[Bell Historians] Response from Dr. Mike Baron to recent 'List' emails re Eastry 'Sanctus' Bell.

David Bryant davidbryant at bDgQZ216TMzo6DNMSsRaizuMOKsS74XsSgyj-vk3jbVpWP8JnuvyxA8G9Lbs9Uo0boiVeOPdoHSWe4PlYN0R.yahoo.invalid
Sat Jul 28 00:17:29 BST 2007

> You have just put your finger on the crux of the matter - David did 
not ask for my permission first. If he had done so,  I would have 
said no, not now, as before publication date, you should regard it as 
confidential. After publication, I would have been happy to share 
information with others.

So what? People have given out information I've supplied without 
specifically asking - they generally acknowledge the source, and I 
have no problem at all with them doing this. And for your 
information, I have received information from 'works in progress' on 
plenty of occasions from a number of people.

As I understand it, you want assistance with locating any other bells 
like this one at Eastry. Well, if nobody is allowed to see the 
relevant information how do you imagine they are going to be able to 
assist? Even, of course, if they wanted to which I doubt many people 
will after this.

> If you can't distinguish between the useful, mutual exchange of 
helpful material (such as sending people corrections on erroneous 
bell data & providing missing historical information, etc., - which I 
thought was the purpose of the Bell Historians Site) and the 
necessity of guarding sensitive data for members commercial 
activities, and acknowledge that I have been 'wronged', albeit 
unintentionally, then you are not fit to 'moderate' this site.

Sensitive information for commercial activities? Are you expecting 
this to be a best-seller? Do you think readers will be queueing up at 
midnight on the day it's issued to get their hands on a copy?

>  If you take the trouble to read your emails properly, before 
getting steamed up about them first, then you would acknowledge that; 
(a) I acknowledged that David Cawley is a first-class Bell Historian, 
whom I liked at first meeting: (b) he has apologized unreservedly to 
me for his actions, which I have accepted;

He has apologised because he is a good-natured person who doesn't 
seek confrontation. As I see it (and I have not discussed the matter 
with Dave, so I cannot claim to represent his views), he has 
absolutely nothing to apologise for. He was merely trying to help 
you - there is no hidden agenda. Can you really not see that?

>(d) had some of your members not ignored David's wishes not to 'chew 
over' this private matter  and 'slag me off'  on your site 
(presumably allowed by you to do so, in your capacity as moderator), 
then I would not have found it necessary to respond publically, as 
previously, I had had no intention of using your site for anything 
other than participating in the type of exchanges I have seen on 

I have no problem with people expressing reasonable opinions.
> Having seen you in operation against another member in very recent 
days, I anticipate that you might retaliate by striking me off the 
membership of the site.

Ah, so having finished your unprovoked tirade against Dave you are 
now starting on me because I dared to stand up against you.

> Let us see if you are man enough to keep me on it. If not, I shall 
not lose any sleep over my expulsion. 

So how is it being 'man' to overlook your unacceptable behaviour 
towards a well-respected member of this list? Afraid I don't see 
that. It's as well that you won't lose any sleep over it if I kick 
you off, because the condition stated in my last email still applies: 
either you apologise to Dave - publicly, on this list, or you're out. 
You have until the end of Sunday to decide.

> Perhaps if you feel so strongly about it, as you are involved 
yourself, through your failure to 'moderate' properly,

Look mate - I moderate as I see fit and it's none of your business. I 
would of course take note of the views of established list members, 
but not of someone who has contributed nothing here and whos first 
posting is so totally unacceptable. In this case, as I have already 
stated, I saw no reason not to stop anyone from commenting.

> I had hoped that this matter would have been settled quietly & 

Right. So that's why you send a ranting email pretty much guaranteed 
to cause offence?

I don't want any more pathetic attampts to justify your stance. 
Apologise to Dave, or get out.

David Bryant


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list