Should they recover artifacts

[helen winser]

Thats a good point, but if anyone had told me that a boot that was worn by someone who died whilst on another boat was salvaged, I would still see it as pointless and wrong to recover something that no-one can learn from.
Thanks for telling me who Bob Ballard is - I feel right and stupid now!!!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Thanks for telling me who Bob Ballard is - I feel right and stupid now!!!<<

Don't feel stupid. If you don't know who he is, then you don't know who he is. That's hardly fatal. You might find http://literati.net/Ballard/ and http://www.nationalgeographic.com/council/eir/bio_ballard.html to be useful.

 

[helen winser]

Thanks for those websites, I'll check them out now.
I have just one more question, and then I'll stop!
I know Margeret Brown was known as 'Molly' , and 'The Unsinkable Molly Brown', but when did that come about. I read somewhere that it was a Hollywood invention. Why was she referred to as 'unsinkable'?

 

[Jon Meadows]

Because, according to Debbie Reynolds, she ain't down yet!

 

[helen winser]

Thank you. Was the name Molly a Hollywood invention?

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

quote:

Can I just say to Sharon that I'm sorry for "still debating the issue".

No reason to be sorry, Helen. Just to add to what Mike has already said, it's not as if you're going to know all the facts and controversies right off the bat. Plus, no one expects you too. If people didn't ask questions, then they would never learn. We should never stop asking questions, no matter how old we are.

quote:

And don't listen to holier than thou Bob Ballard.

I don't see why we shouldn't, Sharon. While I don't agree with everything he says, I'm inclined to give him a fair hearing.

quote:

Was the name Molly a Hollywood invention?

Yes, it was. Margaret Brown was never referred to as Molly in real life.​

 

[sharon rutman]

Well, I still maintain that what's done is done. Titanic's artifacts have been recovered. That's a statement of fact.

Jason--isn't this the same Bob Ballard who had a meltdown earlier this year, declaring he didn't care if another debris field had been found. To sum up, he basically declared that the boat sank and we should all get over it by now.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

quote:

isn't this the same Bob Ballard who had a meltdown earlier this year, declaring he didn't care if another debris field had been found.

Yes and no, Sharon. Bob Ballard was asked by a reporter via telephone if he had any comments about the third debris field. Although, what was quoted in the media is not what he said; his words were twisted. He didn't say "get over it" in the sense that you think.

We had a huge discussion about this some months back. Plus, Bob Ballard explained himself in a letter which was posted on the TIS website.​

 

[sharon rutman]

Well, forgive me, I didn't remember exactly how it was phrased--my memory's getting rusty. None theless, Ballard has always had this love/hate relationship with the Titanic. I think he said shortly after the wreck's discovery that there was no divorcing the Titanic. Ever. See? He seems to think of the ship in unflattering female terms as an ugly old battleaxe that he's stuck with forever.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Addendum: Ballard's response was not posted on the TIS website, I was confused with his reply to P. H. Nargeolet's letter. Here is the thread that I was referring to above; a transcript of what Bob Ballard actually said was posted by Parks Stephenson in the second last post from the bottom:

The Third Piece

quote:

Well, forgive me, I didn't remember exactly how it was phrased

No worries.

quote:

He seems to think of the ship in unflattering female terms as an ugly old battleaxe that he's stuck with forever.

I don't think he meant it that way, at least I didn't interpret it as such. My interpretation was that he's fascinated with Titanic and that fascination, and interest will never go away. Although, your opinions may vary.​

 

[Robert H. Gibbons]

There was a television show in the 50s called "The Unsinkable Mrs. Brown" on Telephone Time starrng Cloris Leachman, based on an earlier book by Caroline Bancroft, so the "Unsinkable Molly Brown" story is earlier than the 1964 Hollywood movie starring Debbie Reynolds. I had the opportunity to talk with Debbie about her feelings for Molly, and she told me that she was "unsinkable" like Molly because of the rough spots in her life (lost her husband Eddie Fisher to Elizabeth Taylor and her Las Vegas museum and casino to the IRS). She also told me her roll as Molly Brown was the only one for which she was nominated for an Academy Award. I think the answer to the question where did the "Unsinkable" name get attached to Margaret Brown is still out there. Robert H. Gibbons

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>He seems to think of the ship in unflattering female terms as an ugly old battleaxe that he's stuck with forever.<<

Too bad he never said that.

Whether or not he was thinking that way, I don't know, and unless one of us is a bona fide telepath, neither can we. Personally, I can't comment on Dr. Ballard's state of mind at any given time. I've never corresponded with him, don't know him, and have never met him. He may be the paragon of virtue his champions make him out to be or all the bad things you seem to think he is, but that has zip, zero, nada, nothing to do with whether or not he's right or wrong on a given issue.

What matters in this instance is what evidence he brings to the table to back up his arguments. I differ with his publicly stated stands on some issues but that's life. People don't agree on everything. If he has something to say, I'll give him the same fair hearing that I would anyone else.

 

[sharon rutman]

Well, I never said I was a mind reader. Ballard, however, does seem to be a prisoner of his own fame. He seems to enjoy this love/hate relationship with the Titanic. He seems to hate being chained forever to the wreck, but sure didn't mind capitalizing off of it through books and lectures.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Ballard, however, does seem to be a prisoner of his own fame. He seems to enjoy this love/hate relationship with the Titanic. He seems to hate being chained forever to the wreck, but sure didn't mind capitalizing off of it through books and lectures.<<

There may or may not be something to all of that, but this is niether here nor there. The base premise you appear to be argueing is that his morality is questionable, therefor, he's wrong. If that's your premise, then whether or not you're right about the first, I don't know. However, it's a base non-sequiter to suppose that questionable ethics renders somebody's stated beliefs or opinions wrong. I'm content to let the blokes who stand for public office play that game.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I agree with Dr. Ballard on everything he says. However, if he's right about something, then he's right.

 

[sharon rutman]

To paraphrase Dr Ballard: There's no divorcing the Titanic. Ever. That doesn't sound too flattering doesn't it.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>There's no divorcing the Titanic. Ever. That doesn't sound too flattering doesn't it.<<

What's so unflattering about it? It sounds to me like it's a fairly common sentiment throughout the Titanic community.

 

[sharon rutman]

Then I'll backtrack to my previous critique. Somehow the magnificent Titanic has morphed into an ugly old hag. Boy, what a letdown for Ballard when he really saw the Ship of Dreams.

Also check out one of the opening scenes in Cameron's weepy high seas soap opera. It shows old Rose getting nostalgic for the Titanic and then the reversal of Titanic rusting on the bottom of the North Atlantic to the proud liner we all know and love on the high seas, brand ing new.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Somehow the magnificent Titanic has morphed into an ugly old hag.<<

A strawman since nobody said that. Really, I think you're reading waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy to much into all of this.

 

[sharon rutman]

Then why are ships referred to with FEMALE pronouns????

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Then why are ships referred to with FEMALE pronouns????<<

Because that's the way it's been done for centuries. I doubt a lot of people really give a second thought to it, and there's not an awful lot of reason why anyone should.