Re: old literatures

From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject: Re: old literatures
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:05:22 -0500 (EST)

> except possibly in reverse, which made your dismissive tone even more
> annoying.

Dismissive tone? Maybe we have opposite definitions here, too?

Anyway, thank you very much for telling me that this list was your
friends club not a place to exchange information. Had I known it
better that anything other than what's plesant to your ear is
considered rudeness, I could do things in a different way...
maybe not.

In reality I have limited time and there are so many other things I
enjoy. I value human interactions as well as ideas, creativity,
knowledge, experience, facts, and so many other things, but I just
don't have enough brain serotonin to handle too much stuff. So I
cannot condense all I know about the subject in each postings in a
perfectly edited way. I have no obligation to provide information or
to fix other's postings containing some incorrect statements to begin
with. But when I talk about something fact-critical, I do check facts,
at least for the key points. Polysulfide matter is something I spent a
lot of time in the past, both in darkroom and in library. Topics like
this, the more I searched, the more inconsistent statements were found
in the literatures. Clearing things out takes a lot of physical and
mental efforts. If you emphasize sentiments over facts, you must have
thought about how I would feel about those postings repeating
errorneous statements after my repeated indications of the point they
have missed. Do you think knowledge is something that's always there
when you open an old encyclopedia?

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Reality has always had too many heads." (Bob Dylan, Cold Irons Bound, 1997)