From: Liam Lawless (liam.lawless@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 02/23/03-10:57:23 AM Z
Hi All,
That's not my statement, either. Nor is it how I spell "competence".
Liam :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Smigiel [mailto:jsmigiel@kvcc.edu]
Sent: 23 February 2003 15:58
To: jseigel@panix.com; alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: the safey
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