Letters to the Editor (contributors, etc.): MC have one? Is this it?

[W Humble]

I get on board forums regularly, and at age 76, really enjoy it, in the Covid era!  But, is this your 'Letters to the Editor (contributors, etc.): does MC have one?'  I've wanted to comment (no all unfavorably, no worries!) but don't know where to send my stuff re: alternative opinions, overall comments on scope and perspective, and my favorite; 1/1 scale accuracy issues.  Refer me, please?

Wick Humble

[Dave Ambrose]

At this point, the forum serves that function for the magazine's readership. There are a lot of reasons for that, but the big one is timeliness. It's over a month between the latest time for us to receive the material, and the time it gets mailed. Then it takes weeks for the post office to deliver it. Usually, by the time something contemporary gets published, it's irrelevant. It's unfortunate, but that's just the environment we're operating in now. It definitely affects the type of content we publish. 

If you want to comment on the magazine itself, you can either post it here, or send me a PM and I will share it with the rest of the editorial board. Otherwise, you can post in General Automotive or the Off-Topic Lounge. 

[W Humble]

Dave,

Thanks!  One of my ancillary hobbies is/was to write to the Editor of any mag of which I had an interest, and I have had letters published in as diverse periodicals as U.S. News & World Report, and MAD Magazine -- long ago.  I got my start writing auto history through a letter to Mike Lamm at Special Interest Autos, which eventually led to my writing my (only, so far) book, How To Restore Your Datsun Z-Car (CA Bill's Automotive Handbooks, 1991 -- and coming out in a revised ed. hopefully 2022!  My last mainstream piece was for the 1959 Chevy 'build special' that the late Street Rodder put out in 2014, on the styling history of that flamboyant cruiser, commissioned because I argued with Mr. Ceridono in the Letters column.

I don't mean to be hyper-critical, but I do like thinking, and I've been around (hopefully doing that ) for many moons.  As a teacher, I feel a real respect for the printed word -- even when it's in pixels, or whatever -- and once a statement is made is has stature and power to influence readers... whether it is right or wrong.  Yep, I've made a few mistakes in print, also.

So, I wonder how you all feel about comments that aren't all that positive, especially about the veracity of your scribes when it comes to 1/1 automobiles, and the accuracy of articles in regard to the real world (not the TV show!) and errors that crop up.  I'm not out to get Mr. Greenberg, any more than I was after Mr. Boyd at S__ A__; but (for an instance) saying that a Desoto hemi is the same as a Chrysler is incorrect in a kit review in the last ish.   I do 1/1 car restoration, and I've had to learn a lot since about 1960 to do it well -- and I've judged from concours to low-rider events.  As we teachers -- the old school ones, at least -- say "You don't know, and maybe I don't know, but together lets find out!"  Don't shoot from the hip, especially in print: research, ask somebody, get it right!  I ask you; isn't that important?  

I doubt if anyone in the world could do the detail and comprehensive job of Larry on a kit review; it's staggering -- more info than a duffer like myself would ever need!  But if I bought the Ford pickup kit to get the 1951 Ford tail lights he listed, I'd be duped because apparently they are Mercury items, huh?  It is important, to this subscriber.

Modeling since 1953, Wick Humble

[Ace-Garageguy]

13 hours ago, W Humble said:

...I don't mean to be hyper-critical, but I do like thinking, and I've been around (hopefully doing that ) for many moons.  As a teacher, I feel a real respect for the printed word -- even when it's in pixels, or whatever -- and once a statement is made is has stature and power to influence readers... whether it is right or wrong. 

...Don't shoot from the hip, especially in print: research, ask somebody, get it right!  I ask you; isn't that important?  

...saying that a Desoto hemi is the same as a Chrysler is incorrect in a kit review...

...if I bought the Ford pickup kit to get the 1951 Ford tail lights he listed, I'd be duped because apparently they are Mercury items, huh? 

Exactly.

Anyone who presents himself as an "expert" really has a moral obligation to the truth to get it right.

On the web, it's not hard to make an almost instant correction, but once something is committed to a printed page, it's there forever, and not many people will read a later correction anyway.

Sadly, we live in a time when the SOP is to repeat as truth whatever has been previously repeated most often, but not necessarily what is in fact true.

[tim boyd]

21 hours ago, W Humble said:

Dave,

Thanks!  One of my ancillary hobbies is/was to write to the Editor of any mag of which I had an interest, and I have had letters published in as diverse periodicals as U.S. News & World Report, and MAD Magazine -- long ago.  I got my start writing auto history through a letter to Mike Lamm at Special Interest Autos, which eventually led to my writing my (only, so far) book, How To Restore Your Datsun Z-Car (CA Bill's Automotive Handbooks, 1991 -- and coming out in a revised ed. hopefully 2022!  My last mainstream piece was for the 1959 Chevy 'build special' that the late Street Rodder put out in 2014, on the styling history of that flamboyant cruiser, commissioned because I argued with Mr. Ceridono in the Letters column.

I don't mean to be hyper-critical, but I do like thinking, and I've been around (hopefully doing that ) for many moons.  As a teacher, I feel a real respect for the printed word -- even when it's in pixels, or whatever -- and once a statement is made is has stature and power to influence readers... whether it is right or wrong.  Yep, I've made a few mistakes in print, also.

So, I wonder how you all feel about comments that aren't all that positive, especially about the veracity of your scribes when it comes to 1/1 automobiles, and the accuracy of articles in regard to the real world (not the TV show!) and errors that crop up.  I'm not out to get Mr. Greenberg, any more than I was after Mr. Boyd at S__ A__; but (for an instance) saying that a Desoto hemi is the same as a Chrysler is incorrect in a kit review in the last ish.   I do 1/1 car restoration, and I've had to learn a lot since about 1960 to do it well -- and I've judged from concours to low-rider events.  As we teachers -- the old school ones, at least -- say "You don't know, and maybe I don't know, but together lets find out!"  Don't shoot from the hip, especially in print: research, ask somebody, get it right!  I ask you; isn't that important?  

I doubt if anyone in the world could do the detail and comprehensive job of Larry on a kit review; it's staggering -- more info than a duffer like myself would ever need!  But if I bought the Ford pickup kit to get the 1951 Ford tail lights he listed, I'd be duped because apparently they are Mercury items, huh?  It is important, to this subscriber.

Modeling since 1953, Wick Humble

Ah....Mr. Humble.....

I have been going through my old Hot Rod magazines and recently noted a letter from you to the Editor and smiled.....this was probably sometime in the 1980's; perhaps you remember? 

Not to get into another debate, but my vague recollection is that you had some correct corrections on one or more of my pieces, but I also had some corrections on your corrections as well.  

And just to be clear, it wasn't I that stated that the Chrysler and DeSoto Hemis were the same....as the 1950's Mopar Hemis (Chrysler, DeSoto, and Dodge) were all different though based on the same overall design principles.  I think that was Larry's doing in the last issue (and I recall making a similar comment to Wick in my head about that one).  I have been guilty, though, of calling the DeSoto a "Firepower" instead of the correct "Firedome" nomenclature, and I'm sure, many other slipups like this over the last 44 years of writing....  

Anyway....note to all who area reading this thread - keep an eye out for this Mr. Humble guy.  He often has interesting things to say, even if you may not always agree with him! 

Cheers...TIM 

[W Humble]

That firefight was about Pontiacs, as I recall. :-<)

Ole' Wick

[Ace-Garageguy]

Steven Sloman, author of The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone   (and who manages to apparently  obliviously contradict his own research when speaking about his own beliefs...fascinating  )

"One danger is that if I think I understand because the people around me think they understand, and the people around me all think they understand because the people around them all think they understand, then it turns out we can all have this strong sense of understanding even though no one really has any idea what they're talking about...

But some people do try to rise above the crowd: to verify claims independently, to give fair hearing to others' claims, and to follow the data where it actually leads. In fact, many people are trained to do that: scientists, judges, forensic investigators, physicians, etc. That doesn't mean they always do (and they don't always), just that they're supposed to try.

I like to live in communities that put a premium on getting things right even when...this means living with constant tension, but it's worth it."

Edited January 22, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy

[W Humble]

Tim (et al),  I heartily appreciate all you say, and though I started a lo-o-ong time ago, I'll never be as deep into scale models as 90% of you guys are, I'm sure.  BTW, I'm sorry my syntax isn't as precise as it might be; in the forum comment to which you replied, it was indeed Larry G's kit review that had the DeSoto displacement controversy, not of your own in S__ A__.  My own magazine career began in 1978, with Mike Lamm's SPECIAL INTEREST AUTOS.  I did the complete history of the development of the Pontiac Tempest that year (available on the Little Indians website archive tab) along with a Tempest racing addendum which included live interview material from Mickey Thompson, Bill Collins, etc.  Then the first 'collector car' magazine history of the 1958 Chevy Impala -- possibly the first for any Impala -- in 1980, it think.  There were more, but after interviewing Tom Monroe (Hot to Rebuild your Datsun Engine, etc.) on the Bricklin SVI, I was offered a shot at a book by CA Bill Fisher, then of HP Books, now CA Bill's Automotive Handbooks, which I took: "How to Restore Your Datsun Z-Car "(Fisher Books, 1991) and was Restoration Editor of Z CAR MAGAZINE for seven years -- until it folded.  I'm doing a little blog stuff for Hemmings Motor News again now.

That said: both my hands and eyes tell me I'll never be a great modeler; and I don't compare to Mr. G or yourself at expertise on plastic kits, no doubt!  With auto history, I'm saddened that most of the guys I was able to interview: Smoky Yunick, Harry Barr, Don McPherson, John Bond, Bill Collins, Hulki Aldikachti, Malcolm McKellar, Chuck Jordan, Carl Renner, Messers. Thompson, Monroe and Bricklin, and many more are largely beyond our microphones today.  Yep, I've made a few boo-boos too, and tried hard to correct them.  Being interviewed is the worst trap for me!  So -- keep writing and I'll keep subscribing!

[Bugatti Fan]

This thread is getting philosophically so deep my head hurts!

[W Humble]

Apologies; I guess I was a teacher too long!  Or, just got used to being 'paid by the word!' 

:-<)  Wick

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 1/24/2022 at 2:45 AM, Bugatti Fan said:

This thread is getting philosophically so deep my head hurts!

There's really no philosophy addressed here, other than the moral and ethical obligation of anyone who presents himself as an "expert" or "authority" to make damm sure he's regurgitating actual facts and truth, gleaned from primary sources, and not just mindlessly spreading manure he got from a "consensus" of the poorly-informed, the intellectually lazy, or the willfully-ignorant who really don't know what they're talking about but are content to rebleat what their peers say.

Unfortunately, it's an idea whose time seems to have passed...particularly among those who style themselves as "journalists".

EDIT: One more point...presenting false information or telling a lie, once or 10,000 times, does not make it true; billions of people believing a lie does not make it true either.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy

[Bugatti Fan]

Bill, I agree with what you say about information being repeated ad nauseam by so called experts!

You can add engineers to the list of professions to those who rise above that.

Similar mind set. Analytical.

[W Humble]

I know this forum  topic is from the stone age, but: I've had input, subtle and not-so, that I might have put my criticisms in milder prose and not been offensive, which may be true.  At the time a.) I was a bit offended, and b.) I guess I didn't realize that to possibly be accepted as a hale fellow-well met on model forums was also to just smile knowingly and pass on all of it.  Anyhow, Sorry!

I repeat: the authoritative writer, when dispensing wisdom and insights into his area of expertise, should still be held (or hold himself*) accountable for what it put in print under their by-line.  Errors occur (by me, too!) but taking offense at any correction or criticism is just saying that accuracy really doesn't matter.  Still, one last time, if I offended you, I am contrite in proportion... but let's get it right, if possible, the first time.  Thx!   Glad to have my 1st Amendment rights in a good magazine!  Wick  * (or herself, though I haven't noted any female contributors to MC...)

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 hours ago, W Humble said:

...* (or herself, though I haven't noted any female contributors to MC...)

EDIT: Humorous comment deleted to avoid offending delicate sensibilities or being newly branded as another kind of "-ist". 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy

[W Humble]

Bill, too true!

Love your quotes in blue; how do you add them?  Wick