I was responding to the article, as Maria noted. Her complaints
should be addressed to the author, and not to me. The article listed the
apparently poor decisions by the director and others, which included, in
the author's estimation, the spending of what most people would probably
think was an immense amount of money on a Web site that apparently--and no
one has said just how--was supposed to general at least an equally immense
amount of money. One museum, and perhaps more, will be closed and dozens
of people have lost their jobs because of this extremely doubtful expansion
scheme.
        Just because the guggenheim is a large museum complex does not
mean that its problems should not be discussed. While the author of the
article may indeed have been skewing the facts to make the guggenheim look
bad, it doesn't really seem that "the other side of the story" would be
all that different.

        Adrienne DeAngelis


On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Maria Munoz-Blanco wrote:

> Adrienne:
>
> You may want to avoid making the kind of statement that you included in your
> recent posting (particularly "<<In any case, the guggenheim administration
> has apparently proved itself to be spectacularly incompetent, having spent
> itself almost to death on follies such as a twenty million dollar Web site.>
> >").
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).