Some interesting(?) history stuff...

Since I have some 3-4 hours to kill while my SO does what ladies call
"getting dressed to go out" and men call "trying on every garment they
own...three times," my reply to Chuck Spanish bureaucrats brought to
mind an interesting, at least to me anyway, story of old bureaucrats
meeting new. Several members of my paternal Grandfather's family came
to the US as diplomats/businessmen and among them was the Ferdinand's
representative to the US. He presented his papers to then-Sec. of
State, Thomas Jefferson, who, albeit a friend of this ancestor and an
educated, worldly man himself, couldn't seem to get his "writer's mind"
around the concept of names differing in French, Spanish, and English -
for example, Jacques, Diego, and James all being interpretations of the
same name. Jefferson was apparently a poor speller, who also apparently
thought, well, close was good enough for government work when it came to
spelling and even names - i.e., John Smith might become "Jno. Smythe,"
"Jon Smit," and "Jm. Smith" all in the same writing. This has led some
to come up with all sorts of interesting, but totally incorrect,
theories regarding this particular ancestor's geographic origin, etc.

In any case, while our family copies of certain documents are clear, the
"official" versions are in the Jefferson collection at the Library of
Congress, which contains 1000s of important and, like the documents in
question, not-so-important documents. On a trip to the Library, I
decided to go look at the "official" copy. The first person I met was
a/the curator of the Jefferson papers, who acted like I was asking to
dry my hands with the Declaration of Independence or something.

While the file and papers in question are historically interesting, they
are not historically significant, and I suspect my request was the first
such in years, so the "too much handling" initial objection seemed,
well, like (bull) . Then came the "there are transcripts..." objection.
Yes, there are, but the transcripts of the document are at odds. Then
came the "it's on film, on the internet" ploy. Again, true, but the
microfilm version is not clear. Yet, he insisted, HE, being
oh-so-familiar with Jefferson's handwriting, could read it. So he
tried. He got it wrong, but still refused to budge, my seeing the
actual documents. He acted like it would take cutting miles of
bureaucratic red tape and literally, an Act of Congress, to gather the
senior personnel together who had access to the codes needed to bring
this stuff up through several airlocks from some cryogenic storage deep
under DC. I was imagining scenes from "National Treasure" or something.

Well, I thought, vaults and airlocks be damned - I wanted to see this
copy now more than ever, so I appealed to his boss. I made my case, he
agreed the microfilm version was unclear, and said I could see the
documents. He asked me to wait a moment and he'd be right back. I
expected him to return with special suits, respirators, a team of
security people, etc. Nope. He returns in about 90 seconds with what
appeared to be a normal file folder, opens it, and hands me the
documents, which were simply stored in it like any other government
paperwork.

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
Since I have some 3-4 hours to kill while my SO does what ladies call
"getting dressed to go out" and men call "trying on every garment they
own...three times," my reply to Chuck Spanish bureaucrats brought to
mind an interesting, at least to me anyway, story of old bureaucrats
meeting new. Several members of my paternal Grandfather's family came
to the US as diplomats/businessmen and among them was the Ferdinand's
representative to the US. He presented his papers to then-Sec. of
State, Thomas Jefferson, who, albeit a friend of this ancestor and an
educated, worldly man himself, couldn't seem to get his "writer's mind"
around the concept of names differing in French, Spanish, and English -
for example, Jacques, Diego, and James all being interpretations of the
same name. Jefferson was apparently a poor speller, who also apparently
thought, well, close was good enough for government work when it came to
spelling and even names - i.e., John Smith might become "Jno. Smythe,"
"Jon Smit," and "Jm. Smith" all in the same writing. This has led some
to come up with all sorts of interesting, but totally incorrect,
theories regarding this particular ancestor's geographic origin, etc.

In any case, while our family copies of certain documents are clear, the
"official" versions are in the Jefferson collection at the Library of
Congress, which contains 1000s of important and, like the documents in
question, not-so-important documents. On a trip to the Library, I
decided to go look at the "official" copy. The first person I met was
a/the curator of the Jefferson papers, who acted like I was asking to
dry my hands with the Declaration of Independence or something.

While the file and papers in question are historically interesting, they
are not historically significant, and I suspect my request was the first
such in years, so the "too much handling" initial objection seemed,
well, like (bull) . Then came the "there are transcripts..." objection.
Yes, there are, but the transcripts of the document are at odds. Then
came the "it's on film, on the internet" ploy. Again, true, but the
microfilm version is not clear. Yet, he insisted, HE, being
oh-so-familiar with Jefferson's handwriting, could read it. So he
tried. He got it wrong, but still refused to budge, my seeing the
actual documents. He acted like it would take cutting miles of
bureaucratic red tape and literally, an Act of Congress, to gather the
senior personnel together who had access to the codes needed to bring
this stuff up through several airlocks from some cryogenic storage deep
under DC. I was imagining scenes from "National Treasure" or something.

Well, I thought, vaults and airlocks be damned - I wanted to see this
copy now more than ever, so I appealed to his boss. I made my case, he
agreed the microfilm version was unclear, and said I could see the
documents. He asked me to wait a moment and he'd be right back. I
expected him to return with special suits, respirators, a team of
security people, etc. Nope. He returns in about 90 seconds with what
appeared to be a normal file folder, opens it, and hands me the
documents, which were simply stored in it like any other government
paperwork.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.......huh?.......oh...........another
Snedeker........zzzzzzzzzzz.........

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.......huh?.......oh...........another
Snedeker........zzzzzzzzzzz.........


About what I'd expect you to say. And allot cheaper than dealing with the
obvious mental effects (and affects) of your own origins.

Your comments frequently suggest to me very much the thought processes and
history dismissive attitudes of the thankfully deceased Paul De Mann. De
Mann, a prominent Belgium Nazi in his youth, managed to hide this fact most
of his life, while building a very successful career in U.S. academe in
large part around a scholastic assertion of the impenetrability of
historical fact. Like you apparently, De Mann was not aware that there were
positive treatment protocols for the personal anguish of his situation.

And on another note . . . the Americas do have a history clown boy, and it
is considered quite normal for people to be interested in the roles played
by their forebearers, positive and negative, in that history.

Dave

On 2/15/05 2:21 PM, in article
, "David Snedeker"
wrote:

Your comments frequently suggest to me very much the thought processes and
history dismissive attitudes of the thankfully deceased Paul De Mann. De
Mann, a prominent Belgium Nazi in his youth, managed to hide this fact most
of his life, while building a very successful career in U.S. academe in
large part around a scholastic assertion of the impenetrability of
historical fact. Like you apparently, De Mann was not aware that there were
positive treatment protocols for the personal anguish of his situation.

I don't know this De Mann fellow, but he sure sounds a lot like the late
deconstructionist Paul de Man.

Bill

"William Claspy" wrote in message
...
On 2/15/05 2:21 PM, in article
, "David Snedeker"
wrote:

SNIP. Like you apparently, De Mann was not aware that there were
positive treatment protocols for the personal anguish of his situation.

I don't know this De Mann fellow, but he sure sounds a lot like the late
deconstructionist Paul de Man.

Bill

And you are right per the spelling of course.

Dave

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:49:43 -0500, William Claspy
wrote:

On 2/15/05 2:21 PM, in article
, "David Snedeker"
wrote:

Your comments frequently suggest to me very much the thought processes and
history dismissive attitudes of the thankfully deceased Paul De Mann. De
Mann, a prominent Belgium Nazi in his youth, managed to hide this fact most
of his life, while building a very successful career in U.S. academe in
large part around a scholastic assertion of the impenetrability of
historical fact. Like you apparently, De Mann was not aware that there were
positive treatment protocols for the personal anguish of his situation.

I don't know this De Mann fellow, but he sure sounds a lot like the late
deconstructionist Paul de Man.

****housemouse! His brother, Bennie de Man, hangs out playing sax -
badly - on the corner of St. Peter and Royal in the Vieux Carre...of
course, he's more of an obstructionist...well, an obstruction, anyway...

TC,
R

On 2/15/05 6:54 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:49:43 -0500, William Claspy
wrote:

On 2/15/05 2:21 PM, in article
, "David Snedeker"
wrote:

Your comments frequently suggest to me very much the thought processes and
history dismissive attitudes of the thankfully deceased Paul De Mann. De
Mann, a prominent Belgium Nazi in his youth, managed to hide this fact most
of his life, while building a very successful career in U.S. academe in
large part around a scholastic assertion of the impenetrability of
historical fact. Like you apparently, De Mann was not aware that there were
positive treatment protocols for the personal anguish of his situation.

I don't know this De Mann fellow, but he sure sounds a lot like the late
deconstructionist Paul de Man.

****housemouse! His brother, Bennie de Man, hangs out playing sax -
badly - on the corner of St. Peter and Royal in the Vieux Carre...of
course, he's more of an obstructionist...well, an obstruction, anyway...

You de man, R, you de man.

Bill

wrote:

****housemouse! His brother, Bennie de Man, hangs out playing sax -
badly - on the corner of St. Peter and Royal in the Vieux Carre...of
course, he's more of an obstructionist...well, an obstruction, anyway...

Is that the guy in the wheelchair who plays soprano? We were
serenaded by him one evening while sitting in the Old Absinthe House
having a few drinks. He actually sounded pretty good.


Chuck Vance (of course, it could have been the wormwood)

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.......huh?.......oh...........another
Snedeker........zzzzzzzzzzz.........


About what I'd expect you to say.

We aims to please.

And allot cheaper than dealing with the
obvious mental effects (and affects) of your own origins.

My origins? Nothing very remarkable there. Born of woman, in the
usual way........or, so I'm told. You?

Your comments frequently suggest to me very much the thought
processes and
history dismissive attitudes of the thankfully deceased Paul De
Mann.

What things suggest to you is a source of endless fascination to me.
I've missed out little chats lately. Have you been terribly busy?

De
Mann, a prominent Belgium Nazi in his youth, managed to hide this
fact most
of his life, while building a very successful career in U.S. academe
in
large part around a scholastic assertion of the impenetrability of
historical fact.

Interesting. Sounds like the kind of guy who would see Israelis
lurking under every rock.

Like you apparently, De Mann was not aware that there were
positive treatment protocols for the personal anguish of his
situation.

Well, I have a legitimate excuse........I'd never heard of him before
now. What a pity that YOU didn't tell him about his options.

And on another note . . . the Americas do have a history clown boy,

Izzatafact? Well, I'll be jiggered.

and it
is considered quite normal for people to be interested in the roles
played
by their forebearers, positive and negative, in that history.

Seems normal enough to me. And your observation is proof positive (if
it were needed) that pathology doesn't necessarily preclude an
occasional flash of near average insight.

Wolfgang
who considers it quite normal for people to be uninterested in a nut
case's grandiose illusions of olympian descent.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

We aims to please.

Actually you aim to **** off folk.

And allot cheaper than dealing with the
obvious mental effects (and affects) of your own origins.

My origins? Nothing very remarkable there. Born of woman, in the
usual way........or, so I'm told. You?


You know precisely what I am referring to.

Your comments frequently suggest to me very much the thought
processes and history dismissive attitudes of the thankfully deceased
Paul De Mann. What things suggest to you is a source of endless
fascination to me.
I've missed out little chats lately. Have you been terribly busy?


Too busy to waste time on you. But I have noticed that you seem to have a
real pain in the ass since your week at the Ramrod.

De Mann, a prominent Belgium Nazi in his youth, managed to hide this
fact most of his life, while building a very successful career in U.S.
academe
in large part around a scholastic assertion of the impenetrability of
historical fact.

Interesting. Sounds like the kind of guy who would see Israelis
lurking under every rock.

You just love to over compensate by parroting the most narrow-minded slogans
at the drop of a hat. You are too ignorant to know that close to half of
Israeli adults share my views on the need to return most of the occupied
lands to the Palestinians, as does an increasing portion of non-muslim
Americans.


Well, I have a legitimate excuse........I'd never heard of ( DeMann)him
before
now. What a pity that YOU didn't tell him about his options.

Claspy's spelling is the correct one: de Man"

Wolfgang
who considers it quite normal for people to be uninterested in a nut
case's grandiose illusions of olympian descent.


What is "Olympian" about having a Spanish diplomat as an ancestor? He was
mainly trying to describe how he was able to penetrate a bureaucratic
mindset and touch a bit of personal history.

Dave