|
Guest
|
Hi Gary,
You wrote:
"Thomas Pakenham has a right to his own opinion.
Jens Jensen, the famous landscape architect, had the same opinion as Thomas Pakenham towards bonsai and both of them did pretty well for themselves."
---------------
Certainly the man has a right to his opinion. I wonder how you came to believe that I or anyone else here ever questioned that. If you believe so, you have invented something rather than read it.
As to how well he or Mr. Jensen have done for themselves has nothing to do with anything of substance and certainly nothing to do with this subject.
You are entitled to believe that my letter to Mr. Parkenham was crude and uncivilized, but you would simply be mistaken. In fact, it was presented in a very civil tone. You mistake disagreement and contempt for crudeness and a lack of civility. I hope that you soon learn the meaning of these words so that you can use them in the correct context in the future. Words do have meaning.
As to it being rude, that is surely debatable. However, it was certainly no more rude than was his willful mischaracterization in a national publication of something which he knows nothing about. This is simply irresponsible, especially for a writer. He should know better and I, unfortunately and seemingly, have to remind him of this. The difference is that my possible rudeness was offered in order to inspire this gentleman to remedy his grave irresponsibility - to right a wrong on his part. I'll leave you to judge which of the two rudenesses was the most inappropriate. ;-)
------------
You wrote:
"So what if bonsai gives him the creeps—so be it. It's no sweat off my back."
------------
Your observation is understandable - I hold the same opinion. However, his opinion is not the issue. What is a problem is when he professes to speak from knowledge to demean something that he knows nothing about - thoroughly mischaracterizing and lending an evil aspect to something that is beautiful and benign. It is irresponsible and he needs to be called on it. It is indicative of low character and it should be called to his attention and to that of others.
That these things do not bother you is unfortunate, but I am offended that you would suggest that it is wrong, uncivilized or crude to care about and/or speak about it. I take exception to your insult. It indicates to me that either your character or your perception is lacking. Since I have no way of knowing, I'll leave it up to you to discern which.
-----------
You wrote:
"The guy's a photographer and like trees. He's got a right to feel any way he wants to about bonsai."
-----------
Neither I nor anyone should feel compelled to criticize him for his feelings. That has nothing to do with this issue. What he does not, however, have the ethical right to do is to use his ignorance-based feelings to spread lies in the form of published words that lend an evil aspect to something that is not cruel or evil. When it reflects on those who engage in the activity that he disparages, it's called libel. Beyond legalities, it is simply unethical for one whose reputation is based on the accuracy of his words to willfully mischaracterize something or someone. This is the only reason that this issue was raised in the first place.
By the way, Mr. Parkenham is not a photographer. Had you actually read the article you perhaps would have noticed that he is a historian - a writer. I guess this lends more creedence to it being your perception that is lacking here. I'm relieved that it's not your character.
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas
|