61 replies to this topic

[Jon Veley]

Of course the census records are 10 years apart.  They only conduct them every 10 years.

 

Of course it's perfectly acceptable to ask the authors how they reached a conclusion.  However, those who are attentive when they read tend to have fewer questions.

 

Of course, you are free to believe that Frank Holland was not an orphan despite the substantial evidence presented by the authors of this article.  Your personal beliefs do not need to be rational, nor does your obsession arguing such a minor detail.

 

 

[Hugh]

Fiction

Of course, you are free to believe that Frank Holland was not an orphan despite the substantial evidence presented by the authors of this article.

 

Fact

 He may have had 0,1 or 2 parents alive when in the facility.

 

 

From the article "We do not know the circumstances under which he entered the facility".

 

Of course, you are free to misinterpret what I said but you are not free to falsely misrepresent what I said.

 

  Your personal beliefs do not need to be rational..

 

Of course, you're free to believe one entry in a census constitutes "substantial" evidence.

 

Of course, you're free to contribute in a positive manner.

 

Of course, it's a minor detail. From here on it will become part of pen history as fact rather than speculation based on know facts.

 

Of course the census records are 10 years apart.  They only conduct them every 10 years.

 

 

Of course, this is clearly stated in the article.

[FarmBoy]

Anyone know if shellac causes discoloration of green celluloid?

[JonSzanto]

Anyone know if shellac causes discoloration of green celluloid?

 

Fuck off. I don't want you chumming the waters to bring either of those loons into the lagoon.

[JonSzanto]

However, those who are attentive when they read tend to have fewer questions.

 

Mr. Veley,

 

I have been a member of PCA for a couple of years now. I also have been a member of a number of the pen forums, and am aware of the personality issues that rise from 'discussions' that can germinate in these venues. In certain cases, in certain circumstances, we can all speak as individuals, bringing forth our own, singular viewpoints on matters.

 

However, while the quote I posted above rubs me a bit wrong in it's condescension, it does so doubly when you are also in the position of being the Editor of the journal in question, and as so, a representative of the larger body of PCA. It would be very considered of you to adopt a tone that would at least give the impression of remaining "above the fray", and certainly a distance away from personal insults.

 

Just my own editorial spin on the matter, of course.

 

With all due regard,

Jon Szanto

[Jon Veley]

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.

 

I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.  

[Hugh]

There is an expectation that a PCA representative will behave with some degree of decency..

 

 

 

 Your personal beliefs do not need to be rational...

 

you can stick your membership where it fits..

[Hugh]

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.

 

I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.  

 

Did you actually bother to read what I said? No. I've actually given a lot of credit to the vast majority of the article. You've misrepresented what I said  to suit your view. Really, think about it ....one line in a census....and every child on that list has 1. no relatives and 2. spent their childhood where listed on a census...and that's "substantial evidence"....and it's "rational thinking". That's just bullshit. 

[david i]

The 90 hour week of nights have left me a bit too distracted to make my whole list here, but soon.

 

I remain solid with the notion that rather than putting aside personalities, the whole problem with the PCA relates to personalities.

 

So, what's happened?

 

The magazine has as many typos and glitches as before.

 

A couple people with issues with the old staff play now, balanced by a few with issues with the new staff who don't.

 

Dishonorable behavior by an admittedly amateur Board led to the creation of what indeed is a competing magazine that in 8 months and 2 issues is within 100 subscribers or so of the  20 year old pennant.

 

Most of the style tweaks introduced to and improving the pennant by the prior editor remain in use.

 

The new layout team has trouble making a cover in which lettering is visible against the background.

 

Meanwhile the old editor in five years never said a bad word about anyone on the internet, while the new editor drives away potential readers in droves.

 

The pennant had an editor before who, basically, wasn't an ass. Now...

 

And of course the Board treated the old graphic designer dishonorably and unprofessionally.

 

And, I'm gaining more weight from all the popcorn.

 

-d

[Hugh]

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.

 

I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.  

 

Read this.

The Rise and Demise of the American Orphanage

Note this : Thus, in the early 1800s dozens of private charitable organizations, as well as states and counties, founded a host of residential institutions. These included orphanages, which, Crenson points out, were misnamed. He estimates that at any given time, no more than 10 to 20 percent of the children in orphanages were actual orphans. Most had one or two living parents who were unable (usually due to poverty), unwilling, or had been deemed unfit to care for them. Many of the children had been rescued from another institution, the poorhouse, where conditions were often abysmal. "When they defined who to admit, they defined who was an orphan," Crenson says. "The institution in effect created the clientele by its admission decisions--kids with tubercular parents, kids with poor parents, kids with dead parents."

[FarmBoy]

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.
 
I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.

 
Read this.

The Rise and Demise of the American Orphanage
Note this : Thus, in the early 1800s dozens of private charitable organizations, as well as states and counties, founded a host of residential institutions. These included orphanages, which, Crenson points out, were misnamed. He estimates that at any given time, no more than 10 to 20 percent of the children in orphanages were actual orphans. Most had one or two living parents who were unable (usually due to poverty), unwilling, or had been deemed unfit to care for them. Many of the children had been rescued from another institution, the poorhouse, where conditions were often abysmal. "When they defined who to admit, they defined who was an orphan," Crenson says. "The institution in effect created the clientele by its admission decisions--kids with tubercular parents, kids with poor parents, kids with dead parents."

What am I to take from this information?

On another note, this afternoon on behalf of the Syndicate I knighted George.

[Hugh]

 

 

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.
 
I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.

 
Read this.

The Rise and Demise of the American Orphanage
Note this : Thus, in the early 1800s dozens of private charitable organizations, as well as states and counties, founded a host of residential institutions. These included orphanages, which, Crenson points out, were misnamed. He estimates that at any given time, no more than 10 to 20 percent of the children in orphanages were actual orphans. Most had one or two living parents who were unable (usually due to poverty), unwilling, or had been deemed unfit to care for them. Many of the children had been rescued from another institution, the poorhouse, where conditions were often abysmal. "When they defined who to admit, they defined who was an orphan," Crenson says. "The institution in effect created the clientele by its admission decisions--kids with tubercular parents, kids with poor parents, kids with dead parents."

What am I to take from this information?

On another note, this afternoon on behalf of the Syndicate I knighted George.

 

 

The claim Frank Holland was an orphan is speculative and not supported by substantial evidence, the chance of him not being an orphan exceeds that of him being an orphan. The conclusions drawn in the article are simple speculation lacking factual basis. The claim Holland spent his childhood in an orphanage is also questionable as Crenson points out "The directors of these orphanages did not expect to raise a child to adulthood; their institutions were meant to be waystations, refuges where a child could receive care and supervision, learn some discipline, and then be returned home or placed in a better situation outside the walls." It also shows Jon Veley is wrong.

 

Matthew Crenson is an Emeritus Professor at John Hopkins.

Edited by Hugh, 07 May 2015 - 04:52 AM.

[FarmBoy]

 

 

 

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.
 
I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.

 
Read this.

The Rise and Demise of the American Orphanage
Note this : Thus, in the early 1800s dozens of private charitable organizations, as well as states and counties, founded a host of residential institutions. These included orphanages, which, Crenson points out, were misnamed. He estimates that at any given time, no more than 10 to 20 percent of the children in orphanages were actual orphans. Most had one or two living parents who were unable (usually due to poverty), unwilling, or had been deemed unfit to care for them. Many of the children had been rescued from another institution, the poorhouse, where conditions were often abysmal. "When they defined who to admit, they defined who was an orphan," Crenson says. "The institution in effect created the clientele by its admission decisions--kids with tubercular parents, kids with poor parents, kids with dead parents."

What am I to take from this information?

On another note, this afternoon on behalf of the Syndicate I knighted George.

 

 

The claim Frank Holland was an orphan is speculative and not supported by substantial evidence, the chance of him not being an orphan exceeds that of him being an orphan. The conclusions drawn in the article are simple speculation lacking factual basis. The claim Holland spent his childhood in an orphanage is also questionable as Crenson points out "The directors of these orphanages did not expect to raise a child to adulthood; their institutions were meant to be waystations, refuges where a child could receive care and supervision, learn some discipline, and then be returned home or placed in a better situation outside the walls." It also shows Jon Veley is wrong.

 

Mathew Crenson is an Emeritus Professor at John Hopkins.

 

I'm still not clear on how the family status (n parents or not parents) has a significant bearing on the historical analysis of pen manufactureing  presented in the articles.  Can we get an alternative history and timeline to account for all the known facts while omitting the orphanic status of our man Holland?

 

"Jon Veley is wrong".  I've not met Jon Veley nor have I met anyone that claims to be Jon Veley though I note there is a Jon Veley in the 2010 Census Data.  What exactly is Jon Veley wrong about?  I didn't think he was an author of the article but I could be wrong.  Perhaps Jon Veley is an orphan?

 

If it matters, my analysis of the data indicates the penned portions of the original manuscript were written with brown ink on lined paper.

[FarmBoy]

I note that if certain members were participating here, it might be pointed out it is Matthew Crenson not Mathew Crenson.

[david i]

To quote a sailor, "I am whattayam"

 

-d

[JonSzanto]

I note that if certain members were participating here, it might be pointed out it is Matthew Crenson not Mathew Crenson.

 

(bleep)

[Hugh]

 

 

 

 

There is no condescension here.   I merely point out that the Waterman articles contain so many references that there is no mystery with respect to how the authors arrived at their conclusions and what those conclusions are.
 
I encourage informed debate and, as I noted earlier, if these or any other articles published in the Pennant contain errors, I am eager to correct them in the next issue.  If someone steadfastly refuses to give credibility to an article because they personally don't like the authors, there's not much I can do with that.

 
Read this.

The Rise and Demise of the American Orphanage
Note this : Thus, in the early 1800s dozens of private charitable organizations, as well as states and counties, founded a host of residential institutions. These included orphanages, which, Crenson points out, were misnamed. He estimates that at any given time, no more than 10 to 20 percent of the children in orphanages were actual orphans. Most had one or two living parents who were unable (usually due to poverty), unwilling, or had been deemed unfit to care for them. Many of the children had been rescued from another institution, the poorhouse, where conditions were often abysmal. "When they defined who to admit, they defined who was an orphan," Crenson says. "The institution in effect created the clientele by its admission decisions--kids with tubercular parents, kids with poor parents, kids with dead parents."

What am I to take from this information?

On another note, this afternoon on behalf of the Syndicate I knighted George.

 

 

The claim Frank Holland was an orphan is speculative and not supported by substantial evidence, the chance of him not being an orphan exceeds that of him being an orphan. The conclusions drawn in the article are simple speculation lacking factual basis. The claim Holland spent his childhood in an orphanage is also questionable as Crenson points out "The directors of these orphanages did not expect to raise a child to adulthood; their institutions were meant to be waystations, refuges where a child could receive care and supervision, learn some discipline, and then be returned home or placed in a better situation outside the walls." It also shows Jon Veley is wrong.

 

Mathew Crenson is an Emeritus Professor at John Hopkins.

 

I'm still not clear on how the family status (n parents or not parents) has a significant bearing on the historical analysis of pen manufactureing  presented in the articles.  Can we get an alternative history and timeline to account for all the known facts while omitting the orphanic status of our man Holland?

 

"Jon Veley is wrong".  I've not met Jon Veley nor have I met anyone that claims to be Jon Veley though I note there is a Jon Veley in the 2010 Census Data.  What exactly is Jon Veley wrong about?  I didn't think he was an author of the article but I could be wrong.  Perhaps Jon Veley is an orphan?

 

If it matters, my analysis of the data indicates the penned portions of the original manuscript were written with brown ink on lined paper.

 

 

None whatsoever. The article contains a lot about Holland and would no doubt serve as a good starting point if anyone wanted to attempt to further research Holland , the more details ( even minor ones) presented as best as possible would benefit any future research.  

 

It might also be pointed out "manufactureing" is spelt "manufacturing".

 

Funny, orphan wasn't one of the thoughts I had about Jon Veley.

[Rick Krantz]

I think what's really funny is that the title of this thread is "Dude, where's my magazine"  is a spin off of that movie, "Dude, Where's my Car" ....

 

anyone ever see that movie? It was horrible. I have it on DVD, and I bet I never watched the whole thing. I am not even sure if he found his car. 

 

It is probably up there with "Freddy got Fingered" which is another horribly bad movie, at least with the later, it offers some great quotables. 

 

Personally, you want to watch a cinematic masterpiece of that general era, try "The Big Lebowski" that is a fine movie. 

[david i]

Big Lebowski worked.

[JonSzanto]

You guys are really poking my "Derail" gland. I'll resist.