Are you daft? It's an apple core. Taste it. Could be - bring me two apples and three oranges to compare...
So the reputation slandering is underway. "While we admire your persistence (and so hoped our equally committed displays of Estes Park history sacrifice necessary to appease our gods would eventually send the clear message of enjoying your tax money while wishing you yourself would scram), you can't expect us to just take your word on this."
"If you really require perfection on a date we insisted initially was already correct and has somehow through Herculean effort been made even more correct, you must provide evidence, preferably all building permits from 1907 plus journal entries from the Hupp sisters-in-law with receipts for work performed and materials purchased, handwriting verified by at least three (3) living descendants, plus photographs documenting the Hupp Hotel under construction, including but not limited to a time-lapse sequence of at least 10 views from the same reference point, with dates scratched on the negatives or solar azimuth angle calculations consistent with 1907".
Disregard for the moment we don't live in the former Soviet Union, where dogma was protected at all cost. Forget that the author(s) of the "Pikas in the Park" brochure were not held to anywhere near the same standard when they submitted their text. To my knowledge, they have not been asked to provide any evidence in support of their beliefs, either for the Hupp Hotel grand opening date or its date of construction. Their reputation is not the issue (either that or they were already recognized as adept at sucking).
Here's a little history-writing tip: Be precise where you can be precise, be vague only where you can't be precise. The "corrected" version of their Hupp Hotel "Pikas in the Park" entry is now worse, because it is imprecise exactly where it doesn't need to be. The authors switched from using an imprecise verb to a precise verb (one step forward) and then attached this to an imprecise date (two steps back).
The Hupp Hotel opened in June 1907. When you see "Y happened shortly after X event, which occurred in 1905", would you think Y more likely happened in 1906 or 1907? Here's an easier example if your struggling with the unknowns: Jim got married shortly after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Given this, is it more likely that Jim got married in 1907 or 1908? Is it even possible Jim got married in 1906?
I've been through these hoops before. The John Cleave property was 160 acres, not 185 acres as the Bond Park historic sign initially claimed. Oh, how can you prove that, Mr. Know-It-All? Well, the deed of acquisition and the deed of sale agree, and both say 160 acres. Can you provide these so-called "deeds"? Sure, here they are. Oh, all right then, here's what we'll do: We'll take out any mention of acreage, and just refer to the property as "John Cleave's ranch".
John Cleave was many things - Postmaster, store owner, carpenter, immigrant, crusty neighbor. If he ever worked or treated his downtown 160 acres as a "ranch", on par with, for example, the "MacGregor Ranch", that would be news to me, and likely news to his survivors. Certainly it would be news to the county, who assessed taxes based on how many head of livestock one owned.
Maybe it's not our history that needs fixing. Maybe it's the folks responsible for writing this solipsistic, pretend history.
"If you really require perfection on a date we insisted initially was already correct and has somehow through Herculean effort been made even more correct, you must provide evidence, preferably all building permits from 1907 plus journal entries from the Hupp sisters-in-law with receipts for work performed and materials purchased, handwriting verified by at least three (3) living descendants, plus photographs documenting the Hupp Hotel under construction, including but not limited to a time-lapse sequence of at least 10 views from the same reference point, with dates scratched on the negatives or solar azimuth angle calculations consistent with 1907".
Disregard for the moment we don't live in the former Soviet Union, where dogma was protected at all cost. Forget that the author(s) of the "Pikas in the Park" brochure were not held to anywhere near the same standard when they submitted their text. To my knowledge, they have not been asked to provide any evidence in support of their beliefs, either for the Hupp Hotel grand opening date or its date of construction. Their reputation is not the issue (either that or they were already recognized as adept at sucking).
Here's a little history-writing tip: Be precise where you can be precise, be vague only where you can't be precise. The "corrected" version of their Hupp Hotel "Pikas in the Park" entry is now worse, because it is imprecise exactly where it doesn't need to be. The authors switched from using an imprecise verb to a precise verb (one step forward) and then attached this to an imprecise date (two steps back).
The Hupp Hotel opened in June 1907. When you see "Y happened shortly after X event, which occurred in 1905", would you think Y more likely happened in 1906 or 1907? Here's an easier example if your struggling with the unknowns: Jim got married shortly after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Given this, is it more likely that Jim got married in 1907 or 1908? Is it even possible Jim got married in 1906?
I've been through these hoops before. The John Cleave property was 160 acres, not 185 acres as the Bond Park historic sign initially claimed. Oh, how can you prove that, Mr. Know-It-All? Well, the deed of acquisition and the deed of sale agree, and both say 160 acres. Can you provide these so-called "deeds"? Sure, here they are. Oh, all right then, here's what we'll do: We'll take out any mention of acreage, and just refer to the property as "John Cleave's ranch".
John Cleave was many things - Postmaster, store owner, carpenter, immigrant, crusty neighbor. If he ever worked or treated his downtown 160 acres as a "ranch", on par with, for example, the "MacGregor Ranch", that would be news to me, and likely news to his survivors. Certainly it would be news to the county, who assessed taxes based on how many head of livestock one owned.
Maybe it's not our history that needs fixing. Maybe it's the folks responsible for writing this solipsistic, pretend history.
Comments
Post a Comment