From: Joe Smigiel (jsmigiel@kvcc.edu)
Date: 02/23/03-09:58:26 AM Z
The paragraph quoted below is not my statement. It was originally quoted by me in a response to a post by Liam (where it was properly attributed to him), and then apparently cut/pasted into Judy Siegel's response to my post. Confusing, isn't it? While I find Liam's posts and articles interesting, I am certain he would not want his statements attributed to me anymore than the reverse.
For the record: I believe we (i.e., practitioners, teachers, and authors) do bear some responsibility in informing newcomers to the list of potential hazards associated with what we promote. I believe a weekly safety post would be sufficient in most cases. If we are discussing a particularly hazardous procedure, then, yes, we should give a brief warning and perhaps point to the proposed safety FAQ for more information. I wouldn't want anyone to be injured as a result of my negligence in pointing out an extreme hazard, or my assumptions about their competance, both for moral and legal reasons.
Joe
>>> jseigel@panix.com 02/23/03 03:22 AM >>>
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Joe Smigiel wrote:
(snip)
> Precisely. Does the photographer wishing to engage in potentially dangerous
> processes not also bear some responsibility to inform him/herself, at least
> of the obvious or common dangers? Can an author not assume at least that
> much common sense in his/her readers, or should ALL relevant safety
> precautions be contained in EVERY published article on photographic
> processes? They all carry some risk - you could choke on hypo crystals, you
> know.
(snip)
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:09 AM Z CST