Sorry, Joe-

In my dotage I seem to be unable to hold a thought long enough to turn it into a paragraph.

And... to be blunt, a gunsmith's personal life really isn't any of your business.

Perhaps you'd be better off spending this time perfecting the inletting of a stock you're working on?

Or working on a load, or at the range, testing it?

flaco

N.B. Sadly, I'll read anything put before me, including cereal boxes at breakfast.

And posts on AR.

flaco, in the final analysis none/all of this is really 'our business', and we're not trying to interfere with anyone else's 'business' either. These artists are long dead and Michael is merely researching their lives and works. His information won't hurt anything but your feelings and so you probably shouldn't read it.

Your posts strike me as reflecting an attitude of superiority toward the rest of us. I wonder if you've ever used your education in English Lit to actually write anything that was ever actually purchased?

Let me assure you, from long up-close-&-personal experience and observation (and yes, my own education!), that an education in English Lit does NOT make anyone superior to even a ditch-digger.

What counts is what you DO with it.
Regards, Joe

As I often advise my clients, although there exists a "truth", in the course of human intercourse most often there is really only a perception of truth.

I tend to somewhat agree with Gunmaker. If a person has original material (evidence) and puts it out there fairly and honestly, I think it adds to the value of the gunmaker's work after they are gone, and the person receiving this original evidence will make their own perception of it.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
As I often advise my clients, although there exists a "truth", in the course of human intercourse most often there is really only a perception of truth.

I think you got it 22WRF. Surely truths like bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Roswell, 911 and other conspiricy theorys, cults, global warming is a myth, Darwin was nuts, and the creationist's 6,000 year old earth, plenty adequately shows what humans do with "evidence" in reaching an objective opinion.

I don't know whether it would be fun or frustrating being an attorney, getting to create a fresh "truth" with each case. Or whether being a scientist would be more fun, being held to the scrutiny of "truth" by peers and the world, as truth which is genuine and verifiable, really based on all the evidence, and with repeatable outcome.

I think an attorney or an author (and their clients/readers) has a lot of manuvering or wiggle/weasel room in the realm of "truth" and "evidence", which IMO should be taken into account on each and every occasion they present something as "truth" or "evidence".

KB