Re: Archival papers & inks

[Michael Greer <mgreer942@yahoo.com>]

--- David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>  > 
>  > Gene, what Jan and Mike Greer and Jim Osmundson
>  > are commenting on is the massive hand-wringing
>  > and hue and outcry that has dominated this list
>  > for the last three or four days, since Royce Bair
>  > "announced" the latest Wilhelm findings on the list.
> 
> 
> If you think they're commenting on the reactions of people here on the
> list, why are the remarks about Wilhelm and his work directly, rather
> than about the local people and reactions?

David,

Since it seems that you fancy yourself as the serious sort, please don't lump
everybody together in your responses. I have never been disrepectful to anyone
on this list. Sure, I've disagreed with many, but always respecting their
opinion and their sense of self esteem. 

You wrote, "If you think they're...". The "they're" part is what I'm objecting
to. Please point to a statement of *mine* where I made of fun or disrespected
Wilhelm or his work in any way. Point to any statement of *mine* where I even
question the validity of his results. My point is now, and has always been the
complex nature of time compressed predictive analysis. And instead of people
flying off the handle and claiming this or that company has lied, people need
to understand that what Henry's tests show *aren't necessarily* the absolute
truth. That in fact, we can't really validate the results for years. And to use
one source on any matter, be it medical issues, financial advice, etc., is not
the best policy to follow. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS RESULTS ARE NOT
ACCURATE. It's statements like, "now that we know", or "now that it's been
proven" that drive me nuts. Because we really don't know for sure. 

My commentary has been aimed squarely at those who are attempting to digest the
results, not at the creator of the results. But I can only speak for me. 

> 
> I'm quite happy for you and others to make fun of *me* for how
> seriously I take the issue.  Maybe I *do* take it too seriously; it's
> certainly possible.  But I'm here, and I can defend myself.

Once again, since I was named in the initial quote, I need to extract myself
from this group that makes fun of you. I never have. I didn't like the way you
responded to my initial post because it seemed like you were tryiong to teach
me something about predictive analysis and I happen to know about that subject
via first hand experience. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion and
shouldn't be made fun of because of it.

> 
> There probably *is* some worthwhile commentary, humorous or otherwise,
> about how people react to the latest Wilhelm results.  I think that's
> fair game.  

Well, that's all I did in the inital post. But you responded as if I challenged
the results. I did not. Once again, just pointing out the complexity of the
issue and that people should get a grip before they feel betrayed or lied to.

> The results themselves are fair game for scientific
> analysis and criticism, of course, but I *don't* think they should be
> casually made fun of *without* any scientific basis.

I never made fun of or criticise the results or the analysis. 

> 
> At bottom, what it comes down to is that that sort of outrageous
> insulting comment poisons the discussion for all of us.  It's bad for
> the group.  

We happen to agree 100% on this issue.



=====
Explore potential income opportunities with Greer and Associates at http://www.ibocity.com/greeraa. Also, Come visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://www.greer.simplenet.com. 

Mike Greer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.