|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:21 pm: | 
|
Hi Mr Poster,
How can we still be flogging the dead nag that is the situation regarding the chloracetamide "result"? The one result that "indicated" the presence of it has more holes in it than my gardening trousers and has been paraded around (much like a Whitechapel whore) in all its "finery" which on closer inspection turns out to be fairly tawdry stuff indeed.
That's nothing compared with the revived flogging of the "Mike did it" horse, because there's no one else to flog and besides, it's his own silly fault for confessing.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Ah, I have to thank Caroline for calling my attention to the fact that Lars and Mr. Poster are back (this time as the same person -- how odd). Apparently, after all the talk of needing two different identities for his own professional safety and other such puffery and bluster, it's now OK for him to be a single self.
Well, that's nice.
Unfortunately, he doesn't have anything to say of any significance, so there's no reason to write him back.
And since I at least have never once said "Mike did it," I know I'm not being accused of flogging anything here.
AAD,
It means nothing. It was an irrelevant and inappropriate citation which we were supposed to think sounded valid as an excuse for the owner of the diary not admitting the simple truth, as all the experts have told him, that his book wasn't written by the real James Maybrick and that it's a cheap hoax. That would be the honest and responsible thing to do, of course. But we can't have that. Oh, I suppose it was meant also in some way to account for why the results from comprehensive tests by a full professional lab using the latest technology available still have not shown up here despite the passing of year after year.
Oh, I forgot, for some reason, it's not his job, it's someone else's.
The buck stops nowhere apparently, and personal responsibility for your own property and your own claims is a thing to be avoided.
I must remember where I am,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 03, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
I wonder who Caroline could mean though?
Jenni
ps John, you sure your not trying to get me un trouble!!
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Caroline has written quite a bit recently about someone who allegedly claims that Mike did it and even if he didn't, he should be blamed for it regardless of what the truth is, because it's his own fault somehow. She even quoted or paraphrased the person saying,
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Unfortunately, no one knows who the hell she keeps talking about. I can't find any post ever written here that's said anything like this. I can't recall ever reading anyone saying that the truth doesn't matter and history doesn't matter and even if Mike didn't do it he should be known as a forger anyway. I can't find anything anywhere that looks like it might be a source for her little citation.
So there are only three possibilities --
1.) either she's read something somewhere by someone that none of the rest of us has ever seen or can remember -- in which case she should have the common decency to cite the specific source or quotation the way any respectable scholar would.
2.) or she's misquoting someone so completely that her version is unrecognizable when compared to the original -- in which case, she should be ashamed of herself.
3.) or no one has ever said anything like this and she just made it up because it's easier for her to debate against a position that no one actually holds than it is to respond to real people's real positions -- in which case she's simply being loony.
You can take your pick as to which option you think is most likely, and you can try to guess who Caroline has been talking about and allegedly paraphrasing or citing until the end of time.
You'll probably have to.
Because she's not likely to identify the source of her claim or to offer the appropriate citation or even to let anyone know who or what she's talking about.
And that's a very good reason not to take her remarks as anything more than nonsense.
I hope that helps alleviate your fears. I also hope I’m wrong and that she comes forward and offers us a specific citation or a source for her paraphrase or at least tells us who holds this position she’s now attacking.
Let’s watch and see,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
I think if then alternative is being called a looney caroline would be more than happy to clear it up for you John!!
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
oh my god!! Caroline is going to kill me i made a typo again, my english teacher would sure be embarrassed. I of course meant the!
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Please don't misunderstand. It's not Caroline who is loony.
It's the act of making up fictional characters, then making them say something no one real has ever said, and then attacking them and arguing with them about it. That's loony.
It's like those people who stagger down the street fighting with the imaginary voices in their head.
Of course, I'm hoping Caroline is not doing this. I'm hoping she actually has a source for her comments and will eventually tell us all what or who it is, with the appropriate citation or quotation, the way any serious scholar would.
One can always hope,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Just curious...and I frankly don't care who said what and when...I'd like to start afresh.
Are there posters that believe Mike Barrett was the author of the Diary, and when I say author I mean either the composer of the document, or the physical writer of the Diary ?
I'll start. I believe that Mike was neither, and doesn't even know who the author was. To the extent that the modern hoax theory depends on Mike, it is built on quick sand.
And we can move this to whatever thread is appropriate.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
response moved to pub talk..
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 04, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Are you including in your question Caroline's claim that we have posters here who think not only that Mike did it but that even if he didn't he should be known forever as a forger anyway and that the truth and history are not important?
If so, I can state pretty clearly that I'm not one of them and Jenni is not one of them, and Chris is not one of them, and no one else I know is one of them.
So who the hell is Caroline talking about anyway?
If you get someone to come here and admit that this IS how they feel, then I guess we'll finally know who Caroline is attacking.
But since she won't offer us a source for her quotation or even the identity of the person who holds the position she was paraphrasing and attacking, since she won't even do the minimum amount of responsible scholarly work and explain to her readers where she got this opinion, we'll all have to be left wondering whether she just made this fictional character up for some inexplicable reason or whether she is just completely misstating someone's real position in such a way that not even that person is likely to recognize it as theirs.
You'll have to wait, too, I guess. At least until she finally comes clean.
You might be here a while.
As for me, I'll say what I have always said -- that the evidence does not currently exist to indict Mike for the creation of the diary, but there is certainly some evidence against him, including the fact that no one has ever been able to explain in any rational way how he knew the source of the Crashaw quote before anyone else.
But more importantly, as you well know, the case for the diary being a modern hoax doesn't even need Mike at all. The text repeatedly makes the case for itself, as does the lack of provenance and as do more than a few simple recorded historical facts concerning what was what and when. There is a simple, straightforward and obvious explanation for every single one of the textual problems if the diary is a modern hoax. There is simply no rational and evidenced explanation for any of the textual problems otherwise. Neither you nor anyone else has ever offered any. There is no old hoax theory. Consequently, one doesn't need Mike to know this book is a cheap modern hoax, one needs only simple basic common sense.
Of course, if that gets replaced by desire, then the discussion becomes silly and irrelevant.
I hope that answers your little question. I suspect you won't tell me if it does or not.
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
John,
so you weren't calling Caroline a loony? thats ok then, because it wouldnt be very nice to call someone a loony, would it?(the answer your looking for is no)
Sir Robert,
Hi,
no I don't believe that about Mike, but as with all beliefs, its just a belief. if you see what I mean (and I'm guessing not because that made very little sense).But I'm sure you get the drift of it.
I don't think the modern hoax theory depends on Mike.
Jenni
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
HI Jenni,
No, it wouldn't. However, if the third of my three options turns out to be true -- that is that "no one has ever said anything like this and she just made it up because it's easier for her to debate against a position that no one actually holds than it is to respond to real people's real positions" -- then she is certainly acting like one, or at least being completely irresponsible.
Of course, a proper citation or the simple identification of her source could put all that to rest.
Think we'll ever see one?
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
hey John,
no i didnt think it sounded as though you possibly could be.
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
"I don't think the modern hoax theory depends on Mike. "
I actually agree with you on that point, although my contention that he also doesn't know who actually wrote it does make it hard for me to believe it is of 1980s-1990s vintage.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
don't sound so surprised!
But seriously,
what makes you think he wouldn't know where it came from?
Jenni
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
"But seriously,
what makes you think he wouldn't know where it came from? "
I believe that there is one point in this entire fiasco when it is reasonable to assume some semblance of the truth would have been brought forth by Mike Barrett. And that point was when he was faced with losing his home, and he had hired a private detective to help piece together his story, which he hoped to sell to avoid financial disaster. That's the point at which he'd have sung like a bird if he knew who did what and when.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
Sir Robert writes,
"I believe that there is one point in this entire fiasco when it is reasonable to assume some semblance of the truth would have been brought forth by Mike Barrett."
And this says all that needs to be said.
If this is what the alleged old hoax theory is based on, then it is in serious trouble from the very start. Not just because the modern hoax theory neatly explains every problem in the text using only common sense, but because if you base a theory or a position on what you think Mike Barrett would have done, on the expectation of Mike Barrett acting rationally and telling the truth, then you deserve to be suckered in by the man. You deserve, in fact, not to know what happened.
They say there's one born every minute.
I guess they're right,
--John
PS: Sir Robert, have you seem Mike's bank statements from the early days? I have. They are fascinating. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
John, Robert,
Robert,
I see your point. It is of course easy to keep things from people. I don't think it says a lot about anything.
Wasn't Mike trying to prove he did it at that point anyway? I can't recall. time to go find my copy of Ripper Diary.
John,
what are you saying - are you saying Mike deserves what he gets because he confessed?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
No, Jenni,
I'm saying Sir Robert deserves what he gets because he thinks that Mike would have acted rationally and told the truth at some point.
Hope that's clear,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
It is RJ Palmer's hypothesis that Mike took a piece of someone else's fiction and adapted it, possibly with the help of a friend who then penned the result into the infamous scrapbook, after Mike had told Doreen Montgomery that he had come into possession of what he believed to be Jack the Ripper's diary. That would make Mike a forger.
And this is what RJ wrote to me recently on the boards:
As for your 'fury' on the Druitt thread, I'm afraid I don't feel responsible for the suspicions that Barrett has placed squarely on his own shoulders. Sorry. RP
In other words, Mike brought the thing forward and is a proven liar (and once claimed he wrote the diary himself, hoping to go down in history as a famous forger), therefore RJ does not feel responsible for giving him a helping hand, even if his responsibility towards history is compromised by his lack of understanding about what was really going on in 1992 - and what wasn't.
To me, that's the same as saying "Too bad that Mike gets accused of forging the diary - it's his own fault". It might be heartfelt justice, but it ain't history.
And whatever those bank statements tell Mr Know-it-all, it ain't what he thinks it is. But he's talking from experience over one thing - it's easy to get suckered in by Mike's actions.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 05, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
"It is RJ Palmer's hypothesis that Mike took a piece of someone else's fiction and adapted it, possibly with the help of a friend who then penned the result into the infamous scrapbook, after Mike had told Doreen Montgomery that he had come into possession of what he believed to be Jack the Ripper's diary. "
Interesting, and I certainly can't say it's not what happened, but it's a hypothesis. It seems to me that both the Modern Hoax school as well as the Old(er) Hoax theorists are far from having proved their cases.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
Almost.
We almost have a source.
We almost have a specific citation for Caroline's latest attacks.
Unfortunately, the line she has just cited looks absolutely nothing at all like the quotation she offered us from her imaginary poster.
It appears that it's option number 2, people -- "she's misquoting someone so completely that her version is unrecognizable when compared to the original -- in which case, she should be ashamed of herself."
Let's look at the words. I know that's something frowned on by some here in Diary World, but what the heck.
Here's the quote from RJ, that Caroline just offered us:
"As for your 'fury' on the Druitt thread, I'm afraid I don't feel responsible for the suspicions that Barrett has placed squarely on his own shoulders. Sorry."
Now, here's what Caroline had her own imaginary poster saying just before she attacked him:
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Once again:
RJ: "I don't feel responsible for the suspicions that Barrett has placed squarely on his own shoulders."
and
Caroline's version of RJ: "Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Does anyone here seriously think these two citations say the same thing?
This is just completely irresponsible.
RJ has said nothing at all about Mike deserving to go down in history as a forger even if he didn't do it. RJ has said nothing at all about history and truth not being important.
It's just incredible.
There's not even a simple attempt to accurately reflect the words of another on her part.
It's just the brazen rewriting of something someone has said into a completely different and much more ludicrous position and then attacking that position as if it was real.
No wonder she waited so long before identifying her source (if that's what she has indeed just done -- with her it's hard to tell).
I'd be embarrassed too.
If I wrote that this quotation:
"As for your 'fury' on the Druitt thread, I'm afraid I don't feel responsible for the suspicions that Barrett has placed squarely on his own shoulders. Sorry."
says the same this as this quotation:
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
then I too wouldn't want to admit what I was doing.
RJ simply said he did not feel responsible for the fact that people had suspicions about Mike Barrett. He shouldn't feel responsible. He's not. Mike is -- because of the way he has behaved. How has he behaved? Suspiciously. That's why people are suspicious of him. Does anyone really need this explained to them?
What could possibly provoke Caroline into reading this sentence and thinking RJ meant Mike deserved to go down in history as a forger whether he was one or not and that truth and history aren't important?
This is exactly what I have been talking about here for such a long time. Precisely this sort of reading and deceitful rewriting. This sort of patently irresponsible scholarship. This sort of deliberately misleading behavior. This sort of bad thinking that leads to accusations against someone for something they never really said (remember Jenni and the DiTA thread?).
She's done it again.
And she is not going to admit it (again).
And as can clearly be seen just by putting one quote next to the other, Caroline should simply not be believed.
This has been a perfect illustration of how Diary World works, folks. I'm glad you were here for it.
Amazed at the lack of shame,
--John
PS: Sir Robert, only one "school" can account for the historical problems in the text using only existing evidence and simple common sense. The other one can't. And you don't have to believe Mike about anything to know that.
(Message edited by omlor on August 05, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
How about it. Lets just get over the whole whatever Caroline said thing.
I don't personally believe Mike but i do believe that the diary is modern, and by modern i mean within my lifetime. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Jenni,
OK. Once again.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Sorry, Jenni.
I know I promised. But Ally has posted a response to me about Caroline's latest nonsense over on the Female Historians board. I want to respond to it here, since this is now a Diary World debate.
Ally, I know you think Caroline was just offering a general paraphrase about people's opinions here on the boards concerning Mike.
Unfortunately, as you can see from her post above, it turns out she was referring to a specific line she was sent by RJ Palmer. It was that line that she then read (and reads again above) as saying it was Mike's fault and he deserved to go down in history as a forger whether he was or not and truth or history didn't matter. In fact, she repeats that line from RJ above and even says there, directly,
"In other words, Mike brought the thing forward and is a proven liar (and once claimed he wrote the diary himself, hoping to go down in history as a famous forger), therefore RJ does not feel responsible for giving him a helping hand, even if his responsibility towards history is compromised by his lack of understanding about what was really going on in 1992 - and what wasn't.
To me, that's the same as saying 'Too bad that Mike gets accused of forging the diary - it's his own fault.' It might be heartfelt justice, but it ain't history."
So you see, a careful reading indicates that she once again invokes history here and the business of it being Mike's fault and the idea of Mike going down as a forger whether he was or not. And she does so immediately after citing and in direct response to this specific line from RJ Palmer. She even says, "that's the same to me as saying...." So she was not just talking in general terms when she was offering her little paraphrase about what we should not let people get away with. Here, in her own post, she both admits and demonstrates that she was talking specifically about RJ's message to her.
Of course, RJ'S message to her said nothing like what she tells us it said and meant nothing like what she has tried to force it to mean. But that's because she reads and then deceitfully rewrites based solely on her own desire.
In addition to that, even if it had turned out to be the case that Caroline was just paraphrasing a general attitude when she offered this phrase:
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
it would have been a paraphrase of an attitude that has never existed anywhere on these boards and that looks nothing at all like anything anyone has ever written. So it's not like you paraphrasing me in your earlier post on that other thread. There you used a single phrase that summed up approximately what I had been writing. Here we find a phrase that sums up something that no one has been writing and that in no way reflects anyone's position, let alone the general position of many here on the boards.
So even if this had been just an innocent paraphrase of a general attitude, it still would have been completely inaccurate and her subsequent arguments against it would have been utterly irrelevant at best and downright deceitful at worst.
There are only two choices, Ally. Either she translated RJ's comment into a completely unrecognizable one -- which is bad scholarship and irresponsible besides -- or she created a straw man argument of unrecognizable proportions, which is horrible logic, the results of which must be considered completely invalid.
Her own post above indicates that the first choice seems to be the relevant one in this case -- but either way the results are much the same, intellectually speaking.
I'm more than happy to continue to discuss this if you'd like and to re-read the entire set of posts closely and with more attention, but I think the record here speaks for itself.
Thanks, and thanks for following me to a diary thread to hash this out.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 05, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
One other thing, while I wait for Ally to respond.
None of this would have been necessary, this entire discussion today could have avoided, if Caroline had simply come forward, immediately upon being asked, and explained precisely whose position she was referring to in her post.
She could have stated clearly whether she was in fact paraphrasing a general attitude with her remark and then informed us all where she found this attitude here on the boards or she could have said explicitly, as she finally did above, that RJ sent her a thought which to her was the same as saying....
But as usual, she preferred to let time go by and to hint and to imply rather than to respond promptly and directly to simple questions.
And that's why Diary World is such fun.
All the best,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
It's worse than explaining to my sped students. John, Caroline made a generalization on the Female Hist. thread about the type of argument she believes occurs here on the boards. She said "them". Above, she gives an example of the type of statement that supports her generalization.
There is absolutely nothing to support your harangue that she was ever claiming to quote a specific poster. Nothing.
Now then you make this statement:
"In addition to that, even if it had turned out to be the case that Caroline was just paraphrasing a general attitude.." blah blah.
A small concession, but on your way to making a total admit of defeat, Caroline can do it, every rare once in a while, I wonder if you can.
Caroline, was not, and I repeat, not paraphrasing or quoting. She was expressing a generalization about what she feels is the general attitude THAT IS expressed constantly on the boards: That Mike is a liar and therefore, there is not a lot of doubt that he could be the person who forged it and no one really cares whether they are damaging his rep, because he is a proven liar.
Once again John, she was not paraphrasing, nor quoting, she was expressing a generalization of an attitude that she finds prevalent on the boards. Whether you agree with her assessment that this attitude is real is irrelevant. You have harangued her about a quote she never claimed was a direct quote. You were wrong.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Ally,
OK, let's go back and look at the posts.
Caroline said that we should not "let them get away with,"
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Now, I asked who "them" was? I did it simply and directly. I can link you to the post. Of course, I got no answer.
I asked this because no one had ever written anything even remotely like this here on the boards.
Then, if you will recall, I wrote this post:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/board-profile.cgi?action=editpost&postid=137842&page=4922/9428
In it, I listed three possibilities. One of them, by the way, was indeed that she had just made this whole thing up.
It was option number three, and it read "3.) or no one has ever said anything like this and she just made it up because it's easier for her to debate against a position that no one actually holds than it is to respond to real people's real positions -- in which case she's simply being loony.
Now, I thought from the very first that this was one possibility, as you can see.
However, her subsequent post to this thread, to be found here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=137952#POST137952
indicates clearly that option three was not the correct one, after all.
For it is here that Caroline demonstrates quite clearly and precisely that her earlier quote about Mike did it and even if he didn't he should go down as a forger and history and truth don't matter turns out to be her reaction to a line sent her by RJ which she finally had the decency to identify and cite specifically.
Then she repeats her butchered paraphrase of it so that we can be sure that this was who she meant when she said we should not let them get away with saying this sort of thing.
I know this because she uses the very same words once again, she once again tells us that to her this "is the same as saying" that Mike should go down as a forger whether he was one or not and that history and truth don't matter.
So a careful reading identifies the source of her original remark after all.
Of course, because she so violently butchers the meaning in this original remark, even here in the post above that I have just linked you to, I can understand why you might not recognize it at first glance.
In addition to that, I have said all along that she might just be making this whole thing up and had no one in mind and was creating a straw man to argue against because she couldn't argue with real people's real positions. I said that from my very first post on the matter. So I have always included your reading in the scope of possible readings and I have detailed for you the irresponsibility and bad scholarship and general looniness that would characterize such a reading. Indeed, I included all of these as possibilities in each post I wrote about her recent attacks.
Finally, I should point out that your paraphrase of her paraphrased quotation is also inaccurate.
You have her saying:
"Mike is a liar and therefore, there is not a lot of doubt that he could be the person who forged it and no one really cares whether they are damaging his rep, because he is a proven liar."
But what she wrote was:
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
These two citations are also very different. Yours makes a different argument than hers. Hers says that history and truth don't matter and that Mike should be known as a forger whether he was one or not. That's not at all what yours says. And that's not at all what anyone here has ever written or said.
You must read all of the posts she and I have written about this subject, and I think you'll see that I have indeed considered each of these possibilities and presented the logical and ethical problems within each and that after reading the recent post of hers above carefully, it was clear which possibility proved to be the correct one. She was attacking RJ and his claim. She makes this clear by spelling it out once again for us all, eight posts above us.
If you want, I can reproduce that entire post and go line by line through to demonstrate precisely how it indicates that this line was the one being referenced in her original, unattributed attack.
Also, she herself refused for some time to tell anyone, even after being asked simply and directly, who she was referring to or whether she was paraphrasing or not. So any responsibility for what readings became available given this refusal rests solely with her.
I was not wrong about this. I am not wrong about this. And I'm happy to keep reading the words on the screen over and over again if you'd like in the hopes that you might realize just what she is saying above and its relationship to what she said elsewhere after RJ had written the specific line she has finally cited.
I have all the time in the world.
--John
PS: By the way, I agree that it turns out she was clearly not quoting a specific poster. She was referring to a specific poster, and paraphrasing him, very badly.
(Message edited by omlor on August 05, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Technical glitch:
I've just noticed that the first link in my post to Ally above has not appeared correctly.
It should have been:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=137842#POST137842
That's where I initially offered all three possible readings of Caroline's remarks, long before Ally came on the scene.
Thanks, especially to all those who are still reading this especially useful discussion.
Incidentally, there is a simple way to move this forward -- we could just ask Caroline what she was thinking when she wrote that initial quote, if she had RJ's line to her or RJ's specific position regarding Mike (as she saw it) in mind or not.
Of course, I'm not sure what would happen when and if she told us.
Still enjoying the chance to demonstrate the problems with her remarks in any case,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
The bottom line is, you are the worst person here for picking up on some insignificant piece of meaningless drivel and hounding it into the ground. You do it constantly and you take up thread after thread, even crossing threads that have absolutely nothing to do with this stupid Diary and hounding it there too. And while you delight in hounding others for their mistakes, you say nothing about your own (as in your faulty memory of events- specifically that it was Karoline who you and Caz jumped for claiming to know something and then refusing to divulge what it was, not Mel, Mel just got pulled in like he always does because, hey, everything was his fault anyway).
Bottom line is this: Anyone with half a brain reading Caroline's initial post would have taken it as a generalization of her opinion of the attitude on these boards. Only you feel this is worthy of multiple threads and multiple posts asking her who she was quoting.
And while your initial posts may have asked three questions that recognized she was generalizing, your subsequent posts quickly devolved into accusing her of attacking and quoting a specific poster and therefore all of your follow up arguments were, oh how did you just so recently phrase it, but do allow me to paraphrase, "inaccurate and.. subsequent arguments against it would have been utterly irrelevant at best and downright deceitful at worst."
(Message edited by Ally on August 06, 2005)
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
The bottom line is: You are trying to convince me of what was in Caroline's mind when she wrote those words. You are trying to convince me that she was not thinking of RJ or or of RJ's line about Mike when she put those words in those quotes. I don't believe you. I don't believe you because her post on this thread indicates otherwise.
And, for the record, it was Melvin who got jumped on for saying he knew the identities of the three forgers but wasn't going to say here who they were.
The bottom line is that anyone who had read all of Caroline's posts on the subject, including the one where she restates the claim here above, would realize who she was talking about. And anyone who had read all of my posts on the subject would realize that I had already included your reading of her words in my own as one of my original "three possibilities" even before I had read Caroline's post here.
And, if you revisit all of my subsequent posts, you'll see that at some point in each one I was careful to say that I hoped Caroline was NOT just making this up and that he had a specific source in mind and that she would do the proper thing and reveal it. Finally, she did. Then I didn't have to write that anymore.
Now, if Caroline wants to come here and tell us that she was NOT thinking of RJ or his line to her when she wrote those words, I'll happily ask her a completely different set of questions.
Otherwise, I'm happy with what I have ben saying all along.
And that's the bottom line.
But I'm not doing much today, so feel free to continue this discussion. I like where it's going and what it illustrates.
All the best,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
And one other thing, since we're going for accuracy here, even about "insignificant pieces of meaningless drivel." A quick look at the record reveals that I was not the one to start talking about "this stupid Diary" on the Female Historians thread. In fact,I wasn't even one of the first three people to do it.
I just went over and checked.
Indeed, I can't find any other non-diary thread where I went and began a discussion about "this stupid Diary." I haven't checked them all yet, so if someone can find one where I began a discussion about the diary when one was not already taking place, I'll happily admit to doing so. But so far all I can find are infections started by others. I tend to stay away from most non-diary threads. To tell the truth, I don't even read many of them.
Thanks,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Ah I see John, so you are allowed to view all the possible interpretations of Caroline's words and pick the variation you like best and harp on that one, crossing over into threads so that people do not even have the original source material in front of them to judge for themselves whether your interpretation is the correct one, and we are supposed to accept that when you do it, it is good scholarship and fair argument. But when Caroline posts her interpretations, that is bad scholarship and deceitful. Thanks for finally clarifying exactly where you stand.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1991
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
This is quite hilarious.
RJ clearly implied that the responsibility for the suspicions against Mike was all Mike's, because of his behaviour. Much the same has been said by others before him, and it will again.
That in itself may be fair comment, coming from someone who only knows the basics - ie diary comes forward, Mike confesses to forging it. What else do we need to know? Hmmm?
That was a paraphrase of one of RJ's very first posts on the topic, many moons ago.
But recently, no doubt having read as much about the saga as has been published to date, RJ has talked about his hypothesis that has Mike down as a diary forger/fraudster.
Well excuse me for thinking this is lazyitis, and that RJ would have been a lot more careful with his unevidenced thoughts if Mike had been - how shall we say? A bit more like Albert Johnson?
There now - I'm sure that will keep someone's fingers typing away busily (or busy-bodily) while I slope off to the East End to hear Alan Sharp's talk. No prizes for guessing whose efforts will be more illuminating.
Three, two, one... off he goes with his obsession.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Yes, Ally, that was a clear and accurate summary of what I just wrote. Thank you.
Actually, by the way, the record indicates that it was Caroline who initially crossed over threads. She made her original comment in quotes on the Female Historians thread and then finally identified the subject of it here on this thread. I responded over on the Female Historians thread initially and then, when the subject of who Caroline meant arose over here, in part because she uttered a similar phrase in responding to Lars/Mr. Poster and in part because Jenni asked who Caroline meant, I came here to respond. And it was here that she finally identified the subject of her original comment.
And people here always have "the original source material" in front of them (unless it was in Pub Talk and vanished) because they have a mouse and can move easily from thread to thread. That's one of the great things about the internet.
But you are correct that I am happy to let people judge my readings for themselves.
I also have nothing at all against Caroline posting "her interpretations." Of course, I reserve the right to place her interpretations next to what is being interpreted, whether that is a line written by RJ or anyone else (or even if it is the entire body of work about the diary written here), and see if her interpretation remotely resembles in any way whatsoever the words being interpreted. In this case, it did not.
RJ did not say anything that, in its meaning, even vaguely resembles "Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Neither, by the way, has anyone else here that I have ever seen.
And that's the bottom line.
Thanks again for the chance to point this out,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 06, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
And as I was typing that, Caroline has kindly shown up and confirmed that RJ's comments were in fact the source of her original remarks.
Thank you, Caroline. That was at least honest.
Nevertheless, until and unless you can show me where RJ or anyone has ever said anything that remotely resembles the words below, I will stand by my initial critical reading of this citation as a grossly inaccurate and misleading and even unrecognizable caricature.
Where has RJ or anyone ever written anything that even remotely resembles: "Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Saying that he thinks Mike did it or that he thinks Mike is a forger is most certainly not the same as saying whether Mike did or not he should go down in history as a forger and the truth and history do not matter.
Not in the least.
I have never seen anyone ever say that they feel Mike deserves to go down in history as a forger whether he was or not and that the truth and history don't matter.
So it seems to me quite clear that you were deliberately stating something no one has ever said and then criticizing that position (as RJ's, we now know).
That's simply inaccurate and irresponsible.
But I suspect you knew that, too.
Thanks again, for the confirmation.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 06, 2005) |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
The fact of the matter John is that you are willfully missing the point. Caroline may well indeed have been thinking of RJ when she made her generalization, just as at some point in the future when I make a generalization such as, "Some people are pompous, asswipes who need to dial back on their OCD" I may well be thinking of you, but the bare fact of the matter is that you have accused Caroline of directly quoting someone, and she never did, nor claimed to.
You were wrong. Once again: you accused and went on several threads saying that Caroline had directly quoted someone and refused to identify the source, and you were wrong. You did it because you are incapable of just letting something go. As in your stating about 2 hours ago that you had no time for this today, but here you are several posts later, still harping despite the fact that you clearly and repeatedly stated that Caroline directly quoted a poster and refused to identify the source, and she never claimed to. That's actually the bottom line.
So when you are reaming someone else for their poor scholarship, remember that. You chose the version you liked best and went with it. Everyone else is entitled to as well, regardless of whether you like it or not and the fact that Caroline feels the need to justify herself to you in this instance is just pathetic.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
Hey, you folks, this is tedious stuff.
I'm perfectly Happy with whatever Caroline does with my former posts. She has my blessing.
The only two words I take issue with are "History Suffers." Where was the lightening bolt when those were typed? Barrett gets blamed, and "history suffers."
Actually, no, non-history suffers.
I've come to realize (I'm very slow!) that everything that goes on here is always the same old tired bit about who needs to prove what. But my legs are tired, and I know if I chase the guy running up the sideline the quarter-back is only gonna hand off the ball to the tail-back. So I simply retract all previous theories and theorizing. I repent with one observation.
The Diary aint history without the bona fides. And there's no short-cut to the History books. Me not saying this or that about Barrett doesn't help the Diary one iota. So history doesn't suffer. Herman Herodotus in the year 2088 is still gonna want that provenance, Caz. Without it, it's just a suspicious and silly document without any credibility. Which slowly, surely, brings the 'stagnant pond' seeping back into your own basement. Somehow, you need to pull some credibility out of all this mess that Mike left you. Mike. Not me, Mike. Good luck with that.
I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be that the biggest shot-in-the foot that the Diary received wasn't from Mel or Kenneth or John, but from Mike and Anne. And don't forget Mr. Feldman. They're the insurmountable problem, no one else. Somehow, someone in the diary camp has gotta make people believe these folks again, or old Herman 2088 is still gonna think this thing is bunk. And how is anyone else going to accomplish that? Historians have this real picky habit of judging the credibility of their souces: see Matt Packer and Donald McCormick for further details.
You can argue ink for a thousand years and keep sniffing for clues in the OED, but what the Diary really ultimately lacks is that almost undefinable essence known as credibility. It can't be bought nor manufactured.
So in short, your fury is misplaced. I'm not your problem, dearie. Barrett is your problem, not mine. Like I said, Good luck with that. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Thanks for wishing me good luck. The whole mess is being sorted out, and Mike's confession - if I have anything to do with it - will go down in history as the incredible lie that it has been from day one.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Ally,
First of all the problem with the ad hominens is that I already know exactly what I am and so does everyone else. I admit it freely. So you're merely stating the obvious.
Now then, as to actual content...
If you return to my original post, you'll see that I offered three possibilities. Within that discussion and within every post thereafter, I certainly allowed for the possibility that Caroline's remarks, although they were in quotations, were her paraphrase of something she had already read. I was asking what it was. For some considerable time, she wouldn't say. Then she did. Once I learned that, I was able to determine how accurate a paraphrase it was.
It was a horrible, unrecognizable one.
I said there was a possibility that she was directly quoting someone and I also said, repeatedly, that she might be paraphrasing something or someone she had read or seen or she might be just making the whole thing up.
In fact, she was doing both the second and third things in a way, since her version of what RJ actually wrote is more made up than anything else.
You suggested she was just making a generalization about an opinion often found on these boards, without having a specific source in mind.
In fact, these were your words:
"She was expressing a generalization about what she feels is the general attitude THAT IS expressed constantly on the boards."
It turns out you were wrong. She was nice enough to come here and tell us that she was talking specifically about RJ and what he had written to her.
Of course, what he had written to her looked nothing like what she wrote, but that's par for the course.
I was not wrong -- Caroline did have a source in mind and that source said nothing at all even remotely like what Caroline claimed, just as I thought all along.
And I am glad that my scholar's suspicions on this point proved to be correct.
But I think what we have here now is a simple problem with reading.
And here's some evidence for it.
Ally, you have just written this:
"You did it because you are incapable of just letting something go. As in your stating about 2 hours ago that you had no time for this today, but here you are several posts later, still harping..."
Now, here's what I wrote two hours ago about my time today:
"But I'm not doing much today, so feel free to continue this discussion. I like where it's going and what it illustrates."
You see the problem. I actually wrote exactly the opposite of what you said I wrote.
I said I wasn't doing much so I was happy to discuss this with you, especially because I liked what it demonstrated.
I said I wasn't doing much today so we could keep talking about this. You read that to mean I had no time to talk about this today.
I think that might be our problem here.
Want to keep going, Ally? It's Diary world and this is the fun stuff.
--John
RJ: Nice post. And you're right. Nothing ever happens here anyway.
(Message edited by omlor on August 06, 2005) |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
John,
Let's take these in order: Your argument-"I already know exactly what I am and so does everyone else. I admit it freely. So you're merely stating the obvious."
By that logic, you could say the same about Caroline, so you are merely stating the obvious in your incessant harping as I do in mine. I do try to limit mine to every couple of weeks though.
As for the rest of your drivel, it was not a paraphrase, you know it was not a paraphrase, it was a generalization about an attitude she feels is prevalent on the boards.
Caroline did not say that she was paraphrasing RJ in what she wrote on the FH board, her response was to SRA asking: "Just curious...and I frankly don't care who said what and when...I'd like to start afresh.
Are there posters that believe Mike Barrett was the author of the Diary, and when I say author I mean either the composer of the document, or the physical writer of the Diary ? "
In no way does she say that RJ was the quoted source material for her statement on the FH board.
Now, as she was making a generalization on the FH board, this RJ quote is a typical example of the type of thing she is referring to, but, and once again, try to absorb, in no way does she ever state that she was paraphrasing or quoting RJ.
She made a generalization. She gave an example of the type of thing that supports her generalization, but in no way did she ever claim to be paraphrasing or quoting RJ.
As for the point about what you had to do with your time. You are right, I misread you.
See I can admit when I misread something. So can Caroline. It appears you are the only one who can't.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
it was not a paraphrase, you know it was not a paraphrase
But it was like a paraphrase. And are you sure it wasn't part of a larger metaparaphrase?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
This is getting Stu Pidnow.
Hi everyone,
only in diary world could we argue this long about something so tiny and insignificant. For this long, I mean, we really are arguing about nothing arent we?
It is clear what Caroline meant, whether we agree or not is another matter, but its clear what she meant.
Now I might want to take issue with the idea that the 'modern hoax theory' 'relies' on Mike Barrett having written the diary. Since I don't think it relies on anything - if there is one such theory at all. I might want to take issue with the implication of what Caroline was saying. But for crying out loud , isn't it obvious, at least now, exactly what she meant?
Now I remember being in the playground this is getting awfully similar. Newsflash, we are all adults and none of us are in the playground. At least i had a look and I can't see any swings!
This is seriously getting annoying now.
Or maybe, maybe its just me, I don't know. All I know is this is Bor Ingme. Or perhaps its me who's boring? I could probably have bored through to the earth's core in the time this has taken!!!!!!
All I am suggesting here is that if we could get back to the Poste house, at some point before I die, that would probably be for the best.
Just a suggestion,
Jenni
ps Ally, what are sped students? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Just for fun, let's go backwards.
Thanks for admitting that you misread me. I have not heard Caroline say that she misread RJ, although she did, blatantly. And when I see some evidence that I misread Caroline, I'll admit it.
If you can show me any place anywhere in Caroline's post above responding to our posts where says she was just making a "generalization" about a prevalent attitude when she put those words in quotes, I'll admit that I misread her as thinking specifically about RJ and his position.
I can show you several places where she uses the same language she used in her original remarks in quotations to subsequently refer directly to RJ's line that started this whole mess (which appeared by the way, directed to Caroline on a different thread, but before Caroline's remarks in quotations on the FH thread). And, in responding to us here on this thread, it seems apparent that she has only RJ in mind in this case, no one or nothing else is mentioned. In fact, this "generalization" of a prevalent "attitude" on the boards thing seems to be only in your own head, I can't find a specific textual reference to it in anything Caroline has written anywhere concerning this phrase:
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
That, it turns out, as she has just again demonstrated above, was her version of RJ's position.
Of course, by responding here, you afford me another chance to point out that it looks nothing at all like RJ's position in anything he has ever written on these boards.
And that's the point I think is crucial here.
Of course, the fact that it looks nothing at all like anything anyone has ever written on these boards is also worth noting.
She was giving her version of RJ's position when she wrote what she did on the FH boards, she was giving her version of RJ's position when she wrote what she did here yesterday and she was giving her version of RJ's position when she kindly wrote what she did this morning by way of explanation. In every case, her version looks nothing at all like what RJ actually wrote. And that happens a lot.
Anything else?
No, that's all I have for now.
Please respond Ally, so we can look more closely at what Caroline has written about people's positions and how it compares to what they have actually said.
Thanks,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 06, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on August 06, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hi Chris and Jenni,
I've just seen your posts, as I was typing to Ally.
OK, fair enough. I see no evidence anywhere than anyone, including and especially RJ has ever said anything like:
"Oh well, he brought the thing forward and is a proven liar, therefore if he goes down in history as a forger he's only got himself to blame. Too bad if it's not the truth and history suffers accordingly."
Put it this way -- that's not a generalization, that's not a paraphrase, that's not a citation -- that's a bad joke. It's an unrecognizable caricature of a position no one holds.
The day I see someone here who actually thinks history and truth in this case don't matter and Mike deserves to go down as a forger whether he was one or not, I'll retract all these remarks happily.
But no one here has ever said or even implied such a thing, so it should not be allowed to stand.
It's just stupid and misleading to suggest that RJ or anyone else has ever taken such a position.
If everyone understands that point, I'll stop.
Although this was fun, in a delightfully perverse weekend sort of way.
All the best,
--John
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
John,
You are the one who is saying that her post claimed to be a direct quote, so how about you show me any place where she claimed that she was a.) quoting a specific poster or b.) that she was quoting RJ.
She doesn't have to state that she was making a generalization, it was rather obvious, people tend to start out generalizations with markers like "oh well". But since you are the one who keeps claiming she was making a direct quote, tell me where she said that she was quoting someone and no, the simple fact that she used quotation marks is not enough. People use quotations all the time when they are not specifically quoting, so don't even attempt that lame argument.
You choose to believe what you choose to believe and frankly you can interpret it any way you choose, just as Caroline can interpet RJ's arguments however she chooses, but your ludicrous claim that she was directly quoting is therefore just as wrong, fallible and shoddy scholarship as anything she has ever posted.
And the bottom line is, even if she were quoting RJ directly and wrongly, it still does not change the fact that your incessant harping on it is stupid, pointless, petty and petulant.
As I said to someone earlier, you are like an irritating chihuahua nipping heels and yapping just to make noise.
This is the exact same thing that both you and Caroline did with Melvin Harris. There was loads of actual points of contention that could have been examined but the threads got so bogged down in your endless yapping about typos, attitude and other irrelevant bullsh*t that the threads became clogged with whining.
No one is arguing the diary anymore, they are simply arguing against each other. You have hardly made a single significant post in months on the subject matter of the diary. Instead, post after post dedicated to bitching about Caroline's style of arguing and her tactics rather than anything remotely related to real argument.
And I admit completely I do it too, but as I said, I am trying to keep it on a at minimum bi-weekly rather than daily basis. And I will be the first to admit that I know it's gotten old. Even I am tired of it and I cherish grudges long past the point where any sane person would let it go.
Bottom line: whether Caroline was directly mis-quoting RJ or not, it's a petulant argument that doesn't further the Diary debate one bit.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
One small good-bye, Chris and Jenni, and then an end.
Ally, once again, I said one of the possibilities was that she was offering a direct quote. I also said, in each post, that there were other possibilities, including the one that turned out to be true. And I asked, in my posts, repeatedly and directly, who or what she was talking about.
The rest of your post seems to dissolve into a litany of ad hominems, so I'll just say this...
I have, since my last post, gone back and re-read our entire exchange starting yesterday and proceeding all the way to the end (now including this last post of yours). I also re-read everything Caroline has had to say on the matter and everything I wrote concerning what she said.
I find that I am perfectly content with the record here as it stands right now. In fact, I'm actually happy with it.
So thank you for playing along and giving me a chance to make my points.
I think it's clear that Caroline's words reflected nothing that anyone here has ever said or even implied. I think it's clear that no one here has ever suggested that Mike deserves to go down in history as a forger whether he was one or not and that the truth and history don't matter.
I'm glad of that.
I hope we get to do this again sometime.
All the best,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
John,
I am just as happy to end this here as you are. Before I go however, I just want to point out one small little detail. In your posts on the FH thread on these times and dates: Friday, August 05, 2005 - 10:55 am:, Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:39 am:, Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:00 am, August 03, 2005 - 1:09 pm, you directly accuse Caroline of quoting someone and refusing to provide a source. You do not give any other possibilities despite your inaccurate post above that said you allowed for other possibilities in every subsequent post. You did not. You say she was quoting someone and not providing a source.
When I asked you above to show me where Caroline ever said she was quoting someone, rather than directly responded, you posted your own version of a diversionary tactic, that you were perfectly content with your version of events, but you did not actually respond to my point becaue you cannot show me a single post that said she was quoting RJ. An evasive tactic to avoid a direct answer...hmmm. Something which I do believe you quite often accuse Caroline of doing as evidenced by your post this very morning on the Pub Talk thread.
It has been enlightening. Ciao for now.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Ally cites my posts on the FH thread. This is a useful opportunity.
Here are a few lines from the first one I posted there after Caroline offered her little paraphrase. The "her" is Caroline:
"I suppose her actually telling us who she is quoting (or paraphrasing) here is too much to ask. After all, citing sources and specific references and dealing with the words people actually write would indicate a certain level of simple responsibility and decent scholarship."
Here are a few lines from the second post I posted, after citing Caroline's words again about what we should not let "them" get away with:
"Now, the crucial question is...
"What "them?" Who said this (or anything like this)? When? Where?
I do hope Caroline will provide us with a source or citation or explanation for this, the way any respectable writer using (or creating) such a quotation would.
"If not, then I think we can safely assume no one has ever said any such thing and that she knows this and is being deliberately deceitful in attacking a position no one holds."
Notice -- "Who said this (or anything like this)?" and "citation or explanation". I was choosing my words carefully.
Here are a few lines from my third post on that subject, after citing Caroline's paraphrase again:
"Caroline claims it represents the position of someone here, but she won't say who. Of course, that doesn't stop her from attacking this position as if it truly were someone's."
Notice, I still am not arguing she is directly quoting anyone, I am careful to say she is claiming to represent someone's position, and I have included the possibility of paraphrase or simply just creation in earlier posts as well.
Here are a few lines from my next post on the topic on that thread:
"If one person in the discussion is simply willing to use unattributed and perhaps even totally fictional positions and quotations in their own work, then it immediately renders everything else they might write untrustworthy."
Notice, "positions" as well as "quotations." Perhaps Ally would have had me say "positions or quotations." Fine.
The next post of mine was written in response to Jenni who (correctly, it turns out) identified RJ as the subject of Caroline's nonsensical paraphrase. I demonstrated that Caroline's words did not accurately reflect what RJ had written, and then I wrote this:
"If Caroline, or anyone for that matter, believe these two citations say the same thing, then perhaps we do NOT all speak the same language.
"If she was offering her quotation as a fair and accurate representation of the one you've just cited, then she really should be ashamed of herself.
"In any case, the only reason we have to play this stupid little guessing game is because Caroline has not been responsible enough to cite her source directly or to identify who she's talking about or to offer even a single reference for her mysterious attacks."
Notice -- "who she's talking about". Not who she is quoting. Again, I was very careful with my language here.
It was at that point that Ally joined in and this discussion moved to this thread.
Those were lines from every single one of my posts on the subject concerning these remarks by Caroline (apart from a PS in one post to Chris pointing out that Caroline had still not given us a source or told us who she was talking about, and even there I use the phrase "undocumented sources and positions"). I believe that covers every post in Ally's list.
Now perhaps everyone can see exactly why I am happy with the way the record stands.
I hope that was a "direct" enough answer.
--John (citing the record)
PS: Close reading -- it's fun. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Hello
Unfortunately, he doesn't have anything to say of any significance
Ooooh thats rich coming from where it does. "Come in pot....this is kettle calling". Not to mention "puffery and bluster". Anyhooo...the only definition I can find for the former is "Flattering, often exaggerated praise and publicity, especially when used for promotional purposes" and I don't see how that applies but maybe the mother tongue is evolving at a faster rate across the pond. Then again, I'm a fairly humble character and I do not threaten anyone so I can't see how bluster applies either. I'll have to ask Lars if these could apply to him.....
Regarding professional safety....I can only reply that the next time I have to go to court for custody of the kids I think it would be advantageous not to have to explain to the (female) judge why hanging out on a forum thats obsessed with a whorekiller makes me a good dad. My boss probably thinks that an interest in killing whores is a positive career asset.....
The case for Mike having written it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. But then again so is the argument for it being an old forgery. So I'm not sure its worth having. And as the only potential source of "new" evidence seems to be chloroacetamide, I'm going to risk asking has there been any developments on the analysis front?
Mr P.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
