[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Permanence in General (Was: Inkjet Printer Updates Wanted)
- To: Multiple recipients of list BOOK_ARTS-L <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Permanence in General (Was: Inkjet Printer Updates Wanted)
- From: R Starr <rstarr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:46:07 -0500
- In-reply-to: <01IBLMCN26LU0068D2@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU>
- Message-id: <199611081546.HAA19508@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sorry--the other phone got picked up; however, this exemplifies my point
about the ephemeral nature of things.
On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, R Starr wrote:
> I've been following this discussion with some interest and think that the
> issue is NOT one of permanence; it's one of RELATIVE PERMANENCE. Very
> few things on earth are truly permanent (if any). For example, a prior
discussion dealt with the effects of a nuclear blast. If this occurred
we would lose not only things that are magnetically stored but also
microfilm and even materials on paper, canvas, leather, etc. that would
melt and/or burn. Maybe all we can say is that within a certain margin
of error and given certain storage/display conditions that a given item
might deteriorate in certain ways over a certain period of time.
Additionally, it should be stated whether the materials involved have
been tested for potential deterioration under varying conditions.