yes and no

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Tom Sobota wrote:

>.... I can understand
> that this process will be extremely boring for someone, but in that case, as
> Katharine says, just skip the thread.

Yes and no, Tom. I've noticed two things you may have missed.

1. There hasn't been a serious OTHER thread on the list for quite a
while... maybe that's static electricity, or more likely "inversion"
sucking up all the air.

2. When a thread gets tiresome to others, requests to take it offlist
arise. (Tho I don't remember another of such duration & volume by so few.)

I think we all know better than to tangle with Katharine, and I myself
have pretty much given up on following -- or caring about -- this thread.
But I don't think Don deserves to be demonized for saying what probably
many, if not the majority of folks were thinking.

Which brings me to a 3rd thing -- the meaning of words (always important,
in private AND public life). Katharine protests a "diatribe" -- from Don?
Webster defines a "diatribe" as "bitter and abusive speech." What Don said
was something like, hey enough already. (But see first 11 words, paragraph
above.)

The usual criterion in matters like this, BTW, is: "Is this good for the
list?" IMO it depends -- within reason it's probably harmless -- but that
line may be crossed. I don't recall in probably 12 years such extreme
expatiation by so few on a matter so arcane.

It seems in any event that with, if memory serves, only 4 folks still
involved, this thread could easily be taken offlist without hard feelings,
and, if conclusions are reached, they could be shared in triumph.

I think I also need to add for the benefit of those frightened away from
gum printing by Katharine's statement that:

QUOTE: Anything that's ever said about gum here, is nothing but
conjecture based on empirical observation. If we prohibited conjecture
based on empirical observation, there wouldn't be anything left that
anyone could say about gum printing, period. END QUOTE

That statement is of course absurd on its face. Tho it may apply to the
tonal inversion story, it hardly applies elsewhere (except possibly to
Paul Anderson's "gum-pigment ratio test"). There's no "prohibition" of
conjecture; there's just fatigue with its excess, while I myself have
found empirical observation not only sufficient but crucial, the sine qua
non of gum printing -- in which most facts are observable, testable,
demonstrable, repeatable, guide and proof. (Although variables tests,
changing only one variable at a time, are too often honored in the
breach-- & essential.)

In truth, the basics of gum are quite simple. Yes, speculation &
investigation are part of the challenge -- but there can also be too much
of a (formerly) good thing, and to be accused of a "diatribe" for saying,
"um, enough" is -- too much.

(And now, I suppose, the onslaught.)

Judy
Received on Mon Jan 30 21:34:23 2006