>The original comparison that i know is not Rabbit for chicken, but " Gato for Lievre" (Cat for Hare), which is more devious and harder to distinguish their taste. So the experts tell me. mando
I'd feel like Titus Andronicus about eating certain things unawares (regardless of how they tasted), but I don't worry about getting cheated by phony paintings or sculpture. I was taught to assume that any historical piece could be mis-represented (especially if its ended up in a Midwestern museum) so just enjoy it for whatever it offers. And I still see no reason to think different. Perhaps Dutton would say that I am suppessing my natural instinct to care about authenticity -- but I'm aware of suppressing myself a lot throughout the day -- for a variety of very good reasons. And there are good reasons not to care about who actually made that "Rembrandt" painting at the museum, since i's only an issue if you're trying to resolve some historical question. I just want that "profound communion with another soul" of which Dutton spoke -- and it makes no difference what his name was. Though, so far, most of the un-cloaked forgeries that I've seen look pretty bad. So it's clear that whatever "experts" were fooled were expert only concerning other people's opinions. BTW -- Dutton says Eric Hebborn was quite skilled, so I've ordered one of his books to see whether I would agree. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=URVeYEAv2xDFXiMtCQMHQgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
