than the case at hand... if
warnings can't be handled with PROPORTION as well as precaution, we're
paralyzed, also *vermisched.* And, if you haven't learned to shrug off
Maximum Bob, you'll be irritated. We're not bad children, we're bad adults
perhaps, but he's not our parent. That tone is unearned.
If you go to the hazards books -- you'll see "smelling salts", gum arabic,
standard developer ingredients, and on down the list, all given with worst
case scenario. "Information" in these terms isn't truly helpful. In fact,
taking the overall ceramics picture, Bob's was fairly meaningless --
beyond scare mongering. Meanwhile, the tone in the hazards books is more
level and less accusatory, the lesser evil.
Judy