|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 03, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through May 03, 2001
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 06:29 am |        | My name is Maria Birchwood and I never ever thought that I of all people would be writing on this board as my interest in Jack the Ripper goes as far as being one of my husband 's amusements and my knowledge of the subject limited to the grand total of two books, Druitt and the Duke of Clarence which have been largely dismissed by the experts as fantasy. Apart from that, my knowledge of the subject is zilch ! and therefore I have nothing to contribute. However my reason for writing is to protest most strongly on the crititism leveled at Rosie Howells who organized the last conference and I have to say I attended that conference only to accompany my husband and fully expecting to be bored to death by it, but to my delight and surprise, thanks to Rosie who is a marvelous organizer down to the minutest detail, she had forseen and made arrangements for those poor wives like myself too!!! Far from being bored, I had the pleasure of being introduced to Mrs. Rumbellow a charming lady who has an interest in Art like myself, Anna Haslam another artist and among the many others Rosie found time to introduce us, was Mr. Fido, the man who is now ungratefully complaining. I have to say: come on, Fido, give credit where credit is due; you know full well, everyone who attended that conference had a great time. We were treated like a VIP's in fact, and I am not alone to say that all the ladies who attended were so impressed with Rosies handling of the Conference that we made a collection to get flowers for her, as a thank-you for all she did to make the event the success that it obviously was. There was something for everyone, we even had a musical show, the schedule of the programmes went smoothly, the food was delicious, everyone I met will agree with me that they had an enjoyable time for many years to remember it. Another thing is that as far as Iam aware, you do not need an invitation to attend a Conference unless you are a guest speaker or a a guest of honor like a member of the Royal family. It is customary to simply ask for details for any given conference, contact the organizers, pay your way, like everyone else and go!! If someone did not attend because they were too grand to attend without an invitation that is their hard luck!! It does not surprise me however, that Rosie made every effort to contact the man. This is not customary or necessary, but that is the way she is : going out of her way to please everyone. I should also point out that when I was at her house last November, the organizers of the conference called her in a panic to pick her brains on how to organize the next conference!
Maria Birchwood |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 07:15 am | | Karoline first,
I am sorry if my remarks offended you. Yours offended me. Alegria's didn't, because she restricted herself to expressing an opinion on the points at issue and disagreeing with mine without dropping any insinuations that I was making them in bad faith or evasively, as you are again doing. I have NEVER suggested that I do not remember the name of either the publisher I spoke to in January or the LBC producer who took Melvin's calls 12 years ago. I have said that I will not publish the name of the former to expose him to badgering, nor attempt to trace the whereabouts of the latter from Cape Cod (and if I did, the same inhibition would apply).
If you deny making any insinuations, I suggest that you take up with Tom - a newcomer to the boards, a reader who I believe feels nothiing but respect for Melvin Harris, and a stranger to me - how he comes to feel that you did (and in your last post do). (If he's prepared to spend the time on it). I also suggest that this takes place off the boards. Plenty of people have indicated that they don't like this constant squabbling about what was or wasn't said.
Now, you and I have shown that we can exchange perfectly amicable observations on other matters, like chasing down quotations for fun. As a matter of courtesy to other people, I earnestly suggest that we restrict ourselves to things that can be said without cat-calling. I shouldn't have bothered to pick up your 'disingenuous' remark (beyond what I had done in responding to it directly without, I hope, being offensive)had not Peter, for no apparent reason, decided to push himself into the discussion. I couldn't and can't be bothered to go back and look for the earliest examples of the argumentative techniques you use that I found offensive, since there was an obvious one lying immediately to hand. I certainly apologize for thus taking a second bite at the cherry, but it wasn't intended to offend you.
And I repeat my apology for any distress my possibly intemperate remarks have caused you, and hope we can leave it there.
Mrs Birchwood,
If you would devote as much time to studying the thread on which you comment as you do on writing an attack on me, you would see that I have NEVER made any complaint about the conference organisers. Tom Wescott criticized Melvyn Fairclough for his attacks on other Ripper writers and asked if he was being unfair. I immediately re-read Melvyn's piece, and concluded that Tom was indeed being unfair, as Melvyn disagreed with other writers' arguments without attacking their personalities or behaviour; the only adverse criticism of that kind he made was of the conference organisers, and on that I could express no opinion whatsoever as I didn't know anything about it. And so I said that it fell to them to answer it. (After all, it's highly unlikely that I would be the only person stimulated by Tom's posting to go back and see what Melvyn had said which I didn't remember as being offensive. So their good name was being exposed to criticism in ways that had nothing to do with me, and which I found so unpersuasive that I hadn't even remembered it had been made until encouraged by Tom's remarks to have another look at Jakobowski and Braun).
Stewart and Rosie answered, and while they expressed some indignation at having to do so for a second time, this can hardly be laid at my door as 'ungrateful', since their original answer was made to the publisher who, to the best of my knowledge, has never printed it or made a retraction. I therefore welcomed their putting the full facts before the world on the boards.
Much as I approve of wifely loyalty, I suggest that you have an equal duty to the world to make sure that you are dealing fairly and squarely with the matters in dispute before taking issue with somebody whose arguments with Peter were about an entirely different matter.
And finally, David and Ivor, you are an example to us all, and unless I can be shown very strong reason, I shall not respond to anything further said about either my alleged offensiveness to Karoline or my invitation to Stewart and Rosie to comment on Melvyn's adverse criticism of them.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 09:00 am | | Well,
much as expected, once again, Martin has refused to actually provide any evidence to back up his allegations.
He claims I have 'insinuated' unpleasant things about him, refuses to make the small effort to quote one example and now departs from the scene. How ethical is that one has to wonder.
But I can see from past experience that nothing will persuade him to actually show what these 'insinuations' I am supposed to have made against him actually are. So, I accept his incomplete apology as the best that can be hoped for and I advise him to make certain in future not to make allegations he can't substantiate. Or at least not to do it quite as often as seems to be his present habit.
Caz, since you think it is over-sensitive of me to ask for some justification for being called dishonest stupid and incompetent - I take it you would have no objection to anyone using such language against Shirley Harrison, Anne Graham or Paul Begg?
And neither would Martin?
In which case - why have either of you ever criticised Harris for making just the same kind of personal remarks?
Do I take it it's wrong for Harris to do it - but okay for you and your friends?
Do feel free to have the last word if you want to. I don't think i have any more to add.
Karoline |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 09:23 am | | I meant what I said and I said what I meant -
No further responses, one hundred per cent.
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 11:08 am | | Karoline
It is a pity that Peter has thought it necessary to reopen these matters, but if you take the time to carefully review all your posts leading up to Martin’s outburst you will have little difficulty in seeing where you made insinuations. And if you can’t see them yourself, you may like to ponder why others can.
Was Martin's outburst justified? Did you provoke it? I think so on both counts. You asked for evidence for the A to Z entry about Melvin and why it seemed that he was singled out for comment. A long and detailed reply was provided. For some reason you did not read it, did not recall it or did not understand it. You did not - and still haven't - commented on it. Your attention was directed to it a couple of times. Finally Martin rather more forcibly commented on it. You then posted on 24 April 2001 Martin, I have scoured the posts and I can't find where either you or Paul have provided any evidence to justify a single one of your claims. All I can find are allegations 'backed up' by more allegations. And you concluded that post: Personally i'm losing my ability to stomach much more of this whole thing. It's not the most edifying example of human nature I have to admit. And in a post to Yaz on that same day you wrote: To suggest we just look at Harris's books to find our answers is to miss the point completely. It's not Harris's books that are being attacked - it's Harris himself. His competence, his reliability, his honesty - his private letters even.
Apart from the fact that you had already been asked to cite examples of Melvin’s honesty being questioned - Paul Begg on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 11:31 am, By Caroline Anne Morris on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 12:10 pm – and did not respond, you also repeatedly ignored or chose not to acknowledge or comment on the fact that Melvin’s so-called private letter was an invitation to publish the material it contained, which in anybody’s book puts an entirely different light on the meaning of ‘private’!
However, Martin's frustration with you now boiled over into an admission that he did not know whether your failure to find the post was mere stupidity, incompetent searching, or intellectual dishonesty. Martin did not accuse you of being all of those things. He just said he could decide which of them explained your behaviour.
If you want an example of that kind of behaviour you need look no further than the ensuing posts. On 25th April you wrote: “I've looked briefly into the Howells/Skinner issue, which Paul adduced as evidence of Harris's unfair assessment of other writers' opinions. and so far as I can judge, Howells and Skinner denounce McCormick as a fraud and yet proceed to then quote him as a source to help back up their theory. This looks like questionable methodology to say the least. If McCormick's credibility is in serious doubt, then clearly he can't be quoted as a source for anything without some form of independent corroboration. If it was in my field I would question the wisdom of anyone attempting to do that, so I see nothing wrong in Harris pointing this out - if this is what he did. Before I can assess whether in my opinion Harris overstepped the mark and was more derogatory than necessary I'd have to read his remarks, and I don't have them. Could anyone post his comments on the Howells/Skinner issue to see whether they do constitute a misrepresentation of the authors' thought-processes?”
Now, given the repeated demands for an example, the barely veiled accusations you have been hurling around about the A to Z authors, and even referring to legal action, it does not strike me as unreasonable to expect you to have given that example more careful attention than what you acknowledge to have been a brief look. It also seems to me that you have not read either of the cited books, are therefore wholly unable to make any informed comment and would thus have been better advised to make no comment at all. In fact, had you read The Ripper Legacy you would perhaps have observed that Howells and Skinner do give ‘some form of independent corroboration’ for the material they used. On April 25 I asked you: Hello Karoline. Have you read the relevant material in The Ripper Legacy? You did not reply - which is becoming quite common.
You also went on to discuss the Bruce Paley matter again, reiterating your opinion that Bruce had accused Harrison of stealing his idea and indicating that Melvin had merely written to the A to Z authors to point out that Mark Andrews preceded both of them. But I had already pointed out that at worst Bruce Paley had said that Harrison was not being honest when he denied knowledge of Paley’s theory – because Harrison acknowledged use of a book in which Bruce’s article was discussed over six pages! And I had also refuted your claim for Melvin’s intent, asking in a post dated Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:28 am: Oh, and where did Melvin Harris make it clear that he was refuting a claim made by Bruce Paley in a magazine article in 1993? If that was all Melvin Harris was saying, then what possible bearing did Bruce Paley being a New York US book importer have? Why did he say "Ah well!". And why did he subsequently observe that he didn't intend deliberate plagiarism but was aware of and had written about cryptomnesia, a claim which in itself indicates that he did intend to imply some form of plagiarism (for if he never intended any such suggestion, a plain denial would have sufficed).
You did not comment, just repeated your allegation. And on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 06:08 am I specifically asked: “Would you kindly clearly and concisely substantiate your statement that “Paley was indeed publicly charging Paul Harrison with 'stealing' his ideas” - I'm afraid I can only actually see Paley claiming primacy and charging Harrison with poor research, not with theft.”
You did not answer.
Now, please, Karoline, I think this example alone is sufficient cause for anyone to suspect your purpose and intent. So I am not sure that you should really find to much cause for complaint or berate Martin for not answering your questions with chapter and verse. He has at least answered you... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 01:09 pm | | Karoline,
Why don't you start addressing what I have written, instead of responding to what you imagine I'm thinking?
I wrote:
Please forgive me if I'm wrong here, but you do seem to be a tad more sensitive than most when you feel anyone has treated you or your words even slightly unfairly. Since you appear to be so wounded, can you not put yourself, for just one moment in your life, in the position of someone who has been at the mercy of the treatment you yourself dish out?
You responded:
Caz, since you think it is over-sensitive of me to ask for some justification for being called dishonest stupid and incompetent - I take it you would have no objection to anyone using such language against Shirley Harrison, Anne Graham or Paul Begg?
(My emphasis throughout)
You also wrote:
why have...you ever criticised Harris for making just the same kind of personal remarks?
Now, I do remember criticising Melvin for making unjustified guesses about people's motives and thought processes, which he clearly does rather a lot of. And you seem to have picked up the same unfortunate habit, judging by many of your posts. Don't you see that, every time you do this to yet one more individual, and they know you have misjudged them, you risk becoming more widely known as unreliable? Not dishonest, not stupid, not incompetent, but simply unreliable, when it comes to speculating about other people's characters and motivation.
You also think I am personally resentful of you, but why would I be, unless you had given me good cause? I've only met you once, very briefly, and within hours, you made it abundantly clear, right here on the boards, what you thought of me, and it looked very much like you were the one showing a deep personal resentment. I, along with many others, were absolutely stunned by the vitriolic post you came out with, under a pseudonym, so soon after our brief encounter, which showed me, at least, how little you need to form wildly wrong views about some people and voice them in public.
I'm sorry, Karoline, but I don't know what else to say. I just wish you would think a little more carefully about what has been written, before responding to what hasn't, and answer just a few more of the questions actually put to you. It would do you, and everyone else, a power of good. Maybe this has nothing to do with dishonesty, stupidity or incompetence, and more to do with thoughtfulness for the feelings of others, as well as our own.
Best wishes,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 01:11 pm | | Paul,
Okay, you have decided to 'charge' me with three separate things as "justification" for Fido calling me stupid, dishonest, incompetent and that he found it impossible to imagine how I ever managed to write a book.
Your charges are:
1. failing to answer your question about when you had questioned Harris's honesty.
I did answer that question - and cited your entry in the A-Z as indicating a clear doubt about his honesty.
You may not agree with my opinion - nonetheless I gave it.
So this allegation is false.
2. You are apparently claiming that I have asserted Paley was charging Harrison with plagiarism when he was, in your view, only 'claiming primacy'.
When I said Paley was accusing Harrison of plagiarism, I formed that opinion on the basis of the data being shown - including his outraged response to the magazine and your quoted letter to him.
It certainly reads like more than a mere claim of primacy.
Can you quote any evidence to back up your assertion that it wasn't? And do you really think it was dishonest of me to form the opinion I did?
But that wasn't even the point of what I was saying at that time, as of course you well know.
The point was (if you remember) - did Harris accuse Paley of plagiarism as you and Fido claimed he did - and the answer, agreed by Alegria and myself was - no he didn't
3. Your third allegation is that I didn't respond to your post about The Ripper Legacy
Well, I never asked you for any information about The Ripper Legacy - nontheless I did acknowledge and comment on it. So your claim in the above post is simply and entirely untrue.
If you want me to go and check the date of this I will. Do you want me to?
Since I have know shown you to be quite in error, am I now allowed - by the "Begg-Fido rules of good conduct" - to accuse you of "stupidity and dishonesty" because you don't seem to have read whatI wrote? Am I allowed by your rules to question your "motives and your intentions"? Or is this scatter-gun abuse only okay when you and your friends do it?
And what exactly do you "suspect" my "purpose and intent" to be, Paul?
Is it so incredible to you that anyone could just honestly think you and Fido were behaving badly?
Karoline |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 03:04 pm | | Would someone be so kind as to pass another message for me on to Melvin Harris? Thank you.
Dear sir:
Time and again your good name and reputation have been invoked on this public forum. Far too often though it has fallen to others to place themselves and their own reputations under scrutiny in order to seek some kind of 'justice' for you.
It is long past time for this behavior to cease and only you can bring about this end.
You, sir, must choose the only honorable course; that is, to seek out the appropriate venue to air your grievances, to choose the appropriate counsel to argue your cause, and prove -- beyond any and all doubt the following:
1) You have endured real and tangible harm. This specific "harm" must be defined by evidence of lost revenue or lost opportunities in your chosen profession.
2) You must also prove that this alleged harm was due solely and exclusively to the entry under your name in The Jack the Ripper A-Z by Paul Begg, Martin Fido, and Keith Skinner (Hereafter, called A-Z).
I would ask you to consider that your career as an exposer of fraud, chicanery, and plain utter foolishness has certainly won you justified acclaim from many and varied sources.
But I would remind you that just such a career has probably left you with many angry and resentful 'enemies' -- to hyperbolize your relationship to those you have exposed. Only through detailed examination, under oath, can anything resembling the "truth" be revealed regarding anyone's claim that they denied you revenue or opportunity solely and exclusively based on the entry in the A-Z.
3) Perceptions of harm to either your integrity, pride, self-esteem, etc. are inconsequential and, in fact, petulance, if you cannot prove that you, and you alone, have suffered from any illness requiring medical treatment, and the origins of which can be demonstrated to have begun during or shortly after the publication of the A-Z, with its alleged "offensive" or "defamatory" entry.
Any real or alleged mental or physical "suffering" of either your relatives, friends, and their various relatives and friends is immaterial as the cause of this alleged "suffering" deals solely with you and is a matter of contention between you alone and the authors of the A-Z. What these friends, relatives, and relatives of friends "suffer" is immaterial before the law since the question of how they choose to perceive the entry and how they choose to react to it are not matters for the courts to decide in consideration that none of them is mentioned in the alleged offensive entry.
However, if you choose to put forth a claim regarding any "suffering" caused to your relatives, friends, and relatives of friends, I must warn you that their public and private lives can and must be scrutinized to determine:
a) What is the nature of this "suffering"
b) How long have they been "suffering"
c) Are there any alternative explanations for this "suffering" that may be at issue in determining any liability claimed against the entry in the A-Z or its authors
I have given only the barest outline of how this situation must truly be resolved. I would ask you to consider whether your claim, or the claims you allow others to put for you, is in fact, plain and beyond dispute by the agents of the appropriate jurisdiction's legal system. I would further ask you, if you decide that you have proof of real and tangible damage or collateral "suffering," whether you wish to expose your relatives, friends, the relatives of friends, in fact all who you may hold dear and cherish, to the harsh and impartial light that must inevitably be brought to bear upon them in any legal proceedings caused by your claim(s).
You alone must bear the consequences of allowing either your personal claim(s) against the A-Z entry or its authors to be argued by others in such a public forum.
And, if and when you decide to proceed in the only honorable and acceptable manner -- i.e., bringing your claims of real and tangible damages and/or collateral "suffering" into the legal system -- such a course will truly bring about any end or outcome you seek...not only for yourself, but also your family, your friends and their loved ones.
As this is a public forum, not the sanctioned court of any country, state, county, or municipality, I will consider your allowing the continuation of this debate on the Casebook as:
1) Forfeiture that you have, in fact and in law, suffered any real and tangible damage due to the "offensive" entry.
2) And that any person may draw whatever conclusions they wish regarding your honor, honesty, integrity, character, and other of your personal traits if you continue to allow others to argue or defend your alleged claims of real and tangible damage...especially in consideration of the not unusual or uncommon rather "low" arguments and language used in a public forum.
The "slings and arrow" they endure are in your cause. Time has proven that no counter-arguments can stop them from expressing their opinions, nor has it safeguarded them from public unpleasantness.
Only you, sir, can spare them further unpleasantness. After such a long time and much acrimonious debate, do they not deserve your consideration? Have you not the decency to either quell this debate by waiving any claim to real damage or taking your claim to the only appropriate venue where it can be resolved fairly and justly?
Yaz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 05:05 pm | | Mrs. Birchwood,
Was Oprah's site closed for repair? The matter you chose to discuss is long over and done with. Now, go make Peter some pancakes.
Karoline,
Why do you girls like to start so much crap? You actually expect someone to spend their days digging through old messages to cut and paste stuff? Please. Get over yourself.
To all,
If I say something you take issue with, take it up with ME and not somebody else. I'm a big boy. 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 06:14 pm | | Thanks again, Tom.
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 06:16 pm | | Hey Tom:
No one in his or her right mind would wish to be the Casebook's "Thought Police," but I am compelled to take strong issue with your post of Tuesday, May 01, 2001 - 05:05 pm.
We can all certainly disagree here, or agree to disagree, on whatever thoughts, opinions, or feelings we may express in a post.
But one thing should be absolute and fundamental:
Every poster is entitled to respect and to be treated respectfully...without exception or qualification.
It is my strongly held opinion that you do Mrs. Birchwood a grave and serious discourtesy in the wording and the tone of your reaction to her post. I write this post, not because it is the first instance of such behavior that has come to my attention, but because Mrs. Birchwood is, to my knowledge, a first-time poster to the Casebook.
If for no other reason than that, she merited a more courteous response or, if such a response is impossible for any given poster, then silence!!!
The following os true of Mrs. Birchwood -- but it is also true of us all:
Nothing that she is;
Nothing that she says;
Nothing that she feels;
Nothing that she thinks...
...deserves or warrants the disrespect that has been shown to her.
I can neither ask nor force another to apologize for something they posted here. But I would ask Mr. Birchwood to pass along my sincere and deepest regrets that her message -- yes, even herself as a fellow human being -- was neither respected or treated with the seriousness and courtesy she deserves.
I can only hope that, upon reflection, Tom, you would wish to join me in my expression of regret.
Yaz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 07:22 pm | | Tom,
I don't understand you when you talk women down so. The message-boards would be a much duller place without them, and they talk a lot more sense than some of the men. Generally, I prefer the company and conversation of a woman, I just like em, maybe thats another bonus that comes with getting on a bit,-- ask Martin what he thinks, he's not far behind me.
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 07:31 pm | | Mr's Birchwood,
I'll say it for the rest of the blokes on these boards,-- 95% of us would be lost without women to organise us.
Rick |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 04:37 am | | Karoline
I am thoroughly bored by this topic and I simply don't have time to debate it, so this is a long post and hopefully will be my last word on a topic i was not going to be involved in discussing.
First of all, Martin Fido did not call you stupid, dishonest, incompetent. He said he didn’t know whether your failure to find a post was through incompetent searching, intellectual dishonesty or stupidity. You are therefore seriously exaggerating what Martin Fido said so that it seems far worse than it is. Are you doing this on purpose?
Now, let’s look at whether you have answered the questions put to you. You asserted that the A to Z entry questions Melvin Harris’s honesty. I have never questioned the honesty of Melvin Harris, who I firmly believe to an honest man. I therefore vehemently reject your your claim and I wrote stating why. On April 24th I asked you, “But to return to the A to Z and just so I understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying that a person cannot honestly and sincerely make an assertion which can be shown to be unjustified or to conflict with written sources and that anyone doing this must be dishonest… You see, Karoline, I don’t think Melvin was lying at all. I don't think Melvin's honesty is or ever has been in question. I think he perceived chicanery and in light of that was moved to honestly – albeit incorrectly - express what he thought the writer’s motives were.”
This was not disagreeing with your opinion. This was questioning the logic on which that opinion was based. And I think I was making a very fair point. You have not addressed it. Not once. Not a single word. Don’t you think you should have replied to this direct rejection of your reasoning and tried to substantiate your claim? Or do you think that just because you have an opinion it has to be the right one?
Turning to Bruce Paley, on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 05:47 am you wrote: I think the letter from Paul Begg helpfully posted by the newcomer here makes it clear that Paley was indeed publicly charging Paul Harrison with 'stealing' his ideas, and that at least one member of the A-Z team was aware of that when they received Harris's letter.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 06:08 am: I wrote: Would you kindly clearly and concisely substantiate your statement that “Paley was indeed publicly charging Paul Harrison with 'stealing' his ideas” - I'm afraid I can only actually see Paley claiming primacy and charging Harrison with poor research, not with theft.
You did not and have not replied. No a single solitary word. And even now you ask if I can quote any evidence that it wasn’t a charge of theft – yet I have already done this. Do you read the messages posted here relevant to topics you are debating? You see, apart from rightly claiming primacy to the thesis, the very worst thing Bruce Paley can be accused of doing in that letter is hinting that Paul Harrison’s was telling an untruth about not having heard of Bruce’s theory. And Bruce did this on the very good grounds that Paul Harrison cited and had therefore presumably read a book that discussed Bruce’s theory over six pages. So, I can see Bruce accusing Harrison of poor research, I can even allow that Bruce hinted that Harrison’s denial was untrue, but I can’t find anything approaching a claim that Harrison stole his idea.
So, if you are going to say on the basis of the letter to Book and Magazine Collector that Bruce Paley accused Paul Harrison of theft, you should be able to show, when asked, where in the letter the accusation is made. You wer asked to do that and you have not done it.
In that same post I also asked you: “And can you also please show where it is stated that I knew about Bruce Paley’s letter to the Book and Magazine Collector and also cite the respective dates of that article and of Melvin Harris’s letter to the author's of the A to Z?
You have not replied to those questions.
As for whether Melvin Harris accused Bruce Paley of plagiarism, I think you will find that Alegria actually said that the accusation could be inferred. On Monday, April 23, 2001 - 10:15 am: she wrote At no place in this passage does the word plagiarize appear. It is a collection of facts with an ejaculate at the end. The author (Mel’s) opinion of it could be ‘inferred’ possibly through the offsetting of ‘his theory’ and the “Ah well!”. Do I think that this letter implies plagiarism? Yes. I do. However, I am inferring an implication. NOT the most reliable source material.
Alegria only questioned whether we were justified in basing our conclusion on an inference. She did not refute that the inference was there. And as far as whether or not Melvin Harris intended to suggest ‘plagiarism’, there is no other reasonable explanation, other than what appears to be your notion that he was merely pointing out that Mark Andrews preceded both Paley and Harrison. As I have said, if this was all Melvin was doing, what was the relevance of saying that Bruce was a New York born US book importer? What was the meaning of ‘Ah well!’? This was clearly intended to suggest that Paley could have seen Andrews's book.
In fact I made these very points in a post on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:28 am: Oh, and where did Melvin Harris make it clear that he was refuting a claim made by Bruce Paley in a magazine article in 1993? If that was all Melvin Harris was saying, then what possible bearing did Bruce Paley being a New York US book importer have? Why did he say "Ah well!". And why did he subsequently observe that he didn't intend deliberate plagiarism but was aware of and had written about cryptomnesia, a claim which in itself indicates that he did intend to imply some form of plagiarism (for if he never intended any such suggestion, a plain denial would have sufficed).
Valid points against your assertion that Melvin’s letter was sweet and innocent and that we were not justified in reaching the interpretation we did. You made no response.
Moving on to The Ripper Legacy, you write: “Well, I never asked you for any information about The Ripper Legacy”. I had to read this several times before I was forced to conclude that you meant what you were saying. This comment struck me as that extraordinary. You ask for an example that justifies the A to Z’s entry on Melvin. I give you an example. And you say you never asked for it! I call that bizarre.
Now, as for citing the data and time of your post, yes, please cite it for me. But let’s be clear about this. We are not talking about the brief look post. I know all about that. I’m talking about my post to you on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 06:08 am when I asked: “Have you read the relevant material in The Ripper Legacy?”
If you answered that question and I missed it, then I offer you a sincere and unequivocal apology right now. On the other hand, if you didn’t answer it, what are you going to do?
You see, you asked for an example to justify what we wrote about Melvin Harris and I gave you one. Your response to that was to give it a quick look and to pronounce on it apparently without having consulted either of the relevant sources or, if you did consult them, without understanding them. Your reply seems to indicate that you have none of the relevant source material. And I wonder if you have read The Ripper Legacy because in your reply you refer to the need for Howells and Skinner to have provided supportive independent sources, which is, of course, actually what Howells and Skinner supplied, as you would have known if you had read the book. I assume that by not recognising this you had either not read the relevant section of the book or had failed to understand it if you did.
Now, on top of that, I think that if you are going to make demands that the authors of the A to Z offer an example to support their claims, you should have the decency to do more than give it a self-acknowledged quick look when they do, and to make a close and detailed assessment of the source data. And I further think that judgemental comments about the A to Z authors should be withheld until you have done so. You didn’t do any of that. And I cannot help but conclude because you didn’t do that that you are not a fair and unbiased commentator . Which is pretty much what Martin Fido speculated about.
Now, Karoline, you have made a good point that an accusation should be substantiated. The A to Z authors have tried to substantiate their remarks about Melvin Harris, people on these Message Boards generally seem to be in broad agreement – witness Yaz, John Omlor, Tom Wescott – and there really are a fair few examples on these Boards, not the least being the recent stuff about Donald McCormick, to support us. We have pointed out that we praised Melvin Harris more fully than other deserving authors and we have admitted that whilst we believe our comments wholly justified, we’ve admitted that the phraseology could have been better. Okay, you’re not satisfied, but I guess we’re just going to have to live with that. But, really, when it comes to throwing out accusations and not substantiating them, you seem to be at the head of the class. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 08:57 am | | Paul wrote:
"First of all, Martin Fido did not call you stupid, dishonest, incompetent. He said he didn’t know whether your failure to find a post was through incompetent searching, intellectual dishonesty or stupidity. You are therefore seriously exaggerating what Martin Fido said so that it seems far worse than it is. Are you doing this on purpose?"
You are so right Paul - Mr Fido only said "I really cannot say whether it is mere stupidity, incompetent searching, or intellectual dishonesty" and merely added as an after thought "you are making me wonder how you ever managed to write a publishable book about Lewis Carroll"
How restrained and polite of him, and how absurdly unfair of me to ask him to justfy it.
Re. the A-Z entry on Harris.
I do not agree with you that the wording conveys the idea that Harris is merely easily misled. It clearly states that he makes allegations that are in contradiction to the known facts, and this obviously implies potential dishonesty.
If you didn't intend that implication then you chose your words poorly - but that is your problem, not mine.
That is all I can say on that matter. I have answered your question - I just haven't given you the answer you want.
Re the Paley incident
You wrote:
the very worst thing Bruce Paley can be accused of doing in that letter is hinting that Paul Harrison’s was telling an untruth about not having heard of Bruce’s theory
Yes, exactly I agree completely. Paley is hinting that Harrison has heard of his theory even though he says he hasn't and is therefore 'stealing' it, if not literally, then certainly morally.
(the ambiguity about whether literal or moral was the reason for my original inverted commas around the word 'stealing')
To be honest I don't understand the nature of the problem here. Your own words agree with my interpretation completely. The letter is only incidental anyway - in that it gives a context to Harris's remarks to you, and the exact degree of Paley's accusation is just not relevant to the matter and never has been.
You wrote:
"And can you also please show where it is stated that I knew about Bruce Paley’s letter to the Book and Magazine Collector and also cite the respective dates of that article and of Melvin Harris’s letter to the author's of the A to Z? You have not replied to those questions."
You are misreading my words.
I didn't say you knew about his letter to the magazine - I said you knew about his differences with Harrison - and you did, because you'd written to him about the subject by May 1993 - some three years before the A-Z entry on Harris appeared.
Now at this point, if I was you, I would feel justified in saying "do you ever read anything that is posted in these debates you take part in?" or "I think you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive" or if I was Fido I'd just come right out and announce "I can't decide if you are too stupid, too dishonest or just too fat to get close enough to your computer screen to read what's written on it"!!
And I guess you wouldn't mind if I did, right? because I'm sure you wouldn't dream of practising a double standard.
But, I'm not going to because I don't think that kind of thing has any place in a serious debate (tempting though it sometimes is to hit right back with both fists).
The Ripper Legacy.
Thank you for acknowledging that I did reply to your original post. I hadn't noticed that you had asked me subsequent questions about it because I admit I haven't been reading this stuff as much recently until yesterday.
But to belatedly answer your question:
When you first mentioned the "Ripper Legacy" business as evidence of Harris's unfair dealing I obtained the relevant extracts as soon as I could (I do have a few other things to do in my life, you know), and as soon as i had read them I made my comment.
I have now read the material more extensively. If I had found anything to make me tchange my published opinion I would have said so - but it hasn't.
My opinion is that Howells and Skinner did some pretty insufficient and flawed research, and Harris merely pointed this out - though in a more acerbic style than I would consider wholly prudent.
If you would like me to expand on this view - then I will try and find the time.
Do you want me to?
You write:
" I cannot help but conclude because you didn’t do that that you are not a fair and unbiased commentator . Which is pretty much what Martin Fido speculated about."
Well, I respect you judgement of course. But it would be interesting to know how many here agree with you. But, fair or not, my opinions on the business are shared here by many others who all unite with me in feeling that you and Fido and Skinner have done wrong in this matter.
And however much you might try to assert that Alegria and I were in disagreement - if you look at her last post here she quite specifically says that my words on the matter speak for both of us.
So maybe you are doing me something of a disservice?
By all means have the last word.
Karoline |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 09:06 am | | A handful of examples from Karoline's last posting of the kind of snipping and sniping insinuations and innuendoes which she says she doesn't believe could ever provoke an angry response. And none of them refer to me.
"If you didn't intend that implication then you chose your words poorly - but that is your problem, not mine."
"Now at this point, if I was you, I would feel justified in saying "do you ever read anything that is posted in these debates you take part in?" or "I think you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive"
And I guess you wouldn't mind if I did, right? because I'm sure you wouldn't dream of practising a double standard."
"But, I'm not going to because I don't think that kind of thing has any place in a serious debate (tempting though it sometimes is to hit right back with both fists)."
Martin Fido |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 09:07 am | | Paul:
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to put: "sitting on the fence."
John:
If I have misread you, my apologies. Perhaps you were quoting Feldy's "Caroline told the truth;that is all a kid of eleven can do."Which no doubt caused merriment in a large number of households worldwide. I will however use the next three months to go through the collected Omlor oevre in order to verify this.
Martin:
I'm surprised that the word "disingenuous" is a euphemism for lying. The OED definition is: "Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." which I think is not the same thing. Did it's use or misuse really cause such a breach between Nick Warren and Keith Skinner? I was under the impression that the problem, which involved threats of legal action, involved Paul Begg rather than Keith.
I honestly don't think that I am mischief-making. I felt that on the face of it you had been unfair to Karoline Leach and I asked if there was a major insult or rudeness on her behalf that caused you to reply in such terms especially concerning her writing talents. I'm glad however that there has been an apology.
Tom:
I appreciate your comments especially the compliment, but I have to disagree with you on something.. I said to Martin: "If your words are, as I suspect a total overreaction then I suggest that an apology is in order." Now that I submit is quite a different thing from :"Telling Martin that you think what he said was uncool is one thing but publicly ordering somebody to apologize to somebody else over a situation you are not fully aware of is equally uncool."
You do have my sympathies concerning the problems that you were having a short while ago by the way. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 09:17 am | | Thank you, Peter. I'd appreciate that. Reading carefully and citing accurately is a good thing. Let me know when you have finished reading and what you've found.
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:02 am | | Martin,
do you really believe that any critical comment aimed at you or those you consider to be 'on your side' is by definition unfair?
You think it was "snappish" of me to point out that you and tend to be much ruder than me and to quote some examples of the kind of language you and Paul Begg like to use?
You think it was "sniping" of me to call attention (albeit sarcastically) to the breathtaking double standards you both employ?
What can one say?
This is the most ridiculous discussion I have ever had with any other adult human being (even including some of the stuff on the 'diary' board). They should write a book about it that they ought. For I'm quite sure no one who wasn't here would ever believe it.
And Peter - really warm thanks for intervening. I wholly appreciate it - though I'm afraid it has only brought more nasty stuff your, and indeed Maria's, way.
I'm not sure there is any point in saying anything more. The original point aboput the A-Z was well made and has been accepted. Maybe we should leave it there.
Karoline |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:41 am | | Tom:
How on earth can you be so stupid, rude and bad-mannered to insult someone who has never read these boards, has no interest in this subject but simply felt the need to tell everyone of the great organisational strengths and sheer goodness of Rosie Howells?
Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that you were hard-done-by in your previous problems with Alegria etc. The sort of naughty little boy post that you have just put on concerning my wife and Karoline Leach shows that you are certainly capable of numerous other bits of nastiness.
Yazoo:
I thank you for your most gentlemanly post. The above will be my only reply to Mr. Wescott. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:57 am | | Karoline
How restrained and polite of him, and how absurdly unfair of me to ask him to justfy it.
Your opinion, not mine.
I simply ask that you fairly and accurately cite and report other people, even when you think they have been unjust.
Re. the A-Z entry on Harris
I am sure beyond a shadow of doubt that Melvin Harris believes what he writes even when he turns out to be wrong. I do not equate inaccuracy with dishonesty and I strongly reject your opinion that our entry does more that question his judgement in certain circumstances. However, we have now agreed several times that the wording could have been better, and I am happy to note you think the same applies to Melvin’s imprudent acerbity in his criticism of Howells and Skinner.
And frankly I don’t much care what answer you give as long as you support it with a logical or even a reasonable argument.
Re the Paley incident
Stealing, whether in inverted commas or not, is stealing. Stealing is not denying knowledge of something. Lying isn’t theft. Bruce Paley was saying no more than that Paul Harrison knew about his theory because it was discussed in six pages of a book Harrison acknowledged. He did not say and gave you no reason whatsoever to infer that he was accusing Paul Harrison of stealing his idea.
In FACT Bruce didn’t even accuse Harrison of lying. He actually said “Curiously, Mr. Harrison quoted Peter Underwood's book in his bibliography, but apparently didn't read the seven or so pages devoted to my theory, as he failed to acknowledge my work in his study. So, even if you had said that Bruce accused Harrison of lying, that would have been an inference. So, not only do you appear to be guilty of inferring, but guilty of inferring wrongly!
As for the letter, if you really want to be pedantic about it, what you actually wrote was: “I think the letter from Paul Begg helpfully posted by the newcomer here makes it clear that Paley was indeed publicly charging Paul Harrison with 'stealing' his ideas, and that at least one member of the A-Z team was aware of that when they received Harris's letter. You will note that you attributed the letter to me, not simply a quote by me used in that letter. And are you seriously suggesting that one letter from and to Bruce Paley should have alerted me to the Melvin Harris’s intended context when he wrote with a list of material for inclusion in the A to Z three years later? And wrote without any reference at all to Paul Harrison or any supposed dispute which as far as I know didn’t extend beyond a single letter to an obscure magazine (in fact, I didn’t even know it extended beyond Bruce’s letter to me!) You’re laughing up your sleeve, surely!
The Ripper Legacy
Yes, I am happy to acknowledge that your replied. You replied after giving it a quick look and apparently without reading the relevant source material. And I am sure it would be very instructive to hear why you think Howells and Skinner did “some pretty insufficient and flawed research”, but I wouldn’t wish to impose on your time and in any event the point at issue is not the quality of their research, but their alleged knowing use of material they suspected was bogus because it supported their theory. You can show where there is evidence that this was their thinking. I do, however, agree with you wholeheartedly that Melvin’s style was more acerbic than prudent.
I don’t dispute Alegria’s words, I merely quoted them.
I really don’t know how many readers would agree with my opinion that giving my argument a self-acknowledged quick look and not consulting the relevant source material makes you and an unfair and biased commentator; it sure as hell doesn’t indicate that you are a fair and unbiased one though! |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 11:26 am | | Peter,
Thank you for your remarks, and especially for noting that I offered an apology, which I regret to say seems not to have been accepted.
I accept, of course, your assurance that you were only seeking clarification as to why I exploded with anger at Karoline. Having now seen Paul's account of her persistent snippetty innuendoes which provoked it, and my examples of similar affronts offered to him, coupled with her bland confidence that she is fully justified in coming in AFTER she has provoked my anger and suggesting that this makes me much ruder than her, not to mention groundlessly accusing Paul and me of using double standards, I am content that whether you share their opinion or not, anybody whose opinion really matters to me will feel that all has been explained and exposed to their satisfaction.
It's a question of how you interpret 'being less than candid' by 'pretending' isn't it, whether you call disingenuousness lying? I think that definition fits the bill perfectly well. I don't accept different standards of truth as being acceptable, although I concede that in reality it is necessary to insist in courts of law that people are indeed careful to present the truth as they see it in its entirety and without embellishment.
The breach between Nick and Keith was several years ago; never approached any question of legal threats on either side; was the result of a misunderstanding, as several of us didn't realize that Nick really was being given a run-around by the Black Musuem, especially as he misdirected some of his correspondence to its curator. It has long been settled and mutually amiable relations established.
But again, thank you for an intervention which, at this point does seem to be intent on re-establishing harmony. And please convey my apologies to your wife if she felt offended by my sharp correction of the assumptions made in her posting.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 11:52 am | | Rick,
You pose an interesting question about 'our' generation's attitude to women, which I suspect some of the younger women might suspect of being patronising and patriarchal.I don't know about you, of course, but my mother was one of the 'million surplus' spinsters left by WWI; married relatively late and was widowed relatively early in her marriage,with two small boys to bring up single-handed. She had a lot of support from her university and professional friends and colleagues, and in consequence my childhood and adolescence mentors were largely middle-aged spinsters who supported themselves and held down jobs in the generally masculine world of work, often supporting aged parents at the same time.
These admirable women left me in many ways quite unprepared for the jungle of adult gender relations. To start with, it took me a couple of decades to realize from hard experience that there really are young women who use their sexual attractions to manipulate men. Given that practically all the women I met were straightforward, frank and unmanipulative, I took Becky Sharp and Lola-Lola as wonderful fictional characters, but representative of ways in which nobody self-respecting would ever behave! Yes,of course I've taken some severe tumbles in my time for that little piece of naivety!
On the other hand, I could see that there were women who used 'girlishness' (feigned immaturity) in the hope that they would win by supposed charm and fetching ways what they could not pull off by argument and strength of character. Maybe unfairly, given the encouragement offered by the 'patriarchal' society, I have always despised such conduct. The women who brought me up kept their feet firmly on the ground and faced differences of opinion without distractions or evasions. Not that they couldn't let their hair down for fun and enjoy a good girlish giggle with each other when relaxing in all-female company. Since I can enjoy a night out with the boys which lacks the courtesies and restraints imposed by female company, I shouldn't dream of criticising them or any other women for that.
And I accept that 'political incorrect' research which all points to women's minds working differently from men's (following continua, of course; not proposing absolute barrier divisions). I do not, however, think the differences are such that irrationality and weak thinking are 'justified' feminine approaches,any more than bullying and bellowing is 'justified' by men's extra testosterone.
Finally, I have always had very mixed reactions to the post-1960s feminist movement. All my life I had watched my mother and her friends do a better job than many of their male colleagues for less pay. I had seen them insulted by bank managers and mortgage companies which doubted their ability to conduct their own affairs. I had seen (twice) utterly vile men shoot round to newly widowed women to try and open property disputes with them or buy their land instantly at 'generously' offered giveaway prices. So I had always called myself a feminits, and I have never read a word by Betty Friedan with which I have disagreed. On the other hand, I have read teribly little by Shulamith Firestone or Nikki Giovanni which didn't seem to me specious, self-indulgent special pleading. I have little sympathy with middle class western women who found thmselves bored and decided to blame men. I have no sympathy at all with Marxist lesbians who think their view of the world should be central to people other than themselves. But most of all, i have absolute contempt for women who use manipulativeness and girly-wirliness while loudly claiming to be feminists. To quote two women friends on a third who was pushing herself forward as a spokesman for the women's movement in the 1980s:
'She calls herself a feminist, yet she boasts of having a flat tyre and standing by her car in a short skirt until a man stopped to change her wheel.'
'I stopped thinking of her as a feminist when I saw her putting on lipstick and mascara while sunbathing on the beach.'
So how do younger men cope with the other sex?
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:05 pm | | Martin,
We don't.
Coping is well beyond the range of available possibilities.
I'm not even sure survival remains within range.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:08 pm | | Hi Martin,
Just for the record, I have little sympathy with anyone who finds him or herself bored and decides to blame anyone else.
Love,
Girly and manipulative (but NOT feminist) Caz
PS You can lead a horse to water.... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Hi John,
Your post crossed with mine.
You just conjured up for me voices that sound like money.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:14 pm | | I think that where "girls" do use their whiles and guises, it is generally aided by the apparently inescapably bent of some men to fall for it: it's simple Darwinism at work.
Having failed, for ten minutes, to get assistance when my snapped in my hand in the ASDA car park, I stomped off moodily to the store itself to try and get some assistance from the staff. Of course, when I returned a bloke was doing the task - having noticed my girlfriend in the car by herself in the meanwhile.
Whilst I'm fairly sure she wasn't heaving her bosom out of the window while I was gone, I can only assume that the two sexes are generally culpable in such behaviour - with the burden laying most heavily on the men who will fall over themselves to help a pair of breasts! Not that I would ever fall for such a cheap trick if ever it were to played on me...
Whether feminism has helped alleviate or to exacerbate this situation is beyond the experience afforded me by my tender years |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:18 pm | | | "That's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool." Daisy Buchanan. (Written by F. Scott Fitzgerald) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:24 pm | | Hi Carps,
Feminists can't alter the situation one jot, I don't suppose - unless such women take over and order mass castration, and thereby cut off a lot more than their own noses to spite their faces...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 01:13 pm | | Martin -
I have to say that I actually agree with you!
(partly)
I think girly-wirliness is pretty much a mistake. Undignified, ethically questionable - and it makes people want to skewer the person doing it with a long pointed stick.
The only people who enjoy those kind of antics are sub-paedophilic males who get intimidated by grown women and fantasise a lot about white knee-socks.
Karoline |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 05:11 pm | | Martin,
I think basicly you and I agree about showing manners and respect to a fellow human being, especially when the fellow being is a woman. I never thought there would be any doubt about it, I never thought there would be any question. When I was in primary school I was taught never to bully girls, either physically or mentally, and that teaching has stayed with me. You've told me nothing I didn't already know, not meaning that I was thinking you were trying to.
I know there are ignorant and normal people on both sides of the sexual divide. In general terms I'm talking about normal sensible women, not girly whirlys. It never entered my head that I might be thought of as patronising, (times certainly change,-and not for the better) I thought I was being polite,--or is that not "Cool" these days!. For me it's nothing to do with trying to curry favour from the opposite sex Karoline, it's to do with manners. Do you think I would treat an ugly fat woman any different to some blonde dolly bird?, not with my up-bringing.
If I hold a door open for you Karoline, and you sail through without a thankyou, thats okay by me, but I certainly won't let it swing shut in the face of the next woman, and if a man can't treat a woman with respect, how are his manners with another man!! I spent three years in the army in Germany, hearing and using barrack-room language, but never took it home with me, if I had, my mother and dad would have clipped me one even though I was 22yrs old. And I don't use it in mixed company now!! though it seems to be the accepted thing to do. I don't intend to get into any kind of argument with anyone over my views on this matter, if you want to disagree,- disagree, I shan't answer... I would have thought Martin, you would have taken it up with Tom,-not me, so l'll just say, the same as you,--I've said what I mean, and I mean what I say
Rick |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 06:38 pm | | Rick,
I always thank a gentleman who holds the door for me...and I expect thanks when I hold the door for him. I find it neither patronizing nor patriarchal and none of my friends do either. Please do keep holding doors and all the other courtesies that are unfortunately being lost. :-)
Caz,
Daisy should have been slapped upside her foolish empty head. Her voice was not full of money, it was full of whiny petulance. But that's jsut my opinion of course...
Martin,
Six months ago while driving the first 100 miles of a 2,000 mile trip, I and five other drivers were all victims of flat tires due to a box of nails in the road. I was the only female. As I was wearing short-shorts at the time, I proceeded to change my tire and directed the men who stopped to help to the other drivers because all of them were calling for tow trucks. This is the epitome of feminism: able to do something for herself and able to use both her assets and the weakness of others to her advantage. Or what someone would call a shrewd business man in the old days. Feminism has nothing to do with length of skirts or make-up at the beach. That kind of statement is irritating to us younger women.
Ally |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 06:40 pm | | Maria,
Sorry your reception here was less than respectful. I agree one hundred percent with everything you said about Rosie. She is a gracious hostess and lady.
Ally |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 08:22 pm | | To all,
I am 27 and here to tell you that the world I live in (America) is gender-confused. It is painfully obvious that the 'politically-correct' climate we are suffocating in will eventually (and not too far from now) be the end of this country as an empire. We're imploding because we're trying to fight nature and it's a losing battle. Americans value work ethic and political correctness over family values and natural selection. The statistics speak for themselves. I could quote you some but it would only depress everyone.
Peter,
Why did you address to Yazoo the statement that you wouldn't reply to me any more? Does he have some vested interest in me that I'm not aware of? My post to your wife was meant half in jest. If you were familiar with my posts you'd know that. The other half was because it seemed to me she was doing more than just praising Rosie but was aiming her guns at Martin for an issue that was already dead and that I happened to be involved in. Does this make sense?
Karoline,
If the horse seems to be moving it is only because you keep kicking it so hard.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 05:31 am | | Hi Ally,
You wrote:
Daisy should have been slapped upside her foolish empty head. Her voice was not full of money, it was full of whiny petulance. But that's jsut my opinion of course...
Yes, of course, I agree. Everyone except Nick was rotten in that poignant little tale. But Daisy was a fictional female character created by....?
Sorry you missed the point I was making.
Love,
Caz
(Memo: I must look out for long pointed sticks in future - God knows why I've never seen any yet...) |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:03 am | | Good gracious, Rick! Nothing I said was intended as criticism of you; nor did I imagine that anyone would see your remarks on the board as in any way patronising and patriarchal. I merely thought that the age and gender gapped perception young women might hold of men our age in general would be a diverting topic.
Alegria's postings seem to bear me out, as I doubt whether she would have imagined a woman her age was differing with her over one of the essentials of a valid feminism - i.e. 'get on with the job you can do, and don't use sexual allure to get some one else to do it for you.' And I'm sure she would have expected a young woman to respond quickly and curtly to a long critical posting that mistakenly assumed she was endorsing printed criticism to which another poster had drawn attention, when all that was intended was to point out that she didn't know the answers, and the victims would have to explain.
The sort of doctrinaire feminist to whom I object used (in the 1970s and '80s) to object to the sort of formal courtesy you and I were brought up to show to women as patronising patriarchalism!
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:27 am | | Dear Caz,
You really must look closer at Nick, if you think everyone but him was rotten. Yes, Jordan was a cheater and Tom and Daisy were like that old dust covered wreck of a Ford in Wilson's garage, carelessly constructed and certain to break down, and Gatsby had a fatally excessive capacity for wonder and even the Springeresque Wilson's trapped in the gas station were American grotesques and severely twisted, but old Nick ended up behaving badly in his relationship towards Jordan and never stood up for a moment for his friend when he should have and when it would have involved real courage and generally showed more than a few signs of impending corruption himself before he retreated back to the safety of the less modern West and stopped caring. They were all finally residents of that valley of ashes, that gray Waste Land of industrialism that sat halfway between Long Island and Manhattan, and they were all cared for and looked after only and helplessly by those empty and impotent and brooding and soulless eyes of a recently dead God faded but still visible on the billboard of Dr. T.J Eckleberg. None of them really had any chance to ever finish the novel's penultimate sentence ("and maybe one day...") It's only Fitzgerald's capacity for wonder and hope, as perverse as it might finally be, that allows the final image of the book not to be Jay's pathetic bullet-ridden ridden body floating in that pool, but rather that stupid green light on the edge of that dock. Because, finally, really the dream was rotten, not just the characters. And it was rotten from the beginning, because the dream took at its core and as its inspiration an unsolvable paradox of inspirations, the beatitudes on the hand, telling us all from the start of our little experiment in the New Word that the poor and the humble and the meek are the most blessed of God's children; and the Darwinist logic of capital and acquisition as a way to measure self-worth on the other hand, telling us all that to succeed means to be strong and ruthless and to not care about what happens to those who can't survive along the way and to make yourself into a winner. This untenable paradox remains deeply ingrained into the American culture and the peculiarly schizophrenic American psyche and, yes, it remains ingrained into the dream as well, a dream that even by Scott's time had turned rotten and empty at the core and created Jays who lied about everything and Daisys who cried over the quality of a man's shirts, and Nicks who thought they could dabble in the lives of others but who finally have no real strength of spirit or loyalty, and all of us who, still, in the end, after the horrific tragedy of the War and of the accidents that kill Jay and destroy the lives of so many others, still all tell themselves that "maybe one day..." But Scott never finishes that sentence. It's the only unfinished one in the whole book. It remains, as only the last possible gasp of a suggestion, after all the unspeakable beauty of his prose and the unspeakably mundane dialogues and fates of his characters, after the lonely funeral in the rain and Nick's retreat back West. "Maybe one day..."
But no, not for Nick, I think.
Just an early morning thought about one of my old favorites...
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hi John,
Maybe I've got such a soft spot for Nick because he was the one who bothered to tell us the whole unspeakably rotten story, and told it in such an unspeakably sad and beautiful way...
Incidentally, that unfinished penultimate symphony goes:
It eluded us then, but that's no matter - to-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further...And one fine morning -
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:48 am | | Hi Caz,
Right, that's my "maybe one day..." "And one fine morning --" I just updated it a bit and removed its poetry in my little off the cuff rant against letting Nick off the hook. Sorry.
Yes, Nick gives us the story, there is always beauty, even in the midst of the madness. But Nick also shows signs of the disease, the American schizophrenia that has been eating away at all of us here since the beginning. Why, after all, does he come East in the first place and rent out in the Eggs?
But I agree that the frosting is sublime in this wedding cake of a novel and, even more to its credit, the cake is accurately and noticeably stale. Yup. That's us, here on this side of the water.
Bye for now. It's golf day.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 08:10 am | | Personally I can never forgive Scott for kicking a lover out of his bed and house when she revealed that she was of partly African descent. So I'm distinctly tepid about his moral judgement, though I enjoy his hilarious short stories about being drunk and misbehaving. But I'm very touchy about affronts to a disapora that treated me extremely kindly in Barbados.
Martin F |
|
|
|
|
