Re: yes and no

Onslaught? Not from me, Judy, you should know that.

My fault, perhaps. I had this romantic idea that any thread, being on
topic, could be discussed for a length of
time, independently of the number of participants. I have not made an
enormous number of contributions on
this thread, as far as I remember.

But several listers, including Don and you, have made me notice that
this is not so. Well, I can take a hint :-)

Tom Sobota
Madrid, Spain

Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> 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 Tue Jan 31 10:14:22 2006