Japanese pottery
Charles Eicher
>
>Fellow NGers,
>
>Does anyone here love Japanese pottery? I'm crazy about the stuff.
>Kyoyaki, Aritayaki, Shigarakiyaki. There are so many varieties. Its
>interesting that almost each prefecture has its own pottery with its own
>character; which usually depends on the type of clay found in that area.
Yep, I love it too, but I don't really know that much about it. On your note
about clay, I recall seeing a film documentary about one of Japan's designated
National Treasures.. no, not an interview with a pot, the potter was the
National Treasure. They showed him unburying an old clay pit that had to be dug
up, sliced and reblended, and then returned to the ground for further aging. And
the process was repeated every 20 or 30 years. The interviewer asked him when he
thought the clay would be ready to use. He said, "oh, about another 200 or 300
years." And then he was asked when the clay was laid down. He said he didn't
know exactly, but it was sometime in the Muromachi era.. He was currently using
clay laid down in Kamakura era, but he said he didn't like using it because it
wasn't aged enough.
>Personally, I like pottery with natural earth tones - like Bizenyaki from
>Okayama prefecture. I also like pieces that are half-glazed with a nice
>texture on the unglazed part.
I once saw a fascinating exhibit of old Japanese bricks. That's right, plain old
bricks. But they all were beautiful stoneware, and had wonderful symbols pressed
into them.
>I find the stuff with a detailed blue and
>white pattern (Kiyomizuyaki for example), which most people associate with
>"Oriental" pottery, too flashy and very boring.
Reminds me too much of Delft-ware or Wedgewood. I don't go for the painted
polychrome stuff either.
>Its the rough stuff with
>some interesting swath of glaze across it that I like most. I once visited
>a potter whose pieces had interesting whitish-brown speckles (almost
>metalic) all over the glaze. When I asked how he achieved the effect, he
>said that he used horse manure and salt during firing. I was so amazed that
>I ended up buying a tea set for 30,000 yen, although my wife is reluctant to
>use it when guests come over, given its unusual glaze.
Don't worry about that, that type of clay-firing is deliberately rough, they
usually just put a pot in a rough pile of wood and dung, and set the whole thing
ablaze for an irregular fire. When the whole pile cools, they pull out the pots.
There is no actual dung IN the glaze, they just use it for fuel. Besides, its
sterilized by the fire.
>I'm surprised to find that most North Americans dislike pottery with the
>typical "Oriental" pattern, yet Japanese obachans love the stuff. I'd be
>interested in hearing what kind of pottery you like and, especially, if you
>know of any good markets where you can get some good deals. Can you please
>include your nationality? I'd like to do a little cultural cross study.
Actually, I'm thinking of putting up some pictures of pottery I like on my
website, but I'm very limited in that I can only post images of pottery from
magazines, which isn't exactly the widest selection. I often find beautiful
examples in Geijutsu Shincho magazine, which runs articles on pottery in almost
every issue.
My taste tends towards the austere, plain type of pottery, perhaps the same as
yours. This is similar to what I observe in lacquerware. Some of the elaborate,
almost gaudy works from the late Edo era are preferred by many, but I prefer the
simpler works from early Motomachi.
Anyway, you might like my short photo-essay on lacquerware, its on my website
at:
or on the mirror (a much faster system) at:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~sakusha/
Buchan
Does anyone here love Japanese pottery? I'm crazy about the stuff.
Kyoyaki, Aritayaki, Shigarakiyaki. There are so many varieties. Its
interesting that almost each prefecture has its own pottery with its own
character; which usually depends on the type of clay found in that area.
Personally, I like pottery with natural earth tones - like Bizenyaki from
Okayama prefecture. I also like pieces that are half-glazed with a nice
texture on the unglazed part. I find the stuff with a detailed blue and
white pattern (Kiyomizuyaki for example), which most people associate with
"Oriental" pottery, too flashy and very boring. Its the rough stuff with
some interesting swath of glaze across it that I like most. I once visited
a potter whose pieces had interesting whitish-brown speckles (almost
metalic) all over the glaze. When I asked how he achieved the effect, he
said that he used horse manure and salt during firing. I was so amazed that
I ended up buying a tea set for 30,000 yen, although my wife is reluctant to
use it when guests come over, given its unusual glaze.
I'm surprised to find that most North Americans dislike pottery with the
typical "Oriental" pattern, yet Japanese obachans love the stuff. I'd be
interested in hearing what kind of pottery you like and, especially, if you
know of any good markets where you can get some good deals. Can you please
include your nationality? I'd like to do a little cultural cross study.
Yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
Buchan
Louis XXIV
Buchan wrote:
>
> I'm surprised to find that most North Americans dislike pottery with the
> typical "Oriental" pattern, yet Japanese obachans love the stuff. I'd be
> interested in hearing what kind of pottery you like and, especially, if you
> know of any good markets where you can get some good deals. Can you please
> include your nationality? I'd like to do a little cultural cross study.
>
I like most styles but prefer Mederterranian which I seem totally incapable of
spelling even with the spell checker. Lots of terra-cotta and Spanish and
Italian styles. Also vey fine bone china with a simple gold ring/rim.
Aussie brett
--
Daniel Simpson Day has no grade point average.
All courses incomplete.
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <811lej$7...@www.net0726.or.jp>, "Buchan" says...
> >
> >Fellow NGers,
> >
> >Does anyone here love Japanese pottery? I'm crazy about the stuff.
> >Kyoyaki, Aritayaki, Shigarakiyaki. There are so many varieties. Its
> >interesting that almost each prefecture has its own pottery with its own
> >character; which usually depends on the type of clay found in that area.
>
> Yep, I love it too, but I don't really know that much about it. On your note
> about clay, I recall seeing a film documentary about one of Japan's designated
> National Treasures.. no, not an interview with a pot, the potter was the
> National Treasure. They showed him unburying an old clay pit that had to be dug
> up, sliced and reblended, and then returned to the ground for further aging. And
> the process was repeated every 20 or 30 years. The interviewer asked him when he
> thought the clay would be ready to use. He said, "oh, about another 200 or 300
> years." And then he was asked when the clay was laid down. He said he didn't
> know exactly, but it was sometime in the Muromachi era.. He was currently using
> clay laid down in Kamakura era, but he said he didn't like using it because it
> wasn't aged enough.
>
> >Personally, I like pottery with natural earth tones - like Bizenyaki from
> >Okayama prefecture. I also like pieces that are half-glazed with a nice
> >texture on the unglazed part.
>
> I once saw a fascinating exhibit of old Japanese bricks. That's right, plain old
> bricks. But they all were beautiful stoneware, and had wonderful symbols pressed
> into them.
>
> >I find the stuff with a detailed blue and
> >white pattern (Kiyomizuyaki for example), which most people associate with
> >"Oriental" pottery, too flashy and very boring.
>
> Reminds me too much of Delft-ware or Wedgewood. I don't go for the painted
> polychrome stuff either.
>
> >Its the rough stuff with
> >some interesting swath of glaze across it that I like most. I once visited
> >a potter whose pieces had interesting whitish-brown speckles (almost
> >metalic) all over the glaze. When I asked how he achieved the effect, he
> >said that he used horse manure and salt during firing. I was so amazed that
> >I ended up buying a tea set for 30,000 yen, although my wife is reluctant to
> >use it when guests come over, given its unusual glaze.
>
> Don't worry about that, that type of clay-firing is deliberately rough, they
> usually just put a pot in a rough pile of wood and dung, and set the whole thing
> ablaze for an irregular fire. When the whole pile cools, they pull out the pots.
> There is no actual dung IN the glaze, they just use it for fuel. Besides, its
> sterilized by the fire.
>
> >I'm surprised to find that most North Americans dislike pottery with the
> >typical "Oriental" pattern, yet Japanese obachans love the stuff. I'd be
> >interested in hearing what kind of pottery you like and, especially, if you
> >know of any good markets where you can get some good deals. Can you please
> >include your nationality? I'd like to do a little cultural cross study.
>
> Actually, I'm thinking of putting up some pictures of pottery I like on my
> website, but I'm very limited in that I can only post images of pottery from
> magazines, which isn't exactly the widest selection. I often find beautiful
> examples in Geijutsu Shincho magazine, which runs articles on pottery in almost
> every issue.
> My taste tends towards the austere, plain type of pottery, perhaps the same as
> yours. This is similar to what I observe in lacquerware. Some of the elaborate,
> almost gaudy works from the late Edo era are preferred by many, but I prefer the
> simpler works from early Motomachi.
> Anyway, you might like my short photo-essay on lacquerware, its on my website
> at:
>
> http://24.9.193.237
>
> or on the mirror (a much faster system) at:
>
> http://extra.newsguy.com/~sakusha/
Its NOT the dung he is worried about! Its the LEAD! Thats right MOST clays contain a
certan amount of lead. This is due to the nature of how clay deposits (and yes they
are reffered to as deposits) are formed. Glaze seals in the lead. However, only a
very few FDA approved glaze bases exist that are proven to stop lead leeching. So my
sugjestion, look at the pieces of art, but for heavin sakes don't uses them...
-Reza
Charles Eicher
>
>Its NOT the dung he is worried about! Its the LEAD! Thats right MOST clays
>contain a
>certan amount of lead. This is due to the nature of how clay deposits (and yes
>they
>are reffered to as deposits) are formed. Glaze seals in the lead. However, only
>a
>very few FDA approved glaze bases exist that are proven to stop lead leeching.
>So my
>sugjestion, look at the pieces of art, but for heavin sakes don't uses them...
I wrote to this idiot offline, but I figured I better correct this egregiously
misguided information, for fear that someone disposes of perfectly safe
stoneware or something.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Lead has been well known to leach
into food served on pottery glazed with lead glaze, but it is not a problem in
leaching out of the pottery itself. If your plates do not use lead glazes, they
are perfectly safe.
If your pottery was made before about 1950, or was made in a less-developed
country like Mexico, it might have been made with lead glazes. Fortunately, it
is very easy to test this. There are little liquid markers that you can buy at
hardware stores, you just paint a strip of the test fluid onto the pottery, and
if it turns red, its got a lead glaze. I tested my household pottery, and found
some mexican pottery that I bought in about 1980 that flunked, so its for
display only. I tested some unglazed stoneware, just for comparison, and it
tests 100% clean. I also have a substantial collection of FiestaWare, which is
notorious for its "radioactive red" glaze made from uranium oxide. These plates
have been tested many times by independent laboratories, and they are not a
health hazard.
Modern potters do not use lead glazes, and there is nothing to fear from the
clays themselves. This guy is full of shit.
Biku
it up about 1 1/2 years ago. I had my first show.
at the beginning of this month. It really wasn't that would
make me instantly famous, but it was nice to do
something besides the local festivals .
I'm busy with orders now but I can send you something
in the new year if you e-mail me your address.
Biku
Buchan wrote in message
but I snipped it (a band width thing)
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles. What would cause rusting spots on glazing? I quit
>using some pieces fearing contamination.
Hard to even guess unless I knew what the glaze was, or what the rusting looks
like. Is this white-glazed ware with ugly blooming, or a brown ware with a
natural rough dark glaze that had granules that rusted out? Is it relatively new
or really old stuff? It is entirely possible that the artist intended the effect
to develop over time, but I have no way to tell.
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Charles Eicher wrote:
You are the one that is full of shit. The fact of the mater is that MANY clays of
the world contain lead. You are confusing two separate issues, the recent "lead
glaze" scare and the well known mineral lead formation in clay bases. It is
certainly true that NOT ALL clays contain lead but are you willing to gamble with
your life?IF you eat and drink from unproperly glazed stone/potery you take risks.
Period, there is no
arguement with that.
-Reza
Charles Eicher
>
>You are the one that is full of shit. The fact of the mater is that MANY clays
>of
>the world contain lead. You are confusing two separate issues, the recent "lead
>glaze" scare and the well known mineral lead formation in clay bases. It is
>certainly true that NOT ALL clays contain lead but are you willing to gamble
>with
>your life?IF you eat and drink from unproperly glazed stone/potery you take
>risks.
>Period, there is no
>arguement with that.
Ther is certainly no argument. People have eaten off unglazed pottery for many
millenia with no ill effects. Laboratory tests have conclusively proven the
safety of unglazed pottery. If you have the results of any specific laboratory
tests to prove otherwise, then post them. But you can't because there aren't
any. You've extrapolated some unspecific threat from a single supposition that
there is lead in common clay. I suppose you don't want to drink out of Waterford
Crystal either, because its made from lead crystal. You don't know what you're
talking about.
I think I know where you got this stupid idea. There is an urban legend that the
fall of Rome was caused by a decline in birth rates caused by the lead in pipes
used for water distribution. Recent archaelogical research has proven that the
high amount of lead found in Roman human remains is attributed to atmospheric
pollution as a byproduct of silver smelting. Archaeologists found a thin layer
of lead all across Europe, wherever they dug, right at the strata corresponding
to the age of the Roman Empire. The Romans polluted all of Europe with air
pollution bearing lead. Perhaps it had a contributing effect to the decline and
fall, but the archaeologists were mostly interested in using it to measure the
extent of the Roman mineral refining industry.
In closing let me reiterate: Unglazed pottery is perfectly safe. Pottery is made
from common clay, the same stuff that you find in the ground where the food you
eat grows. If you have problems with alleged toxicity of clay, then you should
stop eating food, and avoid walking outside, to avoid breathing toxic dust
stirred up from the ground.
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Charles, Eicher wrote:
> In article <38374737...@osu.edu>, Reza says...
> >
> >You are the one that is full of shit. The fact of the mater is that MANY clays
> >of
> >the world contain lead. You are confusing two separate issues, the recent "lead
> >glaze" scare and the well known mineral lead formation in clay bases. It is
> >certainly true that NOT ALL clays contain lead but are you willing to gamble
> >with
> >your life?IF you eat and drink from unproperly glazed stone/potery you take
> >risks.
> >Period, there is no
> >arguement with that.
>
> Ther is certainly no argument. People have eaten off unglazed pottery for many
> millenia with no ill effects.
Proof is where?
Because someone made it to reproductive age without death does not mean "with no ill
effects" lead along with mercury is one of those things that cause "genetic damage"
to sperm cell DNA, heavy metals are being seriously consider as one of the driving
factors in the genetic degradation of species.
> Laboratory tests have conclusively proven the
> safety of unglazed pottery. If you have the results of any specific laboratory
> tests to prove otherwise, then post them. But you can't because there aren't
> any. You've extrapolated some unspecific threat from a single supposition that
> there is lead in common clay. I suppose you don't want to drink out of Waterford
> Crystal either, because its made from lead crystal. You don't know what you're
> talking about.
>
Again you need a lesson in mineralogy, lead in crystal is trapped in a matrix, lead
in clay or muds is in emulsion form...big difference.
>
> I think I know where you got this stupid idea. There is an urban legend that the
> fall of Rome was caused by a decline in birth rates caused by the lead in pipes
> used for water distribution. Recent archaelogical research has proven that the
> high amount of lead found in Roman human remains is attributed to atmospheric
> pollution as a byproduct of silver smelting. Archaeologists found a thin layer
> of lead all across Europe, wherever they dug, right at the strata corresponding
> to the age of the Roman Empire. The Romans polluted all of Europe with air
> pollution bearing lead. Perhaps it had a contributing effect to the decline and
> fall, but the archaeologists were mostly interested in using it to measure the
> extent of the Roman mineral refining industry.
>
It is true that Romans used lead in water pipes, there is no dispute there. However,
what most people forget is that at relatively low water temps little if any lead
gets dissolved in solution, so if the romans where actually effected by this source
of lead it would be minimal during an average roman life spans.
>
> In closing let me reiterate: Unglazed pottery is perfectly safe. Pottery is made
> from common clay, the same stuff that you find in the ground where the food you
> eat grows. If you have problems with alleged toxicity of clay, then you should
> stop eating food, and avoid walking outside, to avoid breathing toxic dust
> stirred up from the ground.
So you are saying, that if you use a clay containing lead you are perfect safe in
using it in unglazed form? Lead in lead crystal is trapped in a molecular matrix
while lead in a clay would be in a globular or emulsion form, again it would do you
well to study mineralogy. Also, you are saying the laboratory tests have confirmed
the safety of unglazed pottery from EVERY source as safe? It is not a far leap to
conclude that if there is lead in the source material and it is not somehow sealed
you will get exposed to it. This is not an unreasonable conclusion.
As we are exposed to back ground radiation, we are also exposed to background "heavy
metals" Almost every breath we take we do indeed consume toxic dust of some form or
another, and it is indeed getting consistently worse as time goes on; read about the
Polish situation right after the fall of communism. People lived in Poland "with no
ill effect" for generations with their problem, but look at the problems now.
Now you seem to get the impression that I am saying to throw out all your unglazed
or questionable glazed stone/pottery...NO All i am saying is show some responsible
caution. Because you test one section of a piece and it is lead free does not mean
the rest of the piece is lead free. And rarely if even have I seen noted potters use
"Common clay" as you call it, they all have a "special" source of clay, because they
like the way that clay works in their pieces. The very nature of "clay" urges
caution, clay is a conglomerate of elements and has no set definition, it could be
almost anything or have almost any trace elements in it.
Oh and a comment about fiesta you mentioned that is was valuable.....I find that
funny. That truly ugly uninspired work has little value compared to even some of its
contemporary works.
-Reza
Charles Eicher
>
>
>Because someone made it to reproductive age without death does not mean "with no
>ill
>effects" lead along with mercury is one of those things that cause "genetic
>damage"
>to sperm cell DNA, heavy metals are being seriously consider as one of the
>driving
>factors in the genetic degradation of species.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The risk from Lead comes
from neurological damage, it is not associated with genetic damage. Quit
guessing and theorizing, and go read some books.
>> Laboratory tests have conclusively proven the
>>safety of unglazed pottery. If you have the results of any specific laboratory
>> tests to prove otherwise, then post them. But you can't because there aren't
>>any. You've extrapolated some unspecific threat from a single supposition that
>>there is lead in common clay. I suppose you don't want to drink out of Waterford
>>Crystal either, because its made from lead crystal. You don't know what you're
>> talking about.
>>
>
>Again you need a lesson in mineralogy, lead in crystal is trapped in a matrix,
>lead
>in clay or muds is in emulsion form...big difference.
I'll remember that, the next time I drink from a pot made out of soft, unfired
clay. Fired pottery IS a "crystalline matrix." Oh, and for your information, I
used to work at the US Geological Survey, at the Colorado School of Mines. I'll
put my mineralogical knowledge up against yours any time (like NOW). Do you have
any professional qualifications, or are you just talking out of your ass?
>It is true that Romans used lead in water pipes, there is no dispute there.
>However,
>what most people forget is that at relatively low water temps little if any
>lead
>gets dissolved in solution, so if the romans where actually effected by this
>source
>of lead it would be minimal during an average roman life spans.
Ah, I see. So what you're saying is that drinking water directly from lead pipes
is not very risky, but drinking out of a cup made from fired clay containing
traces of lead is risky? You are so anxious to prove me wrong that you're
contradicting yourself..
>>In closing let me reiterate: Unglazed pottery is perfectly safe. Pottery is made
>>from common clay, the same stuff that you find in the ground where the food you
>>eat grows. If you have problems with alleged toxicity of clay, then you should
>> stop eating food, and avoid walking outside, to avoid breathing toxic dust
>> stirred up from the ground.
>
>So you are saying, that if you use a clay containing lead you are perfect safe
>in
>using it in unglazed form? Lead in lead crystal is trapped in a molecular matrix
>while lead in a clay would be in a globular or emulsion form, again it would do
>you
>well to study mineralogy.
As I said, firing a clay pot fixes the molecules into a solid matrix. Any trace
elements in the clay would be virtually impossible to dislodge from their
chemical bonds. Even if these elements were scraped away from the sides of the
vessel and ingested, they would remain bonded to the kaolin in the clay and pass
through the body without absorption.
BTW, you should be aware that many cultures throughout the world eat raw clay,
it is used to neutralize toxins in native plants.
>Also, you are saying the laboratory tests have confirmed
>the safety of unglazed pottery from EVERY source as safe? It is not a far leap
>to
>conclude that if there is lead in the source material and it is not somehow
>sealed
>you will get exposed to it. This is not an unreasonable conclusion.
You are the one making the unreasonable leaps to a mistaken conclusion. Lead
cannot migrate from fired stoneware to the contents of a pot. It isn't
physically possible.
[snip irrelevant ranting about communism]
>Now you seem to get the impression that I am saying to throw out all your
>unglazed
>or questionable glazed stone/pottery...NO All i am saying is show some
>responsible
>caution.
The proper level of caution to take towards unglazed pottery is: none. No
precautions are necessary. You are seeing risk where there is none. No risk.
None. How many times do I have to say it? There is NO risk from lead in unglazed
pottery.
>Because you test one section of a piece and it is lead free does not mean
>the rest of the piece is lead free. And rarely if even have I seen noted potters
>use
>"Common clay" as you call it, they all have a "special" source of clay, because
>they
>like the way that clay works in their pieces. The very nature of "clay" urges
>caution, clay is a conglomerate of elements and has no set definition, it could
>be
>almost anything or have almost any trace elements in it.
So, have you ever made a pot? Ever tended a wood-fired kiln? Ever studied in an
art school with world-class potters? Ever dug 1000lbs of your own clay with a
pick and shovel? Ever examined local clays under an electron microscope? Ever
done a chemical analysis of local clay? I have done all these things. I have
specific experience in the things you are cluelessly ranting about. Until you
can show similar experience, and can offer anything other than your vague
paranoia based on completely mistaken chemical concepts, I would suggest you
keep your ridiculous ideas to yourself.
>Oh and a comment about fiesta you mentioned that is was valuable.....I find that
>funny. That truly ugly uninspired work has little value compared to even some of
>its
>contemporary works.
Perhaps you should explain this to the Los Angeles Museum of Art, where I
recently saw an exhibit called "The Art of the Cup." In the center of the
exhibit was a "radioactive red" Fiestaware coffee cup and saucer, sitting next
to a seto-ware chawan. I noted with amusement that I own identical red Fiesta
cups in better condition. I guess I own museum-pieces, but I use them as my
everyday dishes, I even put them in the microwave and dishwasher.
I'm through talking with an idiot like you who doesn't know what they're talking
about. I have specific knowledge of this area, and you don't. Go argue with
someone else, I'm through with you.
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <38377458...@osu.edu>, Reza says...
> >
> >
> >Because someone made it to reproductive age without death does not mean "with no
> >ill
> >effects" lead along with mercury is one of those things that cause "genetic
> >damage"
> >to sperm cell DNA, heavy metals are being seriously consider as one of the
> >driving
> >factors in the genetic degradation of species.
>
> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The risk from Lead comes
> from neurological damage, it is not associated with genetic damage. Quit
> guessing and theorizing, and go read some books.
>
All heavy metals are suspect in causing genetic damage. No argument.
>
> >> Laboratory tests have conclusively proven the
> >>safety of unglazed pottery. If you have the results of any specific laboratory
> >> tests to prove otherwise, then post them. But you can't because there aren't
> >>any. You've extrapolated some unspecific threat from a single supposition that
> >>there is lead in common clay. I suppose you don't want to drink out of Waterford
> >>Crystal either, because its made from lead crystal. You don't know what you're
> >> talking about.
> >>
> >
> >Again you need a lesson in mineralogy, lead in crystal is trapped in a matrix,
> >lead
> >in clay or muds is in emulsion form...big difference.
>
> I'll remember that, the next time I drink from a pot made out of soft, unfired
> clay. Fired pottery IS a "crystalline matrix." Oh, and for your information, I
> used to work at the US Geological Survey, at the Colorado School of Mines. I'll
> put my mineralogical knowledge up against yours any time (like NOW). Do you have
> any professional qualifications, or are you just talking out of your ass?
>
PLEASE point to me to a text where its says "FIRED CLAY FORMS A CRYSTALLINE MATRIX"
similiar to that of crystal ware.
>
> >It is true that Romans used lead in water pipes, there is no dispute there.
> >However,
> >what most people forget is that at relatively low water temps little if any
> >lead
> >gets dissolved in solution, so if the romans where actually effected by this
> >source
> >of lead it would be minimal during an average roman life spans.
>
> Ah, I see. So what you're saying is that drinking water directly from lead pipes
> is not very risky, but drinking out of a cup made from fired clay containing
> traces of lead is risky? You are so anxious to prove me wrong that you're
> contradicting yourself..
>
NO. Very cold water passing through pipes is very different than HOT water in a tea
pot or scraping the side of a bowl with a spoon or sucking on the side of a tea cup.
>
> >>In closing let me reiterate: Unglazed pottery is perfectly safe. Pottery is made
> >>from common clay, the same stuff that you find in the ground where the food you
> >>eat grows. If you have problems with alleged toxicity of clay, then you should
> >> stop eating food, and avoid walking outside, to avoid breathing toxic dust
> >> stirred up from the ground.
> >
> >So you are saying, that if you use a clay containing lead you are perfect safe
> >in
> >using it in unglazed form? Lead in lead crystal is trapped in a molecular matrix
> >while lead in a clay would be in a globular or emulsion form, again it would do
> >you
> >well to study mineralogy.
>
> As I said, firing a clay pot fixes the molecules into a solid matrix. Any trace
> elements in the clay would be virtually impossible to dislodge from their
> chemical bonds. Even if these elements were scraped away from the sides of the
> vessel and ingested, they would remain bonded to the kaolin in the clay and pass
> through the body without absorption.
>
Depends on where the lead molecule is located on the injested chunk.
> BTW, you should be aware that many cultures throughout the world eat raw clay,
> it is used to neutralize toxins in native plants.
>
As i said before, clay can contain almost anything.
>
> >Also, you are saying the laboratory tests have confirmed
> >the safety of unglazed pottery from EVERY source as safe? It is not a far leap
> >to
> >conclude that if there is lead in the source material and it is not somehow
> >sealed
> >you will get exposed to it. This is not an unreasonable conclusion.
>
> You are the one making the unreasonable leaps to a mistaken conclusion. Lead
> cannot migrate from fired stoneware to the contents of a pot. It isn't
> physically possible.
>
If Iron/copper/zinc can migrate from fired objects than lead sure as the hell can.
>
> [snip irrelevant ranting about communism]
>
> >Now you seem to get the impression that I am saying to throw out all your
> >unglazed
> >or questionable glazed stone/pottery...NO All i am saying is show some
> >responsible
> >caution.
>
> The proper level of caution to take towards unglazed pottery is: none. No
> precautions are necessary. You are seeing risk where there is none. No risk.
> None. How many times do I have to say it? There is NO risk from lead in unglazed
> pottery.
How very iresponsible. I have hear such satements before "THERE IS NO RISK IN EATING
BRITISH BEEF"
>
>
> >Because you test one section of a piece and it is lead free does not mean
> >the rest of the piece is lead free. And rarely if even have I seen noted potters
> >use
> >"Common clay" as you call it, they all have a "special" source of clay, because
> >they
> >like the way that clay works in their pieces. The very nature of "clay" urges
> >caution, clay is a conglomerate of elements and has no set definition, it could
> >be
> >almost anything or have almost any trace elements in it.
>
> So, have you ever made a pot? Ever tended a wood-fired kiln? Ever studied in an
> art school with world-class potters? Ever dug 1000lbs of your own clay with a
> pick and shovel? Ever examined local clays under an electron microscope? Ever
> done a chemical analysis of local clay? I have done all these things. I have
> specific experience in the things you are cluelessly ranting about. Until you
> can show similar experience, and can offer anything other than your vague
> paranoia based on completely mistaken chemical concepts, I would suggest you
> keep your ridiculous ideas to yourself.
>
Actualy being a free country I can say and do as I wish.Oh and by the way your analogy
is garbadge, thats like saying "HAVE YOU EVER MADE A MOVIE? How can you judje this one
then."
>
> >Oh and a comment about fiesta you mentioned that is was valuable.....I find that
> >funny. That truly ugly uninspired work has little value compared to even some of
> >its
> >contemporary works.
>
> Perhaps you should explain this to the Los Angeles Museum of Art, where I
> recently saw an exhibit called "The Art of the Cup." In the center of the
> exhibit was a "radioactive red" Fiestaware coffee cup and saucer, sitting next
> to a seto-ware chawan. I noted with amusement that I own identical red Fiesta
> cups in better condition. I guess I own museum-pieces, but I use them as my
> everyday dishes, I even put them in the microwave and dishwasher.
>
Go see how much you can sell your "priceless" fiesta ware at auction. hehehe
>
> I'm through talking with an idiot like you who doesn't know what they're talking
> about. I have specific knowledge of this area, and you don't. Go argue with
> someone else, I'm through with you.
It seems like like you have a vestid instest in violantly contradicting me, perhaps a
finacial one. Calling someone an idiot without even knowing them would sugjest a
desperation in the argument. What, are you tring to make a living selling such things,
I bet you are. I find that in a argument, when one side is wrong the first thing the
oponent does is question the inteligence of the the other oponent. "with an idiot like
you", its clasical, and very funny. Your a walking physology example.
-Reza
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Oh no nothing in clay is dangerous:
http://www.claytimes.com/Healthsf.htm
Oh lead never binds to clay eh?
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000008/33/0000083387.html
Michael Cash
(trim)
>
>I'm through talking with an idiot like you who doesn't know what they're
talking
>about. I have specific knowledge of this area, and you don't. Go argue with
>someone else, I'm through with you.
>
Although it started out in a rather boring way for me, as I have no particular
interest in pottery, this thread has become more interesting the more it
continues. Don't quit now.
Michael Cash
"My favorite thing, Mr. Cash, in the whole world....is to
watch your ass when you walk. It always means you're going
away."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
"In answer to your questions, Mr. Cash. Yes, this college
has a Department of Women's Studies. No, you may not change
your major. Trust me, it isn't what you think."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
Homepage at http://www.sunfield.ne.jp/~mike/
See Professor Bass addressing the class
http://www.sunfield.ne.jp/~mike/profbass.jpg
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Biku wrote:
> Both of those links say that there may be
> lead or other metals in the clay. One states
> possible hazards for those making pottery.
> But you still have not show anything that challenges
> Mr. Eicher's statement that using nonglazed
> pottery is harmless.
> Biku
My intent was to show that lead can indeed exist in clays (and in
sometimes high proportions) and I have found nothing that tells me lead
in unglazed potterys is bound like lead or silver in crystal. Proving
or disproving harmless would require extensive and expensive studies
taking into account every factor a human gets involved with. My
statement is simple; Lead is a known neorogentic AND has been linked to
mutagenic sperm problems, WHY the hell would you want to take chances
eh? Neither has Mr. Eicher put forth any study which indicates that all
clay sources are safe. Sure if you know the purity of YOU clay you use
then of coarse there will not be any problem, but again I say...Why take
chances?
-Reza
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
When it comes to lead and other heavy metals why take the chance.
Reza
Biku
lead or other metals in the clay. One states
possible hazards for those making pottery.
But you still have not show anything that challenges
Mr. Eicher's statement that using nonglazed
pottery is harmless.
Biku
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad wrote in message <38380A3E...@osu.edu>...
Buchan
Michael Cash wrote in message <383810ac...@news.sunfield.ne.jp>...
>
>Although it started out in a rather boring way for me, as I have no
particular
>interest in pottery, this thread has become more interesting the more it
>continues. Don't quit now.
>
their little lead squabble to alt.minerologists.with.attitudes and get off
my thread. I was trying to get some aesthetic opinions about Japanese
pottery here!
Buchan
PS. But at least this hasn't digressed into, "when I was a JET teacher..."
bitch.. bitch.. bitch
Buchan
Just curious, but do you think there is a market in North America for
Japanese pottery? I've often thought about exporting it if there was any
demand for it. I know there are some pottery shops on the west coast -
Seattle or Los Angeles - but they usually carry limited pieces, usually with
tacky geisha patterns all over it. And I assume most suburban Americans
wouldn't like it because it's too small the slap a porkchop on; but I'm sure
there are some urban yuppies who might go for it. What do you think?
Buchan
>I'm surprised to find that most North Americans dislike pottery with the
>typical "Oriental" pattern, yet Japanese obachans love the stuff. I'd be
>interested in hearing what kind of pottery you like and, especially, if you
>know of any good markets where you can get some good deals. Can you please
>include your nationality? I'd like to do a little cultural cross study.
>
>Yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
>
>Buchan
>
Charles Eicher
>talking
>>about. I have specific knowledge of this area, and you don't. Go argue with
>>someone else, I'm through with you.
>>
>
>interest in pottery, this thread has become more interesting the more it
>continues. Don't quit now.
OK, just for your amusement. But this is the last time, I have other more
pressing problems, and other bigger pests to deal with.
In article <38380A3E...@osu.edu>, Reza says...
>
>Oh no nothing in clay is dangerous:
>
>http://www.claytimes.com/Healthsf.htm
The result:
>HTTP/1.0 500 Server Error (1727)
That is really definitive info, isn't it? He also cites:
>http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000008/33/0000083387.html
From that page, we see a USDA study of soil contamination:
>EQUILIBRIUM AND SPECTROSCOPIC STUDIES OF LEAD RETENTION IN SMECTITE
Let's skip to the end of the summary:
>The information obtained from this study is useful for the remediation of
>lead contamination in soils and the control of lead leaching to groundwater.
This is a study of lead contamination in soil. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with fired ceramic pottery, its a study of pollution in soil moving into the
groundwater. I agree with the limited information contained in the abstract, it
seems that lead can leach from soft soils into groundwater. This has nothing to
do with lead leaching from fired pottery.
I will grant one point: You should not ingest soft soils or soft clays that are
contaminated with high concentrations of lead. It would also be a bad idea to
dig clays from, for example, a toxic waste dump or an abandoned lead-paint
factory, and use them in pottery. Just use some COMMON SENSE, ferchrissake.
In another message:
In article <38380702...@osu.edu>, Reza says...
>
>All heavy metals are suspect in causing genetic damage. No argument.
Suspect, but you show no causality. I am intimately familiar with the risks of
lead, as it is a common artist's material, I occasionally use it as Lead White
oil paint. It is very risky to handle in concentrated form. In trace elements,
bound fired-pottery, there is no risk.
>>>Again you need a lesson in mineralogy, lead in crystal is trapped in a matrix,
>> >lead
>> >in clay or muds is in emulsion form...big difference.
I agree 100%. You should not eat soft clay or soils that are contaminated by
lead. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the safety of fired pottery. Fired
pottery is not an emulsion.
>PLEASE point to me to a text where its says "FIRED CLAY FORMS A CRYSTALLINE
>MATRIX"
>similiar to that of crystal ware.
I didn't say it was similar to lead crystal. I said it was a crystalline matrix.
Glass and fired pottery both have properties of "amorphous solids" but the
comparison ends there. I don't intend to bother explaining this, as it involves
xray crystallography and lots of other math (not to mention logic) that is way
above your head. Go do your own research.
>NO. Very cold water passing through pipes is very different than HOT water in a
>tea
>pot or scraping the side of a bowl with a spoon or sucking on the side of a tea
>cup.
Like I said, even if you scraped particles off the side of a fired pot and
ingested them, the metals would remain bound to the fired kaolin. Of course, the
lead might go into solution in hot, concentrated nitric acid, but that is hardly
likely to be on anyone's dinner table.
Let's dissect some of the purely ridiculous arguments:
>Go see how much you can sell your "priceless" fiesta ware at auction. hehehe
I have a feeling it would fetch about exactly what I paid for it. I buy some
pieces at below market, and some above. It all averages out.
According to "The Collector's Encyclopedia of Fiesta, 7th edition" (Privately
published 1994, Collector Books, P.O. Box 3009 Paducah KY 42001-3009) a
radioactive red fiestaware cup is worth $200-250. Remember, that was 5 years
ago. My sister (also a Fiesta collector) reports that the Fiesta boutique in NYC
routinely sells pieces for 3 to 5 times the old book's value. That makes the
poor little coffee cup worth something between $600 and $1250. And the red cups
aren't even the most valuable pieces, the gray and green pieces are even more
expensive and desirable. One rare green Fiesta pot sold at auction for $3100,
and that was in 1994. I have many of the most desirable pieces, such as the
stacking mixing bowls, which at 1994 prices are around $1000 for the set (1994
prices again). Not bad for stuff I picked up at rummage sales, and for stuff
that originally sold for between 25 cents and $1. And I have dozens and dozens
of pieces.
>It seems like like you have a vestid instest in violantly contradicting me,
>perhaps a
>finacial one.
Nope, I don't currently make or sell pottery of any type. And I certainly have
NO incentive to hype the prices of Fiesta, it is not in my own interest as a
collector, it just makes it even more difficult to obtain at reasonable prices.
Its already over-collected and unaffordable. I'm thinking of switching to
collecting the much rarer but still affordable Cornish-ware.
>Calling someone an idiot without even knowing them would sugjest a
>desperation in the argument. What, are you tring to make a living selling
>such things, I bet you are.
I can easily tell you are an idiot merely by judging from the quality of your
argument. I have no financial incentive to do anything. The pots I made are
either broken and discarded, or sitting in my Mom's attic somewhere, I haven't
seen them in years. If anything, I should be glad to start rumors that fired
pottery is unsafe, it might make collecting Fiesta more affordable.
However, I'll make my final point again, presented out of order, from the middle
of this message:
>>So, have you ever made a pot? Ever tended a wood-fired kiln? Ever studied in an
>> art school with world-class potters? Ever dug 1000lbs of your own clay with a
>> pick and shovel? Ever examined local clays under an electron microscope? Ever
>> done a chemical analysis of local clay? I have done all these things. I have
>> specific experience in the things you are cluelessly ranting about. Until you
>> can show similar experience, and can offer anything other than your vague
>> paranoia based on completely mistaken chemical concepts, I would suggest you
>> keep your ridiculous ideas to yourself.
>>
>
>Actualy being a free country I can say and do as I wish.Oh and by the way your
>analogy
>is garbadge, thats like saying "HAVE YOU EVER MADE A MOVIE? How can you judje
>this one
>then."
I don't know what country you are IN, but presuming that it IS a free country,
sure, you could say whatever you like. But don't forget the famous maxim, "It is
better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
And every time you open your mouth, you are disproven. You're disputing with
someone who has specific knowledge in an area that you only have vague
suspicions.
Sure, anyone can look at a movie and tell if its crap. But you're arguing about
specific chemical and physical reactions that occur on a subcellular and
molecular level. Or perhaps you claim that you're able to see these molecules in
action? You don't know what you're talking about.
Go ahead and avoid eating off pottery if you care to. Just don't go around
making up some pseudo-scientific "fact" that it is dangerous, because it just
isn't true.
OK, I think I've pretty much finished with this thread. This guy will go on and
on ranting until he figures out I'm ignoring him. Surely he'll come up with
other web-searched info that he will attempt to put to a misleading use, like
the soil-pollution survey. I intend to ignore them. I really have no interest in
pursuing this thread any further. Its like trying to find flaws in someone's
"proof" that you can trisect an angle with a compass. Its laborious and tedious,
and I'm really sick of proving the obvious over and over.
Charles Eicher
>
>Fellow NGers,
>
>Just curious, but do you think there is a market in North America for
>Japanese pottery? I've often thought about exporting it if there was any
>demand for it. I know there are some pottery shops on the west coast -
>Seattle or Los Angeles - but they usually carry limited pieces, usually with
>tacky geisha patterns all over it. And I assume most suburban Americans
>wouldn't like it because it's too small the slap a porkchop on; but I'm sure
>there are some urban yuppies who might go for it. What do you think?
I've seen local pottery exhibitions that sold pottery modeled after Japanese
pottery techniques. Their sales went up like <ahem> a lead balloon. Not very
successful. But perhaps this is just because the market hasn't been cultivated,
or perhaps the pottery just wasn't very good. I personally didn't like it, even
though it was mostly in the colors and glazing that I like. The proportions and
weight seemed all wrong.
I'm told that your average "obaachan" judges a piece of pottery first by holding
it in her hands and judging if it has the right "heft." If it isn't properly
proportioned in weight and form, you might as well toss it out because it just
won't sell. I've observed Japanese women "hefting" pottery in stores, and I
assume it is a universally known method of appraising pottery, cups, plates,
etc. I can get a small sense of this myself, but I'm no expert, it doesn't come
to me naturally. This isn't really a skill used by other pottery buyers in other
countries, its mostly a visual thing. I suspect the primary appeal of Japanese
pottery is mostly lost on untrained audiences.
Charles Eicher
>
>Actually, I wish Reza and Charlie (sounds like some talkshow) would take
>their little lead squabble to alt.minerologists.with.attitudes and get off
>my thread. I was trying to get some aesthetic opinions about Japanese
>pottery here!
The argument is hereby ended. He can rant all he wants, I won't respond further,
even if Mike eggs me on.
However, I will note, I specifically answered your questions about my aesthetic
opinions about Japanese pottery. I got no response from you. If you want to
discuss aesthetics (which is a far more interesting question) then please
proceed, the ball is already back in your court.
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Charles Eicher wrote:
Well look he admits that using highly contaminated clays could be dangerous...Thats
my point, humans are not the only ones that can highly contaminate soils, it occurs
naturaly as well.
Or hot accidic tea.
>
> Let's dissect some of the purely ridiculous arguments:
>
> >Go see how much you can sell your "priceless" fiesta ware at auction. hehehe
>
> I have a feeling it would fetch about exactly what I paid for it. I buy some
> pieces at below market, and some above. It all averages out.
>
> According to "The Collector's Encyclopedia of Fiesta, 7th edition" (Privately
> published 1994, Collector Books, P.O. Box 3009 Paducah KY 42001-3009) a
> radioactive red fiestaware cup is worth $200-250. Remember, that was 5 years
> ago. My sister (also a Fiesta collector) reports that the Fiesta boutique in NYC
> routinely sells pieces for 3 to 5 times the old book's value. That makes the
> poor little coffee cup worth something between $600 and $1250. And the red cups
> aren't even the most valuable pieces, the gray and green pieces are even more
> expensive and desirable. One rare green Fiesta pot sold at auction for $3100,
> and that was in 1994. I have many of the most desirable pieces, such as the
> stacking mixing bowls, which at 1994 prices are around $1000 for the set (1994
> prices again). Not bad for stuff I picked up at rummage sales, and for stuff
> that originally sold for between 25 cents and $1. And I have dozens and dozens
> of pieces.
>
That is truely funny. Fiesta is garbadge in the pottery collecting world. Oww a NYC
store, gee they are not going to be outragously overpriced are they.
>
> >It seems like like you have a vestid instest in violantly contradicting me,
> >perhaps a
> >finacial one.
>
> Nope, I don't currently make or sell pottery of any type. And I certainly have
> NO incentive to hype the prices of Fiesta, it is not in my own interest as a
> collector, it just makes it even more difficult to obtain at reasonable prices.
> Its already over-collected and unaffordable. I'm thinking of switching to
> collecting the much rarer but still affordable Cornish-ware.
>
> >Calling someone an idiot without even knowing them would sugjest a
> >desperation in the argument. What, are you tring to make a living selling
> >such things, I bet you are.
>
> I can easily tell you are an idiot merely by judging from the quality of your
> argument.
Uh. Thats again very funny. You must not have much of an education. I bet little
beyond a BS, which is what most of your flames are. "Name-calling" is the clasic sign
of a rank amataur debater, "Oh I am frustrated, just call the guy an Idiot and be
done with it". Your a real word smith.
> I have no financial incentive to do anything. The pots I made are
> either broken and discarded, or sitting in my Mom's attic somewhere, I haven't
> seen them in years. If anything, I should be glad to start rumors that fired
> pottery is unsafe, it might make collecting Fiesta more affordable.
>
What does safety and collecting have to do with each other?
>
> However, I'll make my final point again, presented out of order, from the middle
> of this message:
>
> >>So, have you ever made a pot? Ever tended a wood-fired kiln? Ever studied in an
> >> art school with world-class potters? Ever dug 1000lbs of your own clay with a
> >> pick and shovel? Ever examined local clays under an electron microscope? Ever
> >> done a chemical analysis of local clay? I have done all these things. I have
> >> specific experience in the things you are cluelessly ranting about. Until you
> >> can show similar experience, and can offer anything other than your vague
> >> paranoia based on completely mistaken chemical concepts, I would suggest you
> >> keep your ridiculous ideas to yourself.
> >>
> >
> >Actualy being a free country I can say and do as I wish.Oh and by the way your
> >analogy
> >is garbadge, thats like saying "HAVE YOU EVER MADE A MOVIE? How can you judje
> >this one
> >then."
>
> I don't know what country you are IN, but presuming that it IS a free country,
> sure, you could say whatever you like. But don't forget the famous maxim, "It is
> better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
> And every time you open your mouth, you are disproven. You're disputing with
>
YOU have yet to PROVE without a shadow of a doubt that clay sources containing a
decent % of lead are safe? Where exactly is your proof? Studies? A simple "well
people have been doing it for years" just doesn't cut it.
> someone who has specific knowledge in an area that you only have vague
> suspicions.
> Sure, anyone can look at a movie and tell if its crap. But you're arguing about
> specific chemical and physical reactions that occur on a subcellular and
> molecular level. Or perhaps you claim that you're able to see these molecules in
> action? You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Go ahead and avoid eating off pottery if you care to. Just don't go around
> making up some pseudo-scientific "fact" that it is dangerous, because it just
> isn't true.
>
> OK, I think I've pretty much finished with this thread. This guy will go on and
> on ranting until he figures out I'm ignoring him. Surely he'll come up with
> other web-searched info that he will attempt to put to a misleading use, like
> the soil-pollution survey. I intend to ignore them. I really have no interest in
> pursuing this thread any further. Its like trying to find flaws in someone's
> "proof" that you can trisect an angle with a compass. Its laborious and tedious,
> and I'm really sick of proving the obvious over and over.
You have "proved" nothing. Where is your evidence that all clay localities have been
shown safe?
-Reza
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
Oh, leave it alone, will you?
As I have commented on multiple occasions, Usenet is inherently motivated by
negativity. For every 10 people who read a message, agree, and make no comment,
there is 1 person who violently disagrees, and decides to post. And usually
these people have nothing to bring other than opinions, they have no actual
factual knowledge of what they're talking about.
Thus is the state of Usenet.
Ttancm
Anthony J. Bryant
> As I have commented on multiple occasions, Usenet is inherently motivated by
> negativity. For every 10 people who read a message, agree, and make no comment,
> there is 1 person who violently disagrees, and decides to post. And usually
> these people have nothing to bring other than opinions, they have no actual
> factual knowledge of what they're talking about.
>
> Thus is the state of Usenet.
I disagree completely, Charles. <G>
(BTW, you didn't mention that Usenet is also dominated by sarcastic smartasses.
<wink wink>)
Tony
Cindy
>Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
Any discussion that Charles Eicher gets involved ...
Charles Eicher
says...
I think you'll find, by and large, that I engage in rational and intelligent
discussion. My only problem is that I do not suffer fools gladly.
Let's track this thread. First, Buchan asked about how non-Japanese feel about
Japanese pottery. I expressed my opinion, and made a peripheral remark about
Buchan's revulsion towards dung-fired pottery, saying it was just fine. Then
some idiot came in and started lecturing about something totally irrelevant.
Then buchan complaine that everyone should get out of "his" thread, and couldn't
we just discuss the aesthetics of pottery as he originally intended? But I had
already commented on that, it was the very first response in the thread. Buchan
is as much as fault as Reza for the degeneration of "his" thread, for not
responding to the rational, intelligent comments that were exactly what he
sought. You know, there can be more than one conversation in the same thread.
But since this was apparently not what he wanted, so I started a new thread,
asking if Buchan had read a book referring to Japanese pottery by Kawabata. No
response.
Ah, well, its all water under the bridge now. Read the messages you want, and
ignore the ones you don't want. But don't be too surprised if some information
you sought is in the messages you don't want. A man of true intelligence can
learn something from everyone they meet, no matter who they are.
Anthony J. Bryant
> >Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
>
> Any discussion that Charles Eicher gets involved ...
I don't know. I think Charles was 100% correct in this thread.
Tony
Wenslauw Schwartz
Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net> wrote in message
news:81futk$2i...@edrn.newsguy.com...> says...
> >
> >Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
>
>
by
> negativity. For every 10 people who read a message, agree, and make no
comment,
> there is 1 person who violently disagrees, and decides to post. And
usually
> these people have nothing to bring other than opinions, they have no
actual
> factual knowledge of what they're talking about.
>
> Thus is the state of Usenet
I disagree! You know it all huh, you poofter!
Wenslauw
Wenslauw Schwartz
Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:383C21C0...@indiana.edu...
> Charles Eicher wrote:
>
> > As I have commented on multiple occasions, Usenet is inherently
motivated by
> > negativity. For every 10 people who read a message, agree, and make no
comment,
> > there is 1 person who violently disagrees, and decides to post. And
usually
> > these people have nothing to bring other than opinions, they have no
actual
> > factual knowledge of what they're talking about.
> >
>
> I disagree completely, Charles. <G>
>
> (BTW, you didn't mention that Usenet is also dominated by sarcastic
smartasses.
> <wink wink>)
Damn, now there's two of us... Well, at least it means Eicher wasn't
completely right. :)
Wenslauw
Wenslauw Schwartz
Cindy <cind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991124140347...@ngol05.aol.com...
>
> >Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
>
Anyway, to get back to pottery... What's the name of the guy whose pottery
is in Kansai airport. We got a big plate from him in a nice kimono box for
our wedding.
Wenslauw
Cindy
<ajbr...@indiana.edu> writes:
>Cindy wrote:
>
>> >Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
>>
>> Any discussion that Charles Eicher gets involved ...
>
>I don't know. I think Charles was 100% correct in this thread.
... that he leads it to erupt into violent dispute? Yeah ...
Did you read the thread about Pokemon movie in soc.culture.japan?
Cindy
writes:
>Ah, well, its all water under the bridge now. Read the messages you want, and
>ignore the ones you don't want.
Thank you. I am very good at that.
>But don't be too surprised if some
>information
>you sought is in the messages you don't want. A man of true intelligence can
>learn something from everyone they meet, no matter who they are.
How about a woman of true intelligence?
Charles, if you are neither married nor engaged with anyone, would you like to
meet my coworker?
Cindy
<wens...@xxx.nl> writes:
>Anyway, to get back to pottery... What's the name of the guy whose pottery
>is in Kansai airport. We got a big plate from him in a nice kimono box for
>our wedding.
Who cares?
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
> A man of true intelligence can learn something from everyone they meet, no matter
> who they are.
Are you trying to imply that you are a man of tue intelligence?
-Reza
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad
Reza Khakbaz-Nejad wrote:
Make that true?
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>In article <81het9$1u...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net>
>writes:
>
>>Ah, well, its all water under the bridge now. Read the messages you want, and
>>ignore the ones you don't want.
>
>Thank you. I am very good at that.
>
>>But don't be too surprised if some
>>information
>>learn something from everyone they meet, no matter who they are.
>
A woman of true intelligence is a man of true intelligence, as in a huMAN. I'm
not one of those people who subscribes to the gender-neutral speech philosophy.
Buchan
Biku wrote in message <813us5$sug$1...@news.urban.ne.jp>...
>I know how you feel. I enjoyed it so much I took
>it up about 1 1/2 years ago. I had my first show.
>at the beginning of this month. It really wasn't that would
>make me instantly famous, but it was nice to do
>something besides the local festivals .
>I'm busy with orders now but I can send you something
>in the new year if you e-mail me your address.
>Biku
>
>Buchan wrote in message
>but I snipped it (a band width thing)
>
Biku,
I'm interested. I e-mailed my address to you but it got bounced back.
Please e-mail me yours directly.
Buchan
Anthony J. Bryant
> Anyway, to get back to pottery... What's the name of the guy whose pottery
> is in Kansai airport. We got a big plate from him in a nice kimono box for
> our wedding.
FROM him or BY him? If you got it from him, surely he must know you... <G>
Seriously, though, what does he have at the airport? I'm going to Japan in a
few months, and I thought I'd give the new airport a try. (I'm kind of tired of
Narita...)
Tony
Cindy
writes:
>A woman of true intelligence is a man of true intelligence, as in a huMAN.
>I'm
>not one of those people who subscribes to the gender-neutral speech
>philosophy.
>
Hey, I am just trying my best, OK? Be kind enough to throw a ball that I can
catch and I can't always hit the ball to where you want me to hit.
Cindy
<geofft...@my-deja.com> writes:
>She's still looking?
She hasn't really been quite active on boy hunting. But I am sure she needs
sex.
Cindy
<geofft...@my-deja.com> writes:
>Don't we all.
Yeah, someone said we needed it as much as eating, evacuating, breathing,
washing, watching TV and spending money.
Wenslauw Schwartz
> Seriously, though, what does he have at the airport? I'm going to Japan in
a
> few months, and I thought I'd give the new airport a try. (I'm kind of
tired of
> Narita...)
Ehm, pottery. hehe
Wenslauw
Ttancm
writes:
>>Only on Usenet can a discussion about pottery erupt into violent dispute.
>
>Oh, leave it alone, will you?
>
>As I have commented on multiple occasions, Usenet is inherently motivated by
>negativity. For every 10 people who read a message, agree, and make no
>comment, there is 1 person who violently disagrees, and decides to post. And
>usually these people have nothing to bring other than opinions, they have no
actual
>factual knowledge of what they're talking about.
>
>Thus is the state of Usenet.
>
I think that 1 out of 10 is probably a pleasantly optimistic statistic. =)
I am well aware of the state of Usenet, however this thread really nagged at my
sense of humor. Pottery, which is in my opnion (no offense meant to anyone)
one of the most boring and innocuous things I can think of and it erupts into a
huge thread with lots of insults and four letter words. It just struck me as
funny, maybe slightly ironic (from my POV).
However I am one of the above mentioned people who has nothing to add to the
discusion as I know as much about pottery as I do about the mating habits of
the samolian fruit fly (which is absolutely jack), and instead just adds to the
drivel because I am mindlessly typing away in a state of absolute boredom.
Bryan Parker
> <geofft...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >Don't we all.
>
> Yeah, someone said we needed it as much as eating, evacuating, breathing,
> washing, watching TV and spending money.
>
--
Bryan
Biku
try this one I checked it, it seems
to be OK
>an...@excite.mail.com<
Biku
Buchan wrote in message >