Hawk Chalk August 2014

[Joe Atkinson]

I was not aware that personal attacks were allowed in the Hawk Chalk. In fact, the policies of NAFA say that this will not be tolerated. Yet, in the August Hawk Chalk, John Swift clearly goes on a personal attack of Kent Carnie. In his "review" of Kent's book (after a review by Ron Clark had already been published in the previous Hawk Chalk and, therefore, I'm not sure why a second review was necessary) Mr. Swift makes numerous false statements. The most glaring is that he has given himself the title of "Curator Emeritus - The Archives of Falconry". I thought that when someone quits, walks out suddenly, abandons their job as Mr. Swift did, they are not given any honorary titles such as Curator Emeritus. In fact, I asked the Archives if Mr. Swift had indeed been given this title (which requires board approval) and they replied 'no'! What kind of person would give himself a title that he has not earned? What kind of person would lie about something like that? Did Mr. Swift think nobody would notice?
Mr. Swift has, by attacking Kent Carnie and by making false claims, revealed to the falconry community the true nature of his character and how desperate he is for personal acclaim. He did actually do the Archives of Falconry a big favor, he quit. For me, I am very disappointed in NAFA and, in particular, the Hawk Chalk editor Kenn Filkins, who allowed this to be published and I would like to know why, what was the point? Does he not read the articles that are to be published, and shouldn't he be aware that personal attacks are not allowed by NAFA, or does he not care? This is totally unacceptable and I, for one, think that NAFA owes Kent Carnie an apology.

[Paul Mascuch]

Joe -

I completely agree. The article was in bad taste and should not have been printed. I'm disappointed in both the author of the article and the Hawk Chalk editor. I expect better of both of them.

Paul

[kip]

I agree And i feel Ken owes an apology as well not just for the book review but the complete attack on the archives. Swift makes all the glorious clams of the things he did for the archives But I wonder how much his "wonderful" book cost the Archives. When I was there this spring there were lots of boxes full of Swifts unsold book. I know Ken has done a lot of work for the members of NAFA but this was a bad call


Greg Brooks

[JRedig]

I was very shocked and disappointed to see it...didn't even know swift had a book?

[FredFogg]

Reviews on books are opinions by falconers reviewing the books of other falconers, my question is do we really need these reviews in the HC's? I think not!

[cvandermerwe]

Incredible that this was published in an official publication of ANY organization. The piece seem to be very personal and equally petty. Take the two quotes for example:

"Spelling and punctuation errors abound, including the often-repeated unnecessary use of an apostrophe in the official name of the North American Falconers Association not as North American Falconer's Association."

This quote actually inspired a completely separate piece in the Hawk Chalk, "The power of an apostrophe" by Stacia A. Novy - and then they published it! I mean really???

And then my favorite part out of the whole piece:

"Most photographs are un-credited and un-dated, including an unauthorized photo of volunteer Vicki K. Swift in a display case cleaning the glass reclining in a position degrading to a woman."

What can one say to something like that? Petty much? If it strikes so close to home maybe Mr. Swift should have a conversation with Mrs. Swift about positioning herself in display cases in degrading poses for photographers. I mean really. No, I MEAN FRIGGEN REALLY???

I did see at least 2 references to himself as "Curator Emeritus" throughout the HC. I also found the last two paragraphs fairly amusing. $300K contributed from himself and Vicky. I would like to say thank you. You are the man (and from what I hear about some pictures floating around, she's quite the lady!). Finally, maybe there is/was a reason there was no announcement about your vacating your position. Lucky you though, looks like someone gave you the green light to shit all over other folks in an official club publication.

There, now I said my peace :)

[Joe Atkinson]

well said !!

[MrBill]

I would have to agree that the impetus for writing this article went beyond a review of Kent's work and offered nothing constructive, even in the form criticism. John was venting, for sure, in a way that not only recognized errors and omissions, but also the Swift's contributions to the archives that he obviously felt had been overlooked. I think Kenn Filkins has done a great job "volunteering" as editor of HC, but in this particular case, I agree that this commentary should have been limited to a review covering both the strengths (it can't be all bad) and weaknesses. And, of course, the personal information should have been kept out of it.

Considering what John said regarding the publication only--the errors don't bother me. I know from experience that shit happens when it comes to publishing, and mistakes are made even though author's, editors, do their damnedest to avoid them. However, the omissions are bothersome to me. It seems that if you are going to write the history of a particular sport, you have to tell the whole story. It is not unusual for this to happen when authors don't send their work out for review, or who do, but only send it to those who are of like mind. But, again, I am sure that there is plenty of good information in Kent's work, and I give him credit for even taking on a job like this; it must have been a daunting, laborious, task, one that he probably knew would never please everyone, regardless.

Bill Boni

[falcon56]

I was not aware that personal attacks were allowed in the Hawk Chalk. In fact, the policies of NAFA say that this will not be tolerated. Yet, in the August Hawk Chalk, John Swift clearly goes on a personal attack of Kent Carnie. In his "review" of Kent's book (after a review by Ron Clark had already been published in the previous Hawk Chalk and, therefore, I'm not sure why a second review was necessary) Mr. Swift makes numerous false statements. The most glaring is that he has given himself the title of "Curator Emeritus - The Archives of Falconry". I thought that when someone quits, walks out suddenly, abandons their job as Mr. Swift did, they are not given any honorary titles such as Curator Emeritus. In fact, I asked the Archives if Mr. Swift had indeed been given this title (which requires board approval) and they replied 'no'! What kind of person would give himself a title that he has not earned? What kind of person would lie about something like that? Did Mr. Swift think nobody would notice?
Mr. Swift has, by attacking Kent Carnie and by making false claims, revealed to the falconry community the true nature of his character and how desperate he is for personal acclaim. He did actually do the Archives of Falconry a big favor, he quit. For me, I am very disappointed in NAFA and, in particular, the Hawk Chalk editor Kenn Filkins, who allowed this to be published and I would like to know why, what was the point? Does he not read the articles that are to be published, and shouldn't he be aware that personal attacks are not allowed by NAFA, or does he not care? This is totally unacceptable and I, for one, think that NAFA owes Kent Carnie an apology.

I couldn't have expressed my opinion any better than this, thank you, Joe. John did a terrible disservice to Kent's work, the PFund and NAFA in one fell swoop, just to advance his agenda and make himself feel important.

[oobie]

And here I was, considering joining NAFA, in large part to have access to Hawk Chalk articles...

[Tom Smith]

And here I was, considering joining NAFA, in large part to have access to Hawk Chalk articles...

You should join and know you have the freedom of expressing you own opinion there also.

[FredFogg]

And here I was, considering joining NAFA, in large part to have access to Hawk Chalk articles...

Don't condemn NAFA for one failed book review! Geez, you just can't please anybody these days! frus)

[Eagle Owl]

I have not read the current HC, so I can't comment on the article. But has anyone that is complaining on here actually voiced their concerns to NAFA directly? I know this is the NAFA section, but that does not mean it is regularly looked at by NAFA leadership. If you really feel strongly about it and wish to do more than complain on NAFEX, then contact the President, VP and your NAFA Directors. Their emails can be found here: http://n-a-f-a.com/BoardAndOfficers.htm

[footbound]

I have Kent's book and have enjoyed it very much even though I wasn't mentioned but then I haven't accomplished much so why would he. I have met him several times over the years and found him to be quite sly. One time at a NAFA meet he talked me into buying the heaviest book he had lugged from Boise just so he wouldn't have to haul it back. Now thanks to Mr. Swift I know the depth of his depravity and shall hold him in contempt for the rest of my days. I think I will quit NAFA as well for good measure. Oh, the horror of it all.

[Tony James]

Reviews on books are opinions by falconers reviewing the books of other falconers, my question is do we really need these reviews in the HC's? I think not!

Hi Fred,

be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Book reviews have real value, both as an indication of merit to potential purchasers, and, when looking back, as an historical reference. And what better place to publish a review than in the newsletter or journal of the foremost US body of people with an interest?

The British Falconer's Club (properly with an apostrophe, but what the heck) has a long history of publishing book reviews, some kinder than others, but generally polite and constructive.
Once in a while I look back at past reviews, which can often be more interesting, in light of increased experience and changing times, than when first read.

That said, of course it's important to select a reviewer with relevant experience and wisdom, as well as one with no axe to grind, if the review is to have real worth.
Sadly, in this case, what amounts to little more than a personal attack dressed up as a book review, has been directed at a dear friend of mine, and despite having held John in high esteem for his long-time efforts, I'm immensely disappointed to have read that.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[colleenp]

Thank you Joe Atkinson for starting this thread. You stated the obvious. Personal attacks should not be tolerated by NAFA, even when disguised as a book review. As Tony stated book reviews have real value. There was no value in the publication of this article. NAFA needs to stand firm by their Editorial Policy. I have received and enjoyed reading the Hawk Chalk and Journal since 1992. I do not enjoy reading an article written by someone who is suffering from a bad case of sour grapes.

Colleen Peterson

[Tom Smith]

Thank you Joe Atkinson for starting this thread. You stated the obvious. Personal attacks should not be tolerated by NAFA, even when disguised as a book review. As Tony stated book reviews have real value. There was no value in the publication of this article. NAFA needs to stand firm by their Editorial Policy. I have received and enjoyed reading the Hawk Chalk and Journal since 1992. I do not enjoy reading an article written by someone who is suffering from a bad case of sour grapes.

Colleen Peterson

You may have recognize the fact that this plays out making the reviewer a total ass while he was trying to defame some one else. You don't need to criticize NAFA for not censoring the ass's right to freedom of speech which backfired on him making him the jerk.

[dirthawker2004]

well I have not read the artical but do know john why do it matter. it is one persons opinion. freedom of speech is one of our rights in the USA. some of the books that I have looked at I dont agree with all the practices like harry macarory, bill bony and mcdermit but who cares. why is this such a big deal. shut the hell up and go on with your falconry as you chose. one artical is not going to change the world. I repect all of them but who cares

[Stacia Novy]

"Spelling and punctuation errors abound, including the often-repeated unnecessary use of an apostrophe in the official name of the North American Falconers Association not as North American Falconer's Association." This quote actually inspired a completely separate piece in the Hawk Chalk, "The power of an apostrophe" by Stacia A. Novy

Dear C.J. Van der Merwe,
I’m not in the habit of responding in public forums, but your comments (in quotes above) necessitated a full reply. My Apostrophe Article was not “inspired by any other article in the Hawk Chalk” or any secondary writer.
As an accomplished author, I was contacted by NAFA officers and asked to write an article on the proper title of the organization. I have all email traffic to confirm this, and will gladly forward the correspondence to you or anyone else that would like a copy. In fact, Kent Carnie himself mailed The Archives of Falconry documents to include with my article.
The NAFA title has been corrupted for decades; this misrepresentation is making the organization look unprofessional, sloppy and incompetent. Many members have complained about this issue over the years, including some NAFA directors, and editorial corrections were needed in the Hawk Chalk, Journal, emails, and official letterhead. Therefore, the article was printed to educate members and standardize NAFA media.
As part of the normal editing process, my article was previewed by the HC editor and several reviewers before publication and its content approved for the August Hawk Chalk.
In the future, I strongly suggest that you research facts before posting unsubstantiated claims via the Internet. It makes the commenter look incredibly foolish when those claims can be so easily negated by solid evidence. Working in academia and in medicine, following such protocols is a must for me. Judging by your posts, I imagine that your work and life do not require such high standards. What a shame.
Stacia Novy

[47CHAMP]

Hey Stacia, as an ''accomplished author'', you should always hit your space bar after the use of a period. Just kidding. Everybody take a breath, lighten the mood a bit.

[Steve L.]

As an accomplished author...
Working in academia and in medicine, following such protocols is a must for me. Judging by your posts, I imagine that your work and life do not require such high standards. What a shame.
Stacia Novy


Consider your horn tooted!

It's this kind of sensitivity that prevents us as falconers from communicating productively. That's the real shame.

[bdyelm]

Working in academia and in medicine, following such protocols is a must for me.Judging by your posts, I imagine that your work and life do not require such high standards. What a shame.
Stacia Novy

As someone who has a lot of respect for the people of "academia", your statement made me cringe. Not cool bro.

[MrBill]

"Spelling and punctuation errors abound, including the often-repeated unnecessary use of an apostrophe in the official name of the North American Falconers Association not as North American Falconer's Association."

This quote actually inspired a completely separate piece in the Hawk Chalk, "The power of an apostrophe" by Stacia A. Novy - and then they published it! I mean really???

In defense of Stacia, not only were C.J.'s facts wrong, but I imagine Stacia interpreted this statement as put down of her article, and reacted accordingly; however, I do agree that her post could have been done without the last paragraph. On the other hand, I am sure Stacia and CJ are decent folks that are being judged to certain extent simply due to being human.

Bill Boni

[cvandermerwe]

"Spelling and punctuation errors abound, including the often-repeated unnecessary use of an apostrophe in the official name of the North American Falconers Association not as North American Falconer's Association." This quote actually inspired a completely separate piece in the Hawk Chalk, "The power of an apostrophe" by Stacia A. Novy

Dear C.J. Van der Merwe,
I’m not in the habit of responding in public forums, but your comments (in quotes above) necessitated a full reply. My Apostrophe Article was not “inspired by any other article in the Hawk Chalk” or any secondary writer.
As an accomplished author, I was contacted by NAFA officers and asked to write an article on the proper title of the organization. I have all email traffic to confirm this, and will gladly forward the correspondence to you or anyone else that would like a copy. In fact, Kent Carnie himself mailed The Archives of Falconry documents to include with my article.
The NAFA title has been corrupted for decades; this misrepresentation is making the organization look unprofessional, sloppy and incompetent. Many members have complained about this issue over the years, including some NAFA directors, and editorial corrections were needed in the Hawk Chalk, Journal, emails, and official letterhead. Therefore, the article was printed to educate members and standardize NAFA media.
As part of the normal editing process, my article was previewed by the HC editor and several reviewers before publication and its content approved for the August Hawk Chalk.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Stacia Novy,

I certainly apologize for causing you such emotional distress, I did not realize that one line would make you lash out quite so violently. You do not owe me any proof, I actually believe what you say. With all this being said, I do believe that the average reader will put two and two together and come to the same conclusion about both articles being published in one HC. Right or wrong, it looks like a setup to drive Mr. Smith's point home. For your benefit, I will say it again, PERCEPTION IS REALITY. You are owed an apology for how that all looks and comes across, but it's not from me.



In the future, I strongly suggest that you research facts before posting unsubstantiated claims via the Internet. It makes the commenter look incredibly foolish when those claims can be so easily negated by solid evidence. Working in academia and in medicine, following such protocols is a must for me. Judging by your posts, I imagine that your work and life do not require such high standards. What a shame.
Stacia Novy

I think you could have easily with an semblance of professionalism explained your position without this last paragraph, but since you thought it necessary to go down this path I will respond in kind. The tone of your post and writing style (yes, it matters how you write in a forum as well) and obvious insecurities make you look somewhat foolish yourself. Your post comes across as composed by somewhat of an elitist author (or at least it appears you would like to be viewed that way) and that is something a vast majority of people find, for a lack of a better word, ugly. Since you are an accomplished author I would have thought that you would be better than to judge a book by it's cover, and that in itself is a shame.

Finally, in the future I will be more careful what I say around school nurses (I am assuming here of course, you did say you were in academia and medicine), not that your profession and life has ANYTHING to do with this discussion. If I were you, I would also be angry at a lot of people for using your wonderful article to further their own causes, by mistake or on purpose. You should look elsewhere however, I just pointed out the FACT that both articles were published in the same HC and they tied together nicely. PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

Have a great weekend, or at least try to, this is far from the end of the world.

Respectfully,