And people wonder why folks get a little bit peeved...

[seanfingh]

 

To me, this is the most head-scratching aspect of the debate...

 

Some feel the the LOC statement is not to be taken seriously and does not provide adequate detail.

 

Yet, the opposing view has absolutely no evidence or independent expert opinion to support their belief.

 

Domo comes to the table with **something** and the other side has nothing other than personal opinion. Who has more credibility?

 

 

Hey Zip,

 

Back when i was trying, foolishly, to participate in this train wreck, I took Domo's statement at face value. I assumed damage. What I thought was interesting would be to figure out what were really talking about in terms of damage. For example, if a typical press is 200 degrees for a couple of minutes, how does that correspond to a bunch of books being in the back seat of my car, heated up to 130-140 degrees for several hours?

 

After it became clear (to me) that Domo did not want to talk about the levels of damage or other sources of similar damage, but merely to proselytize (in my opinion) I left. I still think it would be fascinating to noodle over. It's possible that more damage is being done as a result of leaving comics in a hot car than pressing.

[kc120us]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

[seanfingh]

If people want to save something, then green up and save the planet. Try to leave something for your children instead of your comic book collection.

 

(thumbs u

 

You got it right bro. I can't say it better but I'll say it wordier.

 

If you hate comic book profiteers because they love money more than comics, then we must presume you love comic books more than the opportunity value of the money you choose to spend on comic books. So much so you'd pay crazy prices to hide something in a box. This is called fetishistic idol worship. It is the height of me-first self-indulgence. You could have spent that money you hate on your children or your neighbor's children rather than on your ownership of a high grade, ancient children's magazine. Collectors of all stripes on all sides of this debate are selfish pigs. Christians call this activity demonic.

 

<3

 

You had me at "bro."

[DrWatson]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

pro-presser <--> anti-presser

[goldust40]

It's possible that more damage is being done as a result of leaving comics in a hot car than pressing.

 

Indeed it might be, although pressing (if done professionally) is done in a controlled environment.

[slym2none]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

Sure!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-slym

[BrianR]

Going through this thread I can see why there are a lot of board members who keep quiet and don't participate in these threads. I pretty much keep quiet myself. Personally a pressed book has no impact on whether I buy it or not. I believe I only asked one or two times is a book has been pressed many because something looked a little off both times the books were not pressed. I buy books quite often from pressers and non-pressers and I don't ask if they are pressed. I buy the book for the book if it’s in a grade I like.

 

There are those that hold the LOC study up high which is fine, but remember it was a limited controlled study that involved only certain types of paper not all. Remember this is the same LOC that used to "preserve books" that turned out to be destructive so they are not infallible.

 

You guys that have a chip on your shoulder with regards to this subject would learn more from people if you a bit more civil as there are knowledgeable people here on this subject that are turned off by the bickering. Heck, I studied wood technology in college which included paper manufacturing, I don't claim to be an expert but like I said before I don't care about pressing with what I learned

 

[buttock]

 

Here's what Dale said:

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

Clearly, Dale falls into the "there may be damage, but if there is it's so ridiculously benign that there's no use worrying about it" crowd. He does not claim that absolutely no damage is done.

 

Now Jeff, don't go throwing facts about.

It appears he likes to throw selective facts and half truths around. Unfortunately, neither of them does anybody any good.

 

You would certainly know.

[goldust40]

If you hate comic book profiteers because they love money more than comics, then we must presume you love comic books more than the opportunity value of the money you choose to spend on comic books. So much so you'd pay crazy prices to hide something in a box. This is called fetishistic idol worship. It is the height of me-first self-indulgence. You could have spent that money you hate on your children or your neighbor's children rather than on your ownership of a high grade, ancient children's magazine. Collectors of all stripes on all sides of this debate are selfish pigs. Christians call this activity demonic.

 

I always thought I was a bit of a devil.

[TupennyConan]

If people want to save something, then green up and save the planet. Try to leave something for your children instead of your comic book collection.

 

(thumbs u

 

You got it right bro. I can't say it better but I'll say it wordier.

 

If you hate comic book profiteers because they love money more than comics, then we must presume you love comic books more than the opportunity value of the money you choose to spend on comic books. So much so you'd pay crazy prices to hide something in a box. This is called fetishistic idol worship. It is the height of me-first self-indulgence. You could have spent that money you hate on your children or your neighbor's children rather than on your ownership of a high grade, ancient children's magazine. Collectors of all stripes on all sides of this debate are selfish pigs. Christians call this activity demonic.

 

<3

 

You had me at "bro."

 

It's true.

 

All this talk about ethics comes from demonic idol worshipers according to the moral wisdom found throughout thousands of years of western civilization.

[DiceX]

And nobody on the other side acknowledged my statement about the fact that the "purist's" mess is turning to dust no matter what they do to it. The fact that they are not bricking them up in cryogenic hibernation and never touching them with their hands makes them no better than the very thing they complain about.

 

I'll really be eating crow when my pressed books disintegrate in a thousand years. I guess you'll show me, then. You'll still have another 50 years to love your non pressed ones.

 

Get something to cry about, you tits.

 

 

[Boozad]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

Sure!

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said using only graemlins. You said 'Sure!'

[Foolkiller]

Incidentally, most drug litigation cases are failure to warn (and a subset of failure to test, in some jurisdictions, that's a separate cause of action) -- thus a manufacturer has put a drug on the market, promoted it for benefits, but not tested or warned of a potential significant harm (for HRT, breast cancer, Paxil, heart malformations and death in infants, so on and so forth).

 

In the pressing analogy, it'd be, someone knew or should have known that pressing was harmful to the books but failed to warn of the harm. Here, the key would be finding who owed a duty to the customer buying a book and should they have known that pressing was harmful.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

Well, strictly following this claim, I'm not sure the drug analogy is best then. But following through with the analogy would be this -- it would be like a drug company saying, our drug does (x) -- promote it for say a benefit, but then it later comes out through studies, no it actually doesn't do what it says AND oh by the way it's actually harmful.

 

So pressing does no harm --

 

Of course here the problem is, it is not generally accepted, nor is there adequate evidence to say that the pro pressers are saying, hey, there's nothing wrong with pressing, but you can prove they actually knew it.

 

In the drug context, usually we have documents and internal corporate documents which show they were on notice of the harm.

Are you saying a drug manufacturer can make a claim about a drug..like saying it is not known to cause birth defects in women who are pregnant...or that it does cure breast cancer...without actually doing any tests prior to making this claim to back it up?

 

If you are, then I'd say you're drinking on the job. If you aren't, then my analogy is more than applicable in this situation and any attempt to nitpick the semantics of it are childish in the extreme.

 

That's not what I said at all. In order for the drug manufacturer to claim a benefit or get an approved indication, it must get FDA approval which require studies. Therefore, it can't claim to cure breast cancer etc.

 

However, drugs are not like comic books. There's no field of regulation in comic books. Therefore, from a legal perspective, if someone wants to claim that there's no harm in pressing, they're free to do so. Your analogy, I take it, is that by virtue of saying pressing causes no harm, it's the same as saying, this drug really does (x).

 

That's not really analogous to me. It'd be more like saying, our drug doesn't cause cancer... and then it is proven that it does. But drug companies don't say that on their label or make those affirmations. They say what their drug does do, not what it doesn't. Now they may defend or say there's no research that a drug causes a disease.

 

In the case with pressing, there's no affirmative duty to disclose it. At least not one recognized by the community or dealers at large. There's no consensus either way. Also, there's no recognized methodology for detecting pressing. While there is some evidence of the possible harmful effects of pressing, I don't know if there's persuasive evidence of that -- I don't think that conclusion can be reached in an internet debate alone, but rather whether enough people begin to reject the practice.

 

If people claim that pressing has no harmful effects conclusively, I think that statement lacks any real evidence other than anecdotal evidence at the moment. However, I likewise don't believe there's any persuasive evidence that would lead you to believe pressing is harmful.

[seanfingh]

If people want to save something, then green up and save the planet. Try to leave something for your children instead of your comic book collection.

 

(thumbs u

 

You got it right bro. I can't say it better but I'll say it wordier.

 

If you hate comic book profiteers because they love money more than comics, then we must presume you love comic books more than the opportunity value of the money you choose to spend on comic books. So much so you'd pay crazy prices to hide something in a box. This is called fetishistic idol worship. It is the height of me-first self-indulgence. You could have spent that money you hate on your children or your neighbor's children rather than on your ownership of a high grade, ancient children's magazine. Collectors of all stripes on all sides of this debate are selfish pigs. Christians call this activity demonic.

 

<3

 

You had me at "bro."

 

It's true.

 

All this talk about ethics comes from demonic idol worshippers according to the moral wisdom found throughout thousands of years of western civilization.

 

Yeah, but i just ignore the stuff that I don't like - such as the prohibition on shellfish. Mmmmmm . . . shrimp cocktail

 

Mmmmmm . . . 4-color fetishistic idol worship

[buttock]

Can someone offer some details that actually apply to comic books from various ages and the methods, (temperatures, amount of moisture, time, etc.) from these test performed by or for the LOC? Some factual details that can be unquestionably applied to what pressers are doing to actual comis books?

 

I'd like to see them.

 

Here ya go, Mike.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3235271&fpart=6

 

Now Domo can continue to claim that all this isn't nebulous, but it is. Not that that should surprise anyone.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

That's not what I said at all. In order for the drug manufacturer to claim a benefit or get an approved indication, it must get FDA approval which require studies. Therefore, it can't claim to cure breast cancer etc.

 

However, drugs are not like comic books. There's no field of regulation in comic books. Therefore, from a legal perspective, if someone wants to claim that there's no harm in pressing, they're free to do so. Your analogy, I take it, is that by virtue of saying pressing causes no harm, it's the same as saying, this drug really does (x).

 

That's not really analogous to me. It'd be more like saying, our drug doesn't cause cancer... and then it is proven that it does. But drug companies don't say that on their label or make those affirmations. They say what their drug does do, not what it doesn't. Now they may defend or say there's no research that a drug causes a disease.

 

In the case with pressing, there's no affirmative duty to disclose it. At least not one recognized by the community or dealers at large. There's no consensus either way. Also, there's no recognized methodology for detecting pressing. While there is some evidence of the possible harmful effects of pressing, I don't know if there's persuasive evidence of that -- I don't think that conclusion can be reached in an internet debate alone, but rather whether enough people begin to reject the practice.

 

If people claim that pressing has no harmful effects conclusively, I think that statement lacks any real evidence other than anecdotal evidence at the moment. However, I likewise don't believe there's any persuasive evidence that would lead you to believe pressing is harmful.

 

[Dale Roberts]

Read through this thread. There are several people in here who have made that very claim. I'm not your researcher. I'm also not lumping the two groups together. And I didn't take up my argument with Jeff and George. They have taken it up with me and are free to walk away from it at any time if they so desire.

I'm not going to do any research on who these people are because it's not my fight. And for that matter I certainly don't see them chiming in right now, whoever they are. So I would say you are lashing out at the wrong people. If you know who those people are, feel free to quote them and engage them directly. Why don't you do that? Why don't you name names? Because you CAN'T? Oh wait, are you waiting for me to engage them and fight your fight for you?

 

You keep asking Jeff why he thinks its ok for those mystery people to "lie" when he hasn't said anything like that. You sir, are a liar unless you can show me where Jeff said it's ok for pressers to lie that no damage is being done.

 

I am curious to know who these people are that are so positive that there is no damage being done. I would look at it as a personal favor if you would name names, since you know who they are. I'm with you in principle, that these people should prove their claims. So can you please tell me who they are and I will be more than happy to question them...........since somebody apparently has to fight your battles for you.

I'm not lashing out at the wrong people. I responding to those who feel the need to lash out at me. And Jeff didn't say those words, he inferred it. I'm just asking him why. And to get the names you desire, simply go back and read this thread. The information you desire is right there...you either don't honestly want it...or are too lazy to get it for yourself.

 

But I'll tell you what...I'll give you the first name (Dale) of one individual who is "pro-pressing" and has stated that it does no damage. There are others...but that's all you get for free. Maybe now you can put the TV remote down, crawl off the couch, and actually do something for yourself.

 

Here's what Dale said:

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

Clearly, Dale falls into the "there may be damage, but if there is it's so ridiculously benign that there's no use worrying about it" crowd. He does not claim that absolutely no damage is done.

 

If you are going to quote me, don't pull stuff out of context or don't ignore other posts that I have made if one is incomplete.

 

I acknowledge that proper pressing probably ever so slightly reduces the lifespan of a comic book. But I am talking a miniscule, tiny amount. I would estimate from the books which I have seen which have been pressed(probably more than 95% of the people on the boards), comics show ZERO immediate damage from proper pressing. From books that I have seen that were pressed 15 - 20 years ago, I have seen no perceptible change in the page quality/cover quality. From my perspective, proper pressing does no perceptible damage over an extended time period.

 

Proper pressing can however improve a comic and by doing so, PREVENT damage. A bend in a comic WILL become a crease if not handled extraordinarily carefully. A spine roll can damage the integrity of the paper around the staples if not corrected. A spine stress will continue to get deeper if not pressed out and dirt will accumulate in the stress lines. A corner which is bent over will absorb more wear and either become a crease, become fuzzy, lose its sharpness, or be torn off. Pressing to some extent can keep these things from occuring.

So aside from improving the eye appeal of the book and raising the technical grade of the book, it can actually stop the book from further damage.

 

I don't think I have ever said that pressing does zero damage, but you can quote me as saying that the amount of damage is infinitesimally small and given proper archival storage, a pressed comic should last basically the same length of time as an unpressed one.

 

[DrWatson]

Read through this thread. There are several people in here who have made that very claim. I'm not your researcher. I'm also not lumping the two groups together. And I didn't take up my argument with Jeff and George. They have taken it up with me and are free to walk away from it at any time if they so desire.

I'm not going to do any research on who these people are because it's not my fight. And for that matter I certainly don't see them chiming in right now, whoever they are. So I would say you are lashing out at the wrong people. If you know who those people are, feel free to quote them and engage them directly. Why don't you do that? Why don't you name names? Because you CAN'T? Oh wait, are you waiting for me to engage them and fight your fight for you?

 

You keep asking Jeff why he thinks its ok for those mystery people to "lie" when he hasn't said anything like that. You sir, are a liar unless you can show me where Jeff said it's ok for pressers to lie that no damage is being done.

 

I am curious to know who these people are that are so positive that there is no damage being done. I would look at it as a personal favor if you would name names, since you know who they are. I'm with you in principle, that these people should prove their claims. So can you please tell me who they are and I will be more than happy to question them...........since somebody apparently has to fight your battles for you.

I'm not lashing out at the wrong people. I responding to those who feel the need to lash out at me. And Jeff didn't say those words, he inferred it. I'm just asking him why. And to get the names you desire, simply go back and read this thread. The information you desire is right there...you either don't honestly want it...or are too lazy to get it for yourself.

 

But I'll tell you what...I'll give you the first name (Dale) of one individual who is "pro-pressing" and has stated that it does no damage. There are others...but that's all you get for free. Maybe now you can put the TV remote down, crawl off the couch, and actually do something for yourself.

 

Here's what Dale said:

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

Clearly, Dale falls into the "there may be damage, but if there is it's so ridiculously benign that there's no use worrying about it" crowd. He does not claim that absolutely no damage is done.

 

If you are going to quote me, don't pull stuff out of context or don't ignore other posts that I have made if one is incomplete.

 

I acknowledge that proper pressing probably ever so slightly reduces the lifespan of a comic book. But I am talking a miniscule, tiny amount. I would estimate from the books which I have seen which have been pressed(probably more than 95% of the people on the boards), comics show ZERO immediate damage from proper pressing. From books that I have seen that were pressed 15 - 20 years ago, I have seen no perceptible change in the page quality/cover quality. From my perspective, proper pressing does no perceptible damage over an extended time period.

 

Proper pressing can however improve a comic and by doing so, PREVENT damage. A bend in a comic WILL become a crease if not handled extraordinarily carefully. A spine roll can damage the integrity of the paper around the staples if not corrected. A spine stress will continue to get deeper if not pressed out and dirt will accumulate in the stress lines. A corner which is bent over will absorb more wear and either become a crease, become fuzzy, lose its sharpness, or be torn off.

 

So aside from improving the eye appeal of the book and raising the technical grade of the book, it can actually stop the book from further damage.

 

I don't think I have ever said that pressing does zero damage, but you can quote me as saying that the amount of damage is infinitesimally small and given proper archival storage, a pressed comic should last basically the same length of time as an unpressed one.

Pressing to some extent can keep these things from occuring.

Wow, you're better than MrBedrock.

[Paratrooper]

About the Project Search Trails Ann Gorman Condon Resources

Winslow Papers >> About the Project >> Conserving the Winslow Papers

 

About the Project

What's New

Biography of Edward Winslow Junior

The Winslow Papers at UNB

Conserving the Winslow Papers

Technical Considerations

Acknowledgements

Contact Us

Conserving the Winslow Papers

The Winslow Papers consists of approximately 2500 individual letters dating primarily within the years 1776 to 1826.1 Organized into 17 volumes, this collection is presently owned and housed by the University of New Brunswick Archives. The Winslow Papers are considered one of the most important compilations of Loyalist documents, and are recognized internationally for their historical value.

 

The collection has been actively researched in the years it has been available for public use. The UNB Archives has added their collection mark to each sheet, and organized the holdings by hinging them into book format using various tabs and adhesives. Evidence of handling over time includes pencil and ink notations, ingrained grime, stains, tears and losses. In addition, the paper has been damaged by insects, mould, acid degradation, and other natural or man-made agents of deterioration. As a result, most of the documents became fragile and difficult to use safely, despite the good intentions of custodians who attempted to mend many sheets with tape. In most instances earlier corrective measures were more injurious and irreversible than was suspected at the time! The Winslow Papers required stabilization against further deterioration, and protection against improper physical handling to ensure their preservation and continued usefulness.

 

 

Document 1 pre-conservation Through a generous bequest from Kenelm Molson Winslow, treatment of this important collection became possible. Conservator, Harold Holland, surveyed the volumes and developed a program for their care in the Paper Conservation Laboratory at the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. The first step in the process was written and photographic documentation of the physical condition of the collection as received by his department. A range of samples representative of the collection was then brought to the Canadian Conservation Institute for in-depth scientific examination of the various inks, stains, paper fibers, sizings, additives and adhesives present.2 Based on their findings and recommendations, procedures were developed which would effectively and safely preserve both their original integrity and the information held therein. With a budget and a keen sense of productivity, equipment was purchased and staffing organized in order to realize efficient treatment of this relatively large, and completely unique, collection of historical documents. To date, two conservators and perhaps a dozen full or part time technicians have been working to fulfill the conditions of the bequest.

 

Treatment began with collation and removal of the individual letters from the binding format. Very small graphite numbers written on the lower edge of some sheets will facilitate reassembly into their proper order at the completion of the project. Graphite, or pencil, is permanent media (meaning it does not fade or decompose with time), yet is easily removable if required. It is interesting to consider how all notations made on these documents are, or become, an integral part of their history, so no effort is made to remove or obscure evidence of use. However, some past researchers chose to use water-soluble media for their inscriptions. These inks (mostly red!) were reduced using alcohol and water over a small suction device to pull out the component which would otherwise bleed into the paper during washing procedures.

 

 

Document 1 post-conservation The removal of pressure sensitive tape and tabs, and the reduction of adhesive residues, are perhaps the most painstaking steps in the conservation of any paper document. Testing is required to determine the most effective solvents and tactics, and the procedure demands the skilled hands and eyes of a trained conservation scientist. Pressure sensitive adhesives are the trial of every conservator, as they are often very difficult to remove satisfactorily. If these materials are not removed, they will continue to sink into the paper fibers, oxidizing to a point where staining, brittleness, and residues will cause irreversible chemical and physical degradation. Removal of the carriers (as opposed to the adhesive mass) also guarantees dimensional predictivity during wetting out and drying, and allows for proper alignment and planar correction during repair.

 

Once all of the water-sensitive media is stabilized, and tape and tabs removed, each document which is otherwise stable in water is washed with deionized water. Many hours of research were necessary to determine the optimum time and conditions for washing, based on removal of acidity from the paper substrate.3 Washing is accomplished by fully immersing the documents, supported by a spun-bonded polyester web, in a tray of pure water. Those letters with sensitive wax seals, or which are severely brittle or fragile, are washed on a cold suction table or suspended on a piece of acid-free blotter using a "float" technique so as not to effect the sensitive materials or media. Washing removes water-soluble acidic impurities, reduces yellow discolouration and soiling, and generally improves the colour and crispness of a paper sheet. Much damage can occur if washing is carelessly tended. Many inks can subtly change colour, fragments can be lost, and seals or inscriptions and main media altered during treatment. Careful testing before wetting out and diligence during operations is the only way to ensure the safety of individual papers during this stage of the processing.

 

 

Document 2 pre-conservation After washing and air drying, the documents are then neutralized to reduce or remove any remaining acidic impurities. Neutralization is carried out in the same way as the washing, using a 20 ppm solution of calcium carbonate in deionized water. Optimum concentrations and conditions were determined again based on the CCI recommendations and on testing done by conservators at the Provincial Archives. The documents are then inspected for changes in condition, media, or support, and sorted for finishing treatment.

 

The last phase of conservation treatment is mending or leaf casting, followed by slight pressing to return the documents to plane. Mending with wheat starch paste and long-fibered Japanese tissues is performed on those documents with wax seals, or whose media is especially sensitive. Many papers remain very fragile after washing and must be repaired this way to minimize the chances of further damage or loss. The bulk of the collection, however, will enjoy the benefits of state of the art methodology, made possible by Mr. Winslow's donation to this project. Leaf casting is essentially the precise matching of paper pulps in colour, thickness, and makeup, to the original, to fill losses and repair splits and tears. The amount of pulp required for a single casting is determined using an electronic digitizer and computer system. The pulp is added to a vacuum tank with the document to be treated, and the pulp is drawn only to those areas of loss or thinning. The result is an almost perfect match in record time, a real bonus when dealing with mass treatments! Whatever the method of repair, each document is reinforced, providing both strength and a degree of aesthetic improvement overall.

 

 

Document 2 post-conservation The completed documents will be placed within Mylar sleeves. "Mylar" is a clear plastic used in conservation for encapsulation because of its proven stability in use with archival materials. It will provide a secondary support for the pages and allow them to be read and studied without handling or damaging the paper itself. The documents will be put back in their original order and placed within post-bindings before being returned to the UNB Archives.

 

The process is sometimes very slow, and is often tedious, yet the commitment to high standards and quality control is paramount for the protection of these works during conservation treatment. Every effort is made to maintain these standards for the continued and safe accessibility of The Winslow Papers to historical researchers in the years to come.

 

Harold Holland

Provincial Archives of New Brunswick

 

References

1. Raymond, William Odber, ed. Winslow Papers. New Brunswick: Sun Printing Company, Ltd., for the N.B. Historical Society in 1901. Boston: Gregg Press, 1972. Back

 

2. Moffatt, E. and Corbeil, M. "The Winslow Papers." Ottawa: CCI Analytical Report ARS 2831, 1990. Back

 

3. Brown, Karen E.K. "Edward Winslow Papers: Washing and Neutralization Duration Testing." Unpublished report, September 1990. Back

 

 

 

http://lib.unb.ca/winslow/conservation.html

 

Would these papers dating hundreds of years old be slightly pressed if it was damaging? Beats me

 

discuss

[slym2none]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

Sure!

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said using only graemlins. You said 'Sure!'

 

"Sure" was not part of the "cliff-notes"...

 

 

 

 

-slym