I think the miss here is not the act but the haste. I can think of 2 or 3 alternatives that would also satisfy the liability concerns and would not have jeopardized the piece. (For the record, I am not the person who complained, and I am somewhat ambivalent on the specifics). It may be that the chosen approach was best but a bit more time to weigh the options would not have hurt. (Obviously, one can also over analyze and/or engage in groupthink, but I am not suggesting either) So, if the outcome is to pause anytime modification is considered, I think the best has occurred. On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote: I know I was an accessory to this, but I can't help but agree with Dan​. It doesn't hurt the historic value, there will be an informational poster covering most of it, which in my opinion would be a permanent addition to it, and to Dan's point, an earthquake wouldn't take it down, limiting liability as well potential damage to anything underneath it. On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
while some of us might fret over this
Look at it this way, you may have prevented several things, Some visitor getting hit on the head with this if you used a substandard hook that ripped off the wall This might result in a liability lawsuit with damages for medical and/or work loss from injury, Maybe even a bad reputation from the community and/or Infoage management in exhibiting poor responsibility. And possibly having the Liability insurance increase upon the next renewal because of accidents/lawsuits. Those are the alternatives
Errr thanks for your support, I guess. :)