From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 06/23/01-05:41:49 PM Z
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Richard Sullivan FRPS wrote:
> If you are referring to the incident where someone here in what appeared to
> be a respected alt-photo journal gave instructions on how to make gold
> chloride on a kitchen stove, I made no bones about the danger involved. It
Dick, you have spun what seemed to be Callie's joke (or intended joke)
about the Republican party into something neither implied nor intended (as
far as I could interpret it). You managed to turn that into a recitation
of your citizenship record. If they are indeed as given, your civic
credentials seem very fine. Definitely a redeeming feature, and to be
applauded, however irrelevant in the context.
But meanwhile, you cast your own credibility to the winds (as you did with
the original episode Callie cited you for). Liam's P-F #3 article about
making gold chloride HAD NOTHING ABOUT USING THE KITCHEN STOVE. There was
no heating at all. He mentioned in passing an episode with heat in making
silver nitrate -- TO WARN AGAINST IT !!!
As surely you know perfectly well...
It appears in a sidebar, titled "The Alchemist and the Ancestral Tooth."
Liam says he tried to speed up making silver nitrate "which took an
incredibly long time, sometimes literally weeks." He'd heard that heat
would speed things up, he says, but the flask he used was too small, so
the reaction overflowed. He goes on to point out that "those fumes can
kill you."
In other words, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. As of
course am I.
And you have carried on exactly in exactly this way, in wilfull distortion
and refusal to be corrected or listen to reason or the actual facts, in
violent adamant disrespectul threatening disruption of list business --
for ulterior purposes (as noted yesterday) -- on other occasions, starting
summer 1998 -- as noted yesterday and tomorrow.
The facts of this event are well documented however. (See P-F #3 & #4,
also list archive, June 18-27, 1999). You kept insisting the article said
what it didn't say & didn't say what it did say. For instance, though it
was STUDDED with warnings, from a star at the top saying "You May not Want
to Do This", to more, more, larded throughout, you decreed that these were
inadequate because "the tone was jocular".
Hello?
The tone was IN NO WAY jocular (except possibly the first), although
jocular is a time-honored mode of expression, used for all sorts of
warnings, public and private, with or without your permission. Of course
you were not being jocular, but in deadly earnest.
You scrambled from one "point" to the next, none of which were valid,
relevant, or necessary, any more than your invention above about the
kitchen stove.
You fumed about mixing the acids: they would fume. Liam explained
patiently and in detail, that that was not these acids, but sulfuric. He
added, however that he had deliberately done a test, dumping water on top
of the acid, with no reaction and no problem. And what did you say ?????
QUOTE: "That Liam got away with putting water into acid once does not say
I can do it, or he can do it again."
This is the vaunted Sullivan science that gives you the right to fulminate
about other folks affairs? I make no claims to science, tho I've done a
great many processes and observed as closely as possible. So let me share
this tidbit:
The law of cause and effect is generally valid. If Liam could do it and
you couldn't, you might consider other forces at work, and perhaps engage
an exorcist.
> was a bad idea then and is a bad idea now. To criticize the work of an
> author is not character assassination. Stephen Livick had a problem
> with Post-Factory and its policies, he posted it, and I didn't
> discipline him for it. He, as far as I have seen, only criticized the
My understanding from Callie (who is NOT me, however you may wish it --
eat your heart out) was that he said he'd asked a question I'd ignored.
That's not a publication policy, but an unsupported claim. (I don't know
what other "policy" he might refer to, except that it was going to be a
long time until his article appeared.)
> magazine and its policies etc. Golly gee, are we now supposed to
> accept everything whole cloth that one of our own publishes without
> critical comment or assume that any critical comment is a mean
> spirited personal attack on its author?
Again, you distort present discussion. Again, proving my point about your
tendencies. And again, can anyone who's followed this list believe I
failed to answer a question about gum? Also that I had a message I had to
send by subterfuge, through a "troll"? Since when have I failed to be
direct ? Since when would I put my words and thoughts in someone else's
mouth?
> I agree with Nick, I don't believe you are who you say you are. The post
> has the bizarreness of an Echo Troll.
>
> I think it is best you stick to the topics the list was designed for and
> get out of the gutter.
So, whoever is critical of you, even with glowing praise for your past,
and fervent hopes for your future, as Callie was, is a troll, and a
bizarre fake, and patronized: "I think it is best you ...get out of the
gutter"?
The gutter????
Of course Callie has some good company.... as quoted in Post-Factory #4's
reprise of "The Gold Flap," which has dissenting opinion galore --
including some PhDs offlist. Of course the spineless wonders didn't dare
put it onlist, tho here we see why. Also why you get away with so much --
look what happens to someone who dares a protest, even laced with high
praise! They get told to get out of the gutter, and oh the ignominy,
accused of being Judy Seigel!!
I'll add that a sidebar in the issue on the "Chemistry and Reality of aqua
regia" included quotations from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and
confirmation by "real chemists ... of Liam's observations about the
relatively low level of AR pressure, limit of fizz, weakening with time,
slow buld-up of fumes, and unlikelihood of 'runaway' reaction."
And it ended: "Feedback is that the Post-Factory gold chloride article
contains far more info (and warnings!) than anything on the topic to
date." There's also "Two from the Gold Field," tales by other folks who
made "liquid gold." And of course much else, enchanting folks worldwide.
Whoever lacks a P-F #4 & wishes one, can send $2 for postage to
Post-Factory, 61 Morton Street, New York, NY, 10014
with the words "Issue #4" and get one on the house. (That's $2 for
Canada & US. For "overseas" has to be $4. Sorry.)
Or if you prefer the original gold chloride article, write "Issue #3."
Meanwhile, you explained your urgent mission against this article as "a
matter of ethics, plain old ethics."
Talk about fake.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST