[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[BKARTS] Insulted. Sorry folks, I will leave this list

> - I have not personally insulted Mr Cremers by making this
> critique, and been clear about that, though he seems to feel
> that insulting me off-list is now a worthwhile thing to do.
> can that please end it? can Mr Cremers please stop emailing
> me privately to insult me personally?
> thank you.
> fran sendbuehler

This is OUTRAGEOUS! It was suggested this discussion would be continued off
list. Now I am being accused ON the list that I have been insulting someone
OFF list. What is all of this? I will leave Book Arts-L. Please read the
terrible insult I sent off list and judge for yourself.

I wish all of you the very best.

Ton Cremers

READ THE 'INSULT' BELOW (and PLEASE also read what provoked this 'insult')


I have never before read a more complex apology. Just visited
www.MOUTON-NOIR.ORG and you are right there is a LOT of work that needs to
be done. Last Update: August 2002, under construction and back again autumn
2002.... Seems to me A Long Hot Summer.

Take care

Ton Cremers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Book_Arts-L [mailto:BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> fran sendbuehler
> Sent: 18 April 2005 17:03
> To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: messages to Book Arts-L from museum-security.org
>   I wish a certain apology to be public, hence the on-list reply.
> I will not reply to Mr Cremer's reply directly  as i address a number
> of his points here.
> James Tapley wrote:
> >Fran ... please point out the inaccuracy (your word) in the Museum
> >Security Network's posting. If you can not point out the inaccuracy
> >then I think you should withdraw the charge and apologize.
> it is true i should not have been patronizing in my last post
> - i realised this before ever reading any replies. a poor choice of
> words coloured my post in a way i didn't intend.
> for that i readily offer a heart-felt apology. [my choice of 'lower
> class scum' is the phrase to which i refer. i said 'out loud' what
> *some* newswire posts often imply but do not say 'out loud'. i
> apologise. ]
> my position in general is this: that education cutbacks, and the
> social problems that hinge on this, and a general decline in various
> things - respect, consideration, the increasing lack of valorization
> of work that does not feed the capitalist machine[*] are all things
> that hinder our growth as a society and as a species.  relatedly, I
> have strong opinions on (and generally low regard of) newswire stories
> that decline to give a summary of events and leave it up to the reader
> to fill in the blanks.
> I understand, and long understood, that Mr Cremers forwards posts and
> does not write them himself. I should have stated this before so that
> he would understand my attacks are NOT and were never personal. My
> objection to his forwarded posts is, and was, that they are often
> lacking in information that would COMPLETE the information given. I am
> NOT saying that they are of no interest.  (if they had been of no
> interest, no replies on same would ever have appeared from my hand).
> If i ever gave the impression, whether through careless grammar or
> [anyone's] misreading, that my attack was personal, then please
> forgive me; such was never the case.
> I very much believe that a line or two of information to go with all
> forwarded material (whether they have a supporting URL or not) would
> be highly appropriate, ie [event took place
> ..../05 ... in... and the background is: ....  ]. This, by the way, is
> standard "netiquette"
> for all posts forwarded to anyone/anyplace. Indeed, usually only a
> summary is provided with a link, so the interested party can go read
> further.
> Why Do You take my criticism personally, Mr Cremers?  i stand by my
> previous assertions: Museum Security's postings
> [definition: the posts Mr Cremers forwards from newswires] have been
> lacking in valuable information that would further inform his
> readership and offer greater credence to the items forwarded. A lack
> of information renders them at best lacking, and at worst inaccurate,
> in that they lack
> *necessary* [essential, valuable] information.
> (which, as you recall, Mr Tapley, cause me to reply inappropriately on
> a previous occasion. Perhaps i am too used to the informality of
> another list i have been subscribed to for fifteen years? Perhaps
> having strong opinions - doing one's work well, for instance - on
> certain things are less and less welcome on certain stages? That is
> seriously too bad, if it means that it's OK to send along information
> that is missing some crucial bits... and it is therefore the reader's
> problem. That's kind of like binding a book badly and making it your
> customer's problem... isn't it?)
> I don't know about the rest of you, but i have other things to do -
> like work - that make it impossible for me to  spend an indefinite
> number of hours on line every day checking out every single bit of
> writing that comes across my desk...
> therefore, my position is,
> again:  information forwarded deserves to be presented in a complete,
> concise, and clear fashion.
> apologetically, and yet still with high standards and strong opinions,
> fran sendbuehler.
> [*single mothers living in and raising their children in poverty,
> cutbacks in socialised medicine, the lack of doctors and nurses and
> teachers where i live, a serious lack of gov't involvement in things
> they should be responsible for, and by law are. ]
> >If Paul Werner is unable to document his charges then they
> too should
> >be withdrawn and he should apologize. "Feelings" alone don't cut it
> >when making what amounts to an assault upon another's professional
> >standards.
> >It seems hardly fair to complain that they are "incomplete" postings
> >just because they do not contain all of what you perceive as
> relevant
> >data. Certainly anyone wanting more information need only Google the
> >story. My goodness, the most recent MSN posting even
> included a link to
> >the Hindu Times!
> >I don't recall you being barbqued on list. I do recall that you made
> >some rather startling and unfounded assumptions about and
> denunciations
> >of a library and its staff and that these were corrected by
> others on
> >list. At the time I thought that this was done much too kindly.
> >Your use now of the phrase "lower class scum" when nothing in the
> >initial posting (check the archives please) suggested such a
> thing only
> >betrays your own prejudices. These may or may not be well
> founded but
> >they are hardly the responsibility of anyone else. Best, James
>              ***********************************************
>      The Bonefolder: an e-journal for the bookbinder and book artist
>              For all your subscription questions, go to the
>                       Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
>                   Both at: <http://www.philobiblon.com>
>              ***********************************************

     The Bonefolder: an e-journal for the bookbinder and book artist

             For all your subscription questions, go to the
                      Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.

                  Both at: <http://www.philobiblon.com>

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]