This editor can edit this entry and tell us a bit about themselves by clicking the Edit icon.
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2009-05-31 16:08:43 Welcome to the Wiki. Please consider the importance of using your RealName, because using your real name is a way to acknowledge that this is a community. If you don't want to use your real name at least introduce yourself. I restored the content you removed because the consensus here on the wiki is that information should be retained. —JasonAller
2009-05-31 16:24:47 Your removal of information on the John Natsoulas Art Gallery page is unwelcome here. You can argue all you want about what really happened, however, a scandal occurred and we will document that. If something happened that cleared Natsoulas of wrongdoing, you're more than welcome to add that along with a source. —WilliamLewis
2009-05-31 17:06:43 Repeated removal of the same content doesn't demonstrate a willingness to engage in meaningful discussion. Based on an observed history of many times that this same scenario has played out it isn't a successful strategy. You can use the Talk button on the top of the John Natsoulas Art Gallery page to start a discussion about that section and argue for its removal. Being that it was printed in the Bee it will be pretty hard to convince people to sweep it into the memory hole. Perhaps finding a retraction from the Bee, or presenting an alternative view would be more productive. —JasonAller
The Bee printed no such retraction. Also, the Enterprise ran an article on this. If you have newsbank access, search both papers using the terms: John Natsoulas forgery. —wl
He's offering Mr. or Ms. Pusher an opportunity to engage in a friendly dialog and giving examples of more productive ways to engage in community editing, not trying to imply specifically there is such an article. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
I understood that. I just figured I'd inform people that there is no such article so they don't waste time looking for a retraction like I did.
2009-05-31 17:33:45 From the linked article
"The forged Diebenkorn that Natsoulas used as collateral on the $175,000 loan from Blair was sold around 2000 to collectors John and Susan Diekman, according to Blair. He said he delivered the painting to the couple's Atherton home, and Natsoulas was present at the time of the exchange when the Diekmans wrote a check to Blair that covered the loan amount."
So yes, at least one of the paintings in question was used to fund the expansion of the gallery.
Can you please deal with us honestly instead of just pushing some agenda? —WilliamLewis
