Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
In-reply-to: note of 01/21/92 16:35
Message-id: <"2JbBp1.0.ZB7.NMBCn"@sul2>
Sender: Rare Books and Special Collections Forum <EXLIBRIS@RUTVM1.BITNET>
I have been following the messages on the list re: Terry Belanger's note about
Mr. Dawson's background and interest in rare books. I have actually read the
notes in reverse chron. order, so when I read Terry Belanger's note I was
particularly keen on picking up any offensiveness in its tone. I confess that
I find none. When I lived in New York I was given Mr. Belanger's name as a
reference for a particular question. I worked at Christie's for nearly a year,
and had an admittedly limited background in books. Mr. Belanger not only spent
a good deal of time with me on the phone, never before having met me, but
followed up our conversation with a packet of material on various things. I
cannot imagine that his note on the list was intended to question Mr. Dawson's
background. There is nothing inherently wrong in any of his language. Why are
people reading a nefarious purpose in his comment? Is it so exotic to think
Mr. Belanger might actually be interested genuinely in Mr. Dawson's
background? Is the list intended to exist for a bunch of anonymous subscribers
who hurl messages at one another expecting thorough answers while, at the same
time, "protecting" their backgrounds? Terry Belanger's question, to me, seems
entirely innocuous. His reputation, moreover, is such that he cannot afford to
make comments of an ill-begotten kind. Finally, although I have not met him
personally, I know a great number of people who know him. I have only heard
him spoken of admirably. I would be shocked if the case here were other than I
am suggesting. Whoever sent that note ought to issue an immediate apology. If
you had had any doubts about Mr. Belanger's intention, why not ask him what he
meant? To interpret his statement as per se "ad hominem" seems absurd to me.
Mr. Belanger, perhaps I am wildly mistaken. Could you please explain to the
list what you meant, since others seem to have some intuitive access to your
thinking? If not to the list, then to me either to vindicate me or prove me
wrong? Thank you.