|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 2:11 pm: |       |
John,
What you should find “embarrassing”, is claiming in your Casebook Profile that you are a “Professor of Literature and Philosophy”, when you are a professor of neither subject, by your own admission. As you confirm: “there is no such thing as Professor of Literature”, and you are not a Professor of Philosophy, even if you do teach some classes in the subject.
You then write: “We are all professors of English. We teach literature. We work in English departments.” No, you cannot all be professors of English, unless, you think “professor” and “lecturer” are interchangeable words. I looked up the University of South Florida website. You are not listed as one of the 26 professors in the English department of the Arts and Sciences Faculty. Or even as an instructor or lecturer. Your official university profile gives your department as “Honors College” and your job title as “Instructor”. So, in which “English department” are you an Adjunct Professor? How, in fact, would you define the status of an Adjunct Professor?
I just do not understand, why you are still trying to inflate your academic credentials, both in your Casebook Profile, and in your recent posts to me. You have a PhD and you are a university lecturer. That’s good enough, surely?
Why am I pointing out these anomalies? Certainly not to encourage more shallow boasts from you about your brand new Merc and your clubability, or to get you rushing off to the shower for another cleansing session. If you use your academic status, as you do, to impress people on the boards to accept your opinions, then you have to apply rigorous standards of accuracy, in both describing your academic achievements, and in the evidence you present to support your opinions.
You have made the point many times, both directly and by innuendo including to Sarah Long last week (by talking darkly about “motives”), that some of those writing on these boards, or in books, are maintaining that the diary is not a modern hoax, when they know it is. That is such an extreme and nasty suggestion, that people reading these boards would expect you to have the “clear evidence” to prove it. If you do not have it, wouldn’t they be entitled to conclude, that your unfounded suspicions are entirely the result of prejudice?
Back in February, you elaborated on your self-appointed role as upholder of moral rectitude and protector of the gullible. You wrote: “What compels me to stick around is the knowledge that every day someone new is likely to be seduced by the hoax”. You expect these “new” people and others on these boards to put their trust in your moral judgements and your academic assessments. Then you tell them, that you have “clear evidence, that the thing was a forgery”, but fail to produce any. You assert, that six PhDs at the University of South Florida and a “handful” of other “scholars” at other universities “around the country” have all endorsed your evidence, but you are not prepared to name one of them on the boards. Their value to your proposition is clearly zero. Just how credible is that scenario in the field of scholarship?
You are in no position, either morally or intellectually to bully other posters and visitors into accepting your opinion, that the diary is a modern hoax, as you tried to do with Sarah Long. As she says: “It’s how people make their own minds up”. She says she is “leaning towards it being a fake”, but quite rightly insists on researching and assessing the available information herself, and reaching her own conclusions without being harassed.
It is not half good enough to say: “Trust me, I am a professor”, even if you are one.
Robert
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
Robert,
Despite several unsolicited but friendly e-mails I have received suggesting that I tell you to perform an anatomically impossible act, I've decided to continue to play with you for two reasons. 1. Golf has taught me patience. 2. It's fascinating -- I've never before met anyone completely without shame.
Also, each new post from you only further demonstrates just how ethically desperate and morally bankrupt the case for the diary has become.
So, let me first address your nonsense about my job. I am not a "lecturer." I never have been. I am an Adjunct Professor of English with a joint appointment to the Honors College -- that means I get paid as an Adj. Professor from both places.
You looked up a website which does not list the Adjunct Professors here, I'm afraid (there are a more than a handful of us). Also, you went to the Honors website, where my own listing has not been updated for several years. And I am certainly no longer an "instructor" there, either.
You're just wrong, Robert. And I can prove it. Shall I fax you a copy of my letter of appointment or my contract, both of which have my title clearly written on them? Would you like a letter from my department chairman in English or the Dean of the Honors college? I can supply both.
You just look stupid here, Robert. And yes, you should be ashamed. But it just proves everything I've said about you and your willingness to discard all ethics when it comes to preserving the diary.
You want accuracy?
Fine.
I have been a professor at the same institution for over twelve years now. I have taught the same subjects -- courses in literature and courses in philosophy -- for all of that time. I have syllabi for many of them still on file. I teach two courses (four sections) every semester. I have chosen to retain my Adjunct Professorship here simply because my own personal financial situation makes it possible. This position does not pay me as much as other positions I have been offered here, but it frees me from any committee work or administrative duties whatsoever and requires (I should say "allows") me to do only two things -- research and teach. I actively engage in doing both. I don't have to attend committee meetings and I can design my own literature courses every year, which I do.
I know you know nothing about this, Robert, but your attack on me here is just reprehensible, especially since your own research sucks so badly.
However, this little exchange does define your own personality quite well, so I'm glad it's on the record here.
As to naming any of my colleagues and bringing them into this ugliness, after your posts here and after you have so clearly and definitively demonstrated your own behavioral tendencies in such an illustrative way, I most certainly would NEVER recommend to anyone, friend or foe, that they come here and participate in your stupidity. This, Robert, RIGHT HERE, is precisely why I hesitated to name names for you originally. And now I see clearly that my initial instincts were wise ones and that I have saved so many fine people from just this sort of petulant abuse.
It's like talking to a small child sometimes.
And Robert, I believe my last "bullying" and "harassing" post to Sarah Long read something like "Fair enough Sarah. Continue reading." Check it out. It's still there. Sometimes it helps if you actually read what you are supposed to be commenting on.
As to trust, Robert, it seems to me quite simple.
The book you own is a fake. If you had a painting that looked like a Van Gogh, but you knew it wasn't, and yet you continued to present it publicly without announcing that it was a forgery, people would eventually stop trusting you.
Guess what?
--John
PS: Thanks to all those who have written me kind messages of support regarding Robert's attacks.
PPS: If you click on my name, you'll see that my profile has been amended to prevent any further misunderstandings.
PPPS: Nice idea, Stuart. But it ain't gonna' happen.
PPPPS: I teach literature at the university level for a living and I can tell everyone reading that there's no way the real James ever quoted that line from that Crashaw poem in his own diary. And I'm an expert. There, I've said it again.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 409
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:40 pm: | |
Heya John,
I won't send you an email telling you what to say, I'll just say it myself.
Robert,
That was a pathetic pile of dogcrap you just posted there. Are you going to put up selected excerpts from myteachersucks.com next? You know carefully picking out the negative info and ignoring any good bits in an attempt to slur him further?
If this had been a question of whether John was qualified to make judgements on the diary, then I could understand, but it wasn't. You knew John had a PhD in literature and specialized in the era of literature under discussion. That was never even in question. That basically makes him fully qualified to make literary judgements on the Diary regardless of what his freaking job title is or isn't. He teaches at a college and he has a PhD. That makes him a professor adjunct or other. And as your basis for comparison you used a faculty bio..on a website. College websites are lucky to update their course catalogs on a three year basis...forget about faculty bios. They are put up the day they get hired and are lucky to be changed every five years if ever. But that isn't even the point. You couldn't attack him based on whether he was qualified to provide a literary analysis, so you posted that pile of drivel attacking his job title and failed to acutally determine what it was before posting.
How pathetic and how sad that the Diary camp and pretty much everyone associated with it has to resort to such disgustingly low tactics.
John might on occasion be an OCD ass, but no one has ever questioned that he is an honest ass. (And John, I say that fully comprehending that I am a bitch, but hoping I am at least an honest bitch.)
I personally have had my fill of the Diary camp. What started out as an amusing diversion has turned into a sludge-fest grudge match where sleazy people do sleazy things to protect their interests.
 |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
Thanks, Ally.
I've gotten a couple more nice e-mails from people since Robert's last bit of silliness. It's good to know people see it for what it really is.
And, OCD crazy that I am, I've also called my department chairman just to be sure I had my title right. I do. I did learn one interesting thing though, which I'll post here in the interest of full disclosure (since maybe this is one of the many things that confused poor Robert). My chairman told me that the titles "Adjunct Professor" and "Adjunct Instructor" are both commonly used to mean the same faculty position across the university. So, while the Honors College may list me on their faculty as an "Adjunct Instructor" and the English Department office has me listed as "Adjunct Professor" and "Adjunct Faculty Member," I suppose I'm actually both. In the job I had before this one, I was simply listed as an "Associate Professor," but that position required too many meetings and too much committee work, so when I had the chance I moved here to USF at the Adjunct level and eased my out-of-class duties significantly, which allowed me much more time for designing and preparing classes, scholarship, research, golf, and playing here on this playground. Anyway, it's been twelve years teaching here full-time now and I love it.
Finally, Ally, this is all they have. Robert represents what the case has become. He is now the poster child for the legacy of the diary. And I hope everyone remembers this exchange, remembers his visit here, remembers what he has tried to do. It speaks volumes about the entire diary fiasco.
And a note to Stephen -- I do apologize for any part I might have played in this nastiness. I came here onto this particular thread to comment on how I felt my own position was misstated in Shirley's newest edition of her book and was followed by Robert, who arrived exclusively for the purpose of launching this odd attack about my job title. I tried deflecting it the first time and he returned. I have tried to respond in a way that does not violate the rules here. If I have stepped over any lines, I do apologize. I'll try my best not to discuss this personal nonsense here on the boards any further. If Robert posts anything I think deserves a response, I'll send it to him via private e-mail.
I'm sorry it all happened here. I hope you can get rid of the smell.
All the best,
--John
PS: I've just received an e-mail from my department chairman, which I asked him to send to me. The message reads, in its entirety:
"Dr. John Omlor is currently an Adjunct professor of English at the University of South Florida who also teaches for the USF Honors College."
If anyone would like a hard copy of this, complete with his signature, on university letterhead, please send me e-mail and I will be happy to mail them one. I have his permission to do so.
(Message edited by omlor on March 23, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Hi Ally,
Yes, readers can judge for themselves, and will of course bring their individual biases or neutrality with them if they choose to do so. You can wonder all you like over whether we deliberately excluded the sort of facts that could possibly have presented a picture that you would have considered ‘more balanced’. Somehow I don’t think they’ve invented the facts for the job yet.
Here’s something you might like to think about before criticising me again for ‘non-answers’. After posting here for about a year, I was invited by Keith Skinner to work with him and Seth Linder on Inside Story. At the time, I didn’t even know you existed. If I had, and had sat down with my co-authors and tried to write a book that would gain your approval, what do you think our chances of succeeding would have been?
A: As near to zero as it is possible to get
B: Absolute zero
C: The words ‘hell’, ‘chance’ and ‘cat’ spring to mind
D: Don’t ask silly questions
You have all your lifelines intact, but asking the audience is probably the best bet.
If you can come up with an alternative answer that might elevate this discussion above the totally absurd and utterly pointless, let me know. Otherwise our audience would be better off watching me trying to knit fog when you have all the knitting needles.
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 414
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
Caz,
Still dodging and weaving and ducking. Nice. Once again, I said nothing about writing a book that would gain my approval. The very simple issue that we are discussing is whether or not the book is neutral as you claim. My approval doesn't come into it.
So please just answer the following question with a yes or no.
Is it actually your contention, that by using words such as "vintage Harris style" in front of certain facts presented, that you did not place a pejorative cast on them? Actually let me simplify.
Are you sure that with all your years and dealings on the boards with Mel Harris, you were able to maintain a completely balanced tone in your writing about him?
A. Not a chance in Hell
B. No way in Hell
C. Absolute zero
D. Why do I even bother
At least my biases aren't published for the purposes of profit.
And you know something else just struck me. You said that you have been in the know on writing this book since a year after you started on these boards. You knew that you were writing this book all along and that Mel Harris would play a role in it. Over the years as you've critisized and harangued, mocked and poked at Mel Harrison (rightly or wrongly) you were writing a book that he was going to play a major part in. Isn't it funny that he refused to co-operate with the book in any way, perhaps providing a more balanced look at the entire events. But then again, all these years, you've managed to maintain neutrality while writing that neutral book haven't you?
And you were writing that book all along. How interesting.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for joining us. You are very welcome indeed.
The concept of making money from the diary is a very sore point, but it's a matter of opinion whose points should be feeling more tender. Losses, and not only financial ones, appear to be far more common than gains among those involved, regardless of whether gain was sought or expected, or neither.
Pride and prejudice are also sore points and make the money-making sore point far worse than it would otherwise be.
As you have pointed out, there is not much good light, among the available facts, to shed on Anne and Mike, even with the best will in the world. But our book was not about good will, it was about showing people in whatever light they chose to stand, illuminating and direct, or dim and shady.
A kitty has been suggested in the past, to get the diary and watch tested conclusively, but I now believe it might be easier to knit fog! 
The kind of tests that might be worth trying would be very expensive indeed - certainly beyond the individual pockets of most people who have expressed a genuine interest in finding out when the diary and watch were really created.
And if you've been reading the watch board lately, I would forgive you for wondering if the results would ever be accepted as 'conclusive' unless they confirmed beliefs already set in stone and bound up with pride and prejudice.
Love,
Caz |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
Hi Ally,
I was hoping you might have understood the point of my simple multichoice question, even though I didn’t expect a straight answer.
As I said, I am happy to leave it to others to decide how neutral the book is. I already know your opinion, and why I would never expect it to be otherwise.
But I will answer your question first: E. Absolutely sure.
It wasn’t Caz’s ‘tone’, balanced or otherwise. It was the tone of someone who has never had any ‘dealings’ with Melvin, on or off the boards. So when you saw one of Melvin Harris’s statements being described as having been delivered ‘in vintage Harris style’, you assumed – due to your own prejudice – that not only was I the author of this particular phrase, but that I had obviously used it to imply – what, exactly? Again, it says more about your own opinion of Melvin’s writing over the years, if you believe ‘vintage Harris style’ could only be personally insulting to the poor man.
Incidentally, all the while Keith Skinner was trying – and failing - to get Melvin to have his say for the book, so we would have a sporting chance of representing his position as he would have it represented, Melvin had absolutely no idea I was involved. I believe it came as quite a shock to a few people when it finally came out.
But the whole point of not saying anything while the book was still being prepared and written was the point you make yourself. Who would have blamed people for not co-operating, or holding back on discussing with me all the issues and concerns they had about the diary and watch that we wanted to cover in the book, if they had known I was helping to write it?
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 416
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
The fact of the matter Caz is that *you* knew you were writing it and you made absolutely no effort at all to be neutral or balanced when interacting with Melvin and therefore, your tone and lack of neutrality could not help but influence how he responded.
Therefore, it is laughable to insist that the book was neutral when you were going out of your way to bait one of the key players.
And it is further laughable to assume that considering you were the pony express for EVERY single one of Keith Skinner's posts on the boards, that Melvin was not going to associate you with him when Keith was asking for his input into the book.
And it is easy to cast blame on the lack of neutrality on Keith, however, your name is on the book and you have proven yourself to be completely antagonistic towards Melvin throughout the entire time that you were writing your supposedly neutral book and therefore, your biases taint anything that might be said in the book.
Only an idiot would believe that neutrality would be maintained under those circumstances.
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Evening all,
I’m curious about the impression that Melvin refused to cooperate with the authors of The Inside Story.
In his review in the January 2004 issue of Ripper Notes, page 43, Melvin asserts that he “offered and gave full cooperation” by undertaking to answer any questions the authors wished to put to him by letter.
Is this correct, or is there some evidence to show Melvin’s claims to be false?
Best wishes
alex
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
As I said, I’m happy to leave readers to judge how neutral our book is from its actual content, and from their own impressions of all the personalities involved. There’s no point in my making any claims here or insisting on anything at all, even if it were my place as a co-author to do so.
And despite what you imagine, Melvin did not associate me with the book he knew Keith was writing about the diary story. And I have not tried to blame Keith for anything, so I don’t know where you got that mischievous idea from, but it wasn’t from anything in my previous post. Perhaps you ought to read it again.
But tell me - if someone (and in this case, a writer you have never met or even exchanged a single word with, written or spoken) quotes from the work of a person you have always admired and respected, what exactly do you find so offensive about the use of the word ‘vintage’, to describe the quote as a ‘characteristic’ example of that person’s style?
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
Hi Alex,
Melvin did finally offer to answer Keith's questions, when the final deadline for finishing the book was fast approaching, but all correspondence was indirect, via Alan Gray.
It became obvious to us and to Melvin that some of Alan's responses to our questions required clarification from Melvin, who offered to provide it. He said that he would answer any questions Keith put to him, but only as his busy schedule would allow. The useful factual information he was eventually able to provide, via Alan, in answer to Keith's specific questions, was included in our book.
I hope that helps.
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 417
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Caz,
Do you even understand what neutral means? Commenting on a person's style is not neutral--it shades the reader depending on what the comment precedes. But alright let's say that "vintage Harris style" leaves the reader to interpret what that style is. How about this choice phrase: "Harris's characteristically combative reply"? Does that leave the reader to determine for themselves? When taken with "vintage Harris style", it doesn't shade the reader? Still want to claim neutrality?
Also, in the book you state that "the authors" tried to contact Melvin to get his input but he refused to respond. This leaves the impression that indeed, the authors did try to contact him. But above you stated that Keith Skinner made the attempts. Which is it exactly? Is your book wrong, or is it the post?
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
Thanks for that clarification Caz.
Best wishes
alex
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 418
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Also I find it interesting, that the incident to which the "vintage Harris" comment is made is referring to his claim that Feldman defamed him. I was under the impression that Melvin's actual contention was that Feldman claimed that there had been "tampering"...and yet the tamper part is NOT mentioned in your book..only the "Harris delivered the chloroacetamide " which leaves the reader with no clue as to why Harris would have felt defamed if all Feldman has said was "Harris delivered it", without the corresponding part about the tampering. I mean what reader wouldn't think Melvin was getting pissy for no reason...you left out the most important part! The issue was not who had delivered the sample, the issue was whether there had been tampering. And you left that out.
Interesting again.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
I attempted to edit and found that I could not so I am expanding to clarify. Did not Feldman make the claim that contamination could have taken place and then added that Melvin was the one who had delivered the samples? This is what Melvin was actually referring to when he claimed defamation, not merely that he delivered the samples? That Feldman was implying that he might have contaminated the samples.
And I do want to point out that it matters not a whit whether Feldman was actually making that assertion. That was what Melvin was actually referring to in his defamation claim and therefore deserved a mention so that the reader actually knew what Melvin was reacting to. As you have said, it was up to the reader to make up their minds with the facts presented...not up to the authors to edit out which facts were relevant when deletion of those facts present a radically different picture of what actually occurred.
(Message edited by ally on March 24, 2004)
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 537
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Reading some of the above posts I can"t help being surprised at how they reflect the particular prejudices of their scribes---as does all writing that contains opinion.The anti-diary camp have adopted a pose of polemical viginity
attempting all the time to diminish by moral superiority the pro-diary camp.
Well quite frankly I dont give much of a damn
whetherCaz or any one else makes a few bucks from a hugely entertaining book on a subject of valid interest.There are plenty of people I would far rather take issue with over how they make or have come by their dosh, than writing contemptuously
towards Caz[or Leanne actually] in order to sustain this moral or intellectual high ground.
I dont much care who is right or wrong over the bloody diary---most of this is just a bit of fun isnt it?
OK,OK we can all pretend that we are engaged in
this in order to come by the "truth" for whatever its worth but the nearest we are ever going to get is only going to be an approximation at this point in time and I believe the victims would have understood that all too well somehow!
Natalie |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 422
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Aww..shucks Natalie. I get the feeling you don't like me much. And you know with all those high falutin words like "polemical viginity" I might have a hard time gleaning what you mean but I'll give it a whack.
I have never maintained an aura of purity (assuming you meant virginity) in my willingness to engage in no holds barred debate. I don't hold myself as perfect. But I damn sure don't claim innocence and neutrality while blatantly displaying bias and I don't profit off of it either. The fact that you don't care how Caz makes her money, is dandy for you. But I choke everytime she makes a comment about her neutral book when it is clearly not and her actions over the last few years...deliberately antagonizing someone she was supposedly writing a "neutral book" about is so mindbogglingly unethical that I can't believe it. I would be willing to bet cold cash that she never spoke to Anne Graham the way she spoke to Mel Harris and I wonder how that meshes with her claims of neutrality.
Caz wants to maintain that her book was an unbiased account of the events. It was not. Even you concede that biases on both sides are shown above. I am perfectly willing to concede my bias. I think Caz is unethical and have ever since the email incident. I don't deny it. What might surprise you is that John O and I are not currently pals because I tangled with him and Caz back when they were the dynamic duo on the Diary boards, fighting side by side against Melvin Harris. I have tangled with Mel Harris and called him a pompous, overbearing jackass on occasion and my opinion that he could definitely be so has not changed either with my slight understanding on why he is that way or with his death. Neither Omlor nor Melvin Harris would ever have counted me in their camp. That doesn't stop me from voicing my opinion when I see that sleazy tactics are being used against them. Does that make me morally superior? No. Ethically perhaps or possibly just vindictive because I have been on the receiving end of some of those sleazy tactics and quite frankly it pisses me off to no end when I see them once again employed and Caz using that facade of wounded innocence and long suffering. Now a real ethical challenge for me would be if someone used those sleazy tactics against Caz, would I defend her or say she deserves what she gets, those who lie down with swine and all..? Hell, I have never wanted nor claimed to be perfect.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 538
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Ally,Many thanks for a full and fair explanation of what you are doing and why.I think I understand the way the dispute has arisen better now.It makes more sense.
Because I myself am not that bothered whether Caz
is being biased in this instance and no doubt because I find her writing witty and entertaining
quite often and I like that kind of lighthearted take on things I am probably being a bit prejudiced myself.
But I enjoy your posts too and I like the straightforwardness of them and their clarity.
I think what has got to me a bit is the creeping elitism in some posts-not yours I hasten to add
Look I"ll keep out of this from now on as I dont know the history of it all.
Good luck to you both
Natalie |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 423
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
No worries Natalie,
I really don't mind when people question me..even give me a gentle rebuke if it is needed. I don't promise to heed it...
I know that there are lots of newcomers (and oldtimers) to whom I probably look like a right royal ass, but oh well.
I do agree with you that Caz has a very engaging writing style. She is a constant source of amusement but unfortunately, in her case, I will have to say I'd prefer substance over style.
Best Wishes,
Ally
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi Ally,
As I’ve told you, I’m not claiming anything – readers will have to decide for themselves whether our choice of words was either inaccurate or inappropriate or both. Similarly ‘colourful’ adjectives were used to describe Feldman’s ‘style’ too, I seem to recall, but presumably you didn’t have a problem with any of those.
If you don’t appreciate why co-authors use the term ‘the authors’ throughout their books, regardless of which one might take on which individual task, when, why and how, I’ll let someone else explain – someone more neutral who would almost certainly do a better job than I could.
Regarding the chloroacetamide samples, and the alleged tampering claim that we left out, you raise a very good point and I will push for a second edition of our book so we get the chance to correct our omission and clarify the details and evidence for the various claims and counterclaims. I haven’t got Melvin’s review in front of me, but he may well have taken the opportunity to mention our omission, and perhaps clarify for the readers exactly what it was that Paul Feldman did claim, or indeed to include other factual information that we either decided – rightly or wrongly - to exclude, or may not have possessed at the time.
No excuses though – your point is well taken. Thank you.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi Nat,
My deliberate antagonising of Melvin is Ally’s description of the time when he was posting on the boards, and I asked him a few specific questions relating to what he had written. I antagonised him by repeating my questions several times when he failed to give me anything like straight answers, or to explain why not. Ally then got cross on Melvin’s behalf because I kept on asking the questions when she believed he was no longer reading the boards and couldn’t therefore have answered them anyway, or defended himself for his failure to do so. She advised me to back off because, as she said herself, Melvin obviously had no intention of giving me the information I had requested.
I am quite happy to admit to all this and more, including quoting from a private email (which Ally then acknowledged as one of hers). I did it in a weak moment, knowing I should not be doing any such thing, but believing at the time – wrongly as it turned out – that private information supporting a modern hoax was being passed round behind the scenes instead of being made available to all.
Again, no excuses, I jumped to the wrong conclusion, acted unethically as a result and paid the price – or maybe I should not expect to finish paying. But I’m certainly no little miss perfect, and like Ally, I don’t think I’d want to be. But I can’t, and won’t, be bullied into changing who I am, who I’d like to call my friends, or what I believe or don’t believe about the diary and watch.
Love,
Caz
PS With sincere apologies to anyone who thought this thread was about Shirley’s book!
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 426
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Since you have finally admitted that you leave out relevant information that shades readers, I'll just add. The harassment referred more to the seven or eight posts you would write that picked on nothing but typos in Melvin's posts, or that lampooned his autocratic style more than any of the content of his posts. That's harassment. Repeating questions ad nauseum when you aren't getting a response is just boring and pointless and yes, after a while it gets old. Not harassing, just tiresome. And I guess at that point it had been what..two years?
The quoting from a private email was the least of it and you know it...there's that elimination of those salient details again. It was after I had told you that I was quite tired of our email exchange as it was pointless and going nowhere and that I would no longer reply to your emails, you took our conversation to the boards, quoting carefully selected text and saying that you felt like I was trying to threaten you into silence (me being a moderator at the time). That pissed me off considerably. And you of course were quick to claim wounded innocence. Bleh and gag me. So basically, when I ignored your emails, you attempted to force me into replying because by god you felt you had a right to know whatever you decided you want to know, and you attempted to force that information by claiming I had threatened you.
My supposed threat? That I had said you could write whatever you wanted on the boards the same as I had the right to respond to whatever you wrote on the boards. That was my big threat-claiming I had the right of freedom of speech.
And I don't really see how you are "paying" for your actions? I mean, acting unethically hasn't really harmed you or you wouldn't keep doing it.
Hugs and kisses,
Ally
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Actually, if I recall, Melvin didn't comment on Feldman's accusations in his review. But no matter.
Melvin did, however, bring up an interesting comment in regards to the Kane handwriting sample. I'd be interested if the authors of the Ripper Diary have a rebuttle. Personally, I checked Melvin's claims against the facsimile copy of the diary, and I have to say that, in my opinon, he had a point. There do seem to be quite a number of distinctively formed lower-case "k's" in the Maybrick diary that have a close similarity to the one in the Kane sample. If I can find my notes, I'll give the citations.
I've always been curious about that strange letter written by Kane. He's clearly disgusted with those who have been attempting to contact him. But, oddly, he ends his letter with a strange little apology. "Sorry about the writing." What the heck does that mean? Anything? Sorry about the writing. It's puzzling to me. Isn't it out of place in letter meant to tell someone to bugger off? Was it some sort of a joke, a veiled confession, or what? |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3028
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Ladies -
For the billionth time, take the Ally vs. Caz tedium to email or to a different web site. Enough is enough.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
