I have invited Stetson D. to join us.

][<en Follett
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   [log in to unmask] (Laura Demko)
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to:       [log in to unmask]
To:     [log in to unmask]
Date: 97-11-04 11:44:07 EST


>>>>A LURKER DECLOAKS<<<
>  I came in on Monday and had 95 messages.  That would be exciting if
>they were all technology-related.
>

Thoughts from a shy lurker:

I rue the day when I am turned on by 95 technological messages.

One of the most fascinating aspects of historic preservation is the fact
that it is a multifaceted field.  Not only must we have the technological
background necessary to do the best job that we can, but we must also have
objectivity, creativity, and passion.  It is my understanding that we don't
try to preserve a building based on whether we personally like it or not,
but rather on its architectural, historical, and/or cultural significance.
I thought that as preservationists we are supposed to be open-minded to
preserving all types of buildings and structures.  Why, then, are so many
close-minded to alternative discussions concerning preservation and the
philosophy behind preservation?  Isn't provocative discussion allowed in
this forum?  Have we become so pompous that we can't allow others to have a
tongue in cheek attitude at times.

I am new to the field, i.e., I have an MA, but little practical expreience
in the field.  I gain as much from the informal discussion as I do from the
technical information.  Packed into stories and anecdotes are a wealth of
experience and knowledge from which I can learn more of the day to day
drama than I can from the strictly technical data that I can get from any
number of sources.

Perhaps my attitude is tainted by the fact that I worked for a city
preservationist who worked many, many hours beyond what her part-time
position required.  Without her sense of dedication, tencaity, technical
knowledge, and humor, I doubt she would have been able to save as many
buildings and structures as she did.  I learned much from her about how to
work with the public, committees, and city and state governments.  The
technical data was a critical asset, but it was her passion and sense of
humor that allowed her to connect with people and endure the difficulties
of the job.  Let's face it, we get so used to fighting and struggling to
win in this field that it becomes second nature.  But can we really afford
to fight amongst ourselves over such a trivial issue?

Within the field, we shouldn't be reduced to this kind of fighting and
arguing.  Why can the two types of discussion not coexist on this one list?
If they cannot, then I want to be signed up for the alternative list as
well.

Stetson D.




--
Laura Owings Demko
[log in to unmask]