Re: Interesting set of STM-era photos


Dean Payne
 

Ben,
You wrote: "Wow. You really don't know much about..." in response to his use of the word "apparently"?? Geez... what's wrong with writing
"Here's a link to some background regarding the collection; addtional links on the page give further context to this remarkable collection of photos." without the dismissive prelude?? It would have served the purpose.

You replied:
"In an academic discussion, the word "apparently" is a weasel word..."

In casual conversation, the word "apparently" is used more... casually! I hadn't realized this list qualified as an "academic discussion". And... "weasel word"?? Gentlemen, please! Play nice! In past discussions, anybody who made an assertion that wasn't 100% accurate was directed to check his facts before posting (a good idea), so the message seems to be to NOT post if you aren't an expert in the particular subject (perhaps that's why a note of uncertainty crept into his wording?) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think we need to allow somewhat more leeway in allowing people to feel free to post without fear of getting called on the carpet... Of course, they'd expect corrections or additions to their info. Correct info and cordial conversation can coexist.

It has been suggested that posters develop thicker skin, when someone tells them they don't know what they're talking about. I'd suggest that the veteran contributors on this list develop "thicker ears": you can expect that a new poster will ask a question that has been asked before. Feel free to ignore it without comment! No harm done... Likewise, a correction can be made without implying that the poster should leave the discussion to the experts.

You then went on to say:
"Sir, I will happily match my body of work against yours any day of the week."

Uh... Nobody questioned your expertise! I can't speak for all (weasel words!), but I have a deep respect for your work (and that of other veteran contributors as well). However, I don't think that expertise gives anybody the right to a lapse in decorum. I've seen this behavior before from others on the list, and it's disturbing. If our most expert members can't be civil... What kind of message does that send?

Dean Payne

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:



John Stokes wrote:
"It would help if you would educate the great unwashed out here, what did I miss in my comments? Here is the info from the link you so kindly posted for me. I believe I was correct in my assumption that these photos were original color photos and not hand painted black & white photos. Was it the use of the term "film" that got your dander up? Sorry, should have said "slides" or "transparencies." Same point, however."

Sir, words have meaning. You posted:
"They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination."

In an academic discussion, the word "apparently" is a weasel word that translates as "I'm uncertain about my facts." As I stated before, this collection has been discussed at length on this list, and the giveaway that this collection was photographed on transparencies was the discussion regarding Kodachrome over the past few days. Additionally, the background on this collection is well documented on the Library of Congress website. Don't get angry with me over constructive criticism.

John also wrote:
"Wow, well excuse me, Sir! I guess I forgot that this group is restricted to only the self important and self acknowledged 'experts.'"

Sir, I will happily match my body of work against yours any day of the week.


Ben Hom

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.