From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 02/07/03-09:55:20 AM Z
I apologize for misreading; I read "but really!" as being inside rather
than outside the parentheses. But my comments weren't directed at you
specifically so much as at anyone who continues to repeat this false
assertion that Scopick's pigment test has been discredited, and
certainly you implied that by using it as an example of wrong
information that is given in texts. I thought that if someone as
knowledgeable and sensible and usually empirically based as you seem to
be was repeating these accusations without qualification, then we did
need a review of that discussion. And just a gentle reminder: if your
tests show different results from Scopick's, that won't discredit his
results, it will simply be a disagreement between honest researchers,
which was my point. To say that you will test the test before you
"discredit" it, is to miss my point.
Katharine
Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>
> <Christina Anderson wrote>
> Speaking of which, as I am researching about 10 alt processes to get
> all my notes in one place and one format--Pagemaker--I have a stack of 15-20
> books at my kitchen table. With each process I read all the books, and take
> notes. I am absolutely amazed at the inconsistencies and wrong information
> published. I know we have talked about this before on this list, in
> specific, related to Scopick's pigment test (let's not rehash that again),
> but really! For instance, one formula for argyrotype had the elements mixed
> in 1 ltr of water, when all other books had the same amounts of ingredients
> mixed in 100ml water. I think that is a pretty big mistake (?) unless there
> is the ability for argyrotype to work under all kinds of dilutions.
>
> <Katherine Thayer wrote>
> > No, actually, I think we do need to rehash this again, since it keeps
> > coming back in these kinds of snide comments ("but really!")
> Katherine,
> My "snide comment" was not snide toward the hashing out of wrong and
> right, if you would read my post, and, in fact, snide was not my tone--it
> was incredulousness. My incredulousness was over the fact of the myriad
> mistakes written in books that are really obvious--mixing a formula with 1
> liter of water instead of 100 milliliters!!!!????
> That said, I am not a gum expert and cannot refute or support Scopick.
> I learned gum from his book, so I have respect for him. I also respect the
> fact that he answered the accusations against him, and in a kind way. The
> point of hashing things out is to find truth, not to feed our egos as to who
> is "right". And, as you state in your second post, there is probably not
> only one truth, but many. Maybe I should have used, as an example, the
> hashing out of the definition of lanscape, or the nude, or some other
> example that would not have been so sensitive still.
> What I don't like that happens on this list is character assassination
> that occurs frequently when people hotly disagree over a topic. You can
> hotly debate pigment stain tests if you want, but to bring in an author or
> poster and discredit him/her
> is unkind, just as your accusing me of making a snide comment is unkind.
> You will notice I did not say who the author was of the book with the
> incorrect formula. I merely pointed out that the formula was severely
> incorrect. Other minor inconsistencies I can live with. Maybe someone will
> tell me that argyrotype can be diluted that much and therefore this book is,
> in fact, correct.
>
> > the "debunking" of the pigment test was completely discredited by gum
> > experts on this list as well as by Scopick himself. That horse has
> > beaten to death, but it seems like some people haven't got the message.
>
> I very much got the point of the pigment test and plan to test it myself
> before I discredit it. Not only did I *get* the message, I have it
> completely CUT AND PASTED in a "gum file" so I CAN test it one day!!!! And,
> furthermore, I even brought it with me to Japan and read and REREAD it
> numerous times!!
>
> >To continue the original accusations as if these rebuttals
> > hadn't been offered is to wilfully distort history and the facts.
>
> Good heavenly days, I made no such accusations.
>
> >I thought someone needed to speak up again and try to set the record
> straight.
> > Katharine Thayer
>
> You made your point loud and clear.
> Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST