[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: to squabble or not..
Judy Seigel wrote:
> 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
Thank you Judy for making the point far more eloquently than I. The dichro
hazard syndrome, has been with us on this list for a number of years the last
time it arose was last year,.When the matter really got thrashed out in a
civilized manner. The problem by its its very nature is very complex. There is
not a simple mount Sinai proclamation that adequately covers it all. I think
Judy's, handle with proportion and precaution, is very sound advice's As for
Pam's comment about getting one's ego deflated. I have to report that in my
sad case this is next to impossible !
Pete