|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 21, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through May 21, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 01:10 pm |        | How does a covering letter from anyone, stating, "Here is the material I promised to send", confirm that the recipient requested that material? Am I missing something?
Love,
Confused of Surrey |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 01:25 pm | | Now would that be "Rod Green, Ex-Virgin Publishers" or "Rod Green, Ex-Virgin, Publishers?"
That one little comma makes a world of difference, doesn't it?
Someday I would like to work for the "Legal Department of Virgin Publishing." I imagine the doctor bills alone must be staggering.
--John, Ex-Virgin, Teacher |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 01:35 pm | | What does Paul "Goofy" Feldman (and he must be goofy -- to put it charitably -- if he threatened to sue Alex, let alone Melvin) have to do with...well, anything we've been talking about?
I though we were discussing Melvin's A-Z entry and why Melvin went to the A-Z publishers and what did they discuss?
No doubt, I must look harder.
Ah well!
("The game is afoot, Watson." ????????)
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 02:51 pm | | | These so-called "ink-test libels" receive a frequent airing, but I still haven't seen any example of Feldman accusing Melvin Harris of deliberately tampering with the ink samples. Can you support this allegation with documentary evidence please, Melvin? I'd also appreciate it if you could show me the slurs against you made by Shirley Harrison when she allegedly accused you of something similar. Many thanks. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 05:19 pm | | Hi John,
Ought he of the green rod have changed his name to 'Rod Not-so-Green' when he became an Ex-Virgin? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:15 am | | Hi Gang,
What follows i my recollection and view of the Rod Green business. It might provide a little clarification.
The letter to Rod Green, formerly of Virgin Books, was discussed at length on the Message Boards a long time ago. As I understand it, the facts are not quite as clear cut as Melvin suggests.
Rod Green received a package of material from Melvin and in due course it was passed to Martin Fido. Martin was not told that the material was solicited (if, indeed, it was) and he did not see the covering letter containing the words "Here is the material I promised to send”. Martin was given to understand that the material was unsolicited. This was also the impression I received.
Melvin later claimed that the material had been requested by Rod Green. Rod Green denied it. Thus Martin’s memory of a publisher calling Melvin a liar is correct.
When the covering letter was shown to Rod Green, Rod Green explicitly stated that he had no memory of specifically requesting it, but recalled being anxious to terminate the conversation with Melvin and said that in an effort to do so he may have requested or agreed that Melvin put his complaints in writing.
I don’t know whether Martin was aware of Rod Green’s statements as I think Martin was involved with pressing domestic problems at the time and his interest in the details of anything Maybrickian was not great. What he recalls and recalls correctly is that Rod Green did deny Melvin’s claim that he had requested the material and it is still not known for certain whether Rod Green requested the material from Melvin Harris or whether he simply agreed to Melvin sending it.
I’m not sure whether the letter being solicited or unsolicited was ever an issue with anyone other than Melvin. What was of concern was that Melvin wrote letters disparaging authors to their publishers and other interested parties. The only concern that Rod Green had with the material – which is why we saw it - was that it disparaged Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner. I am not able to locate the covering letter Melvin quotes, but some notes I possess indicate that it described Feldman as a ‘coward’, as ‘lacking the capacity to accept anything which interferes with his fixed obsessions’, as ‘the most intolerant and dogmatic man that I have ever met’, and a man ‘used to getting his own way by bawling at and threatening and intimidating his critics’. It also described Keith Skinner as Feldman’s ‘paid henchman’. Perhaps Melvin would be kind enough to confirm this.
If his covering letter did contain personal comment of this kind, people might like to ask themselves whether it was what Rod Green would have solicited about one of his authors, assuming he solicited anything, and whether it was the kind of comment that really has a place in a letter complaining about libels made by Paul Feldman.
This was but one disparaging letter allegedly sent by Melvin, apparently unsolicited; (see Shirley Harrison’s revised edition from Blake, pg. 363). |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 06:18 am | | Sorry Paul. When I read:
‘lacking the capacity to accept anything which interferes with his fixed obsessions’,
‘the most intolerant and dogmatic man that I have ever met’,
and a man ‘used to getting his own way by bawling at and threatening and intimidating his critics’,
I completely lost track of who was being described. Was it the Man in the Mirror? 
Love,
Dizzy Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 06:44 am | | Hi Caz
I think it would be impolitic and impolite of me to comment. I wonder if Melvin will provide an example of Paul Feldman actually saying that Melvin "rigged" the ink tests? If any lie gets nailed, I'd like it to be that one of Feldy's. Unless he never said it of course, in which case it won't be his lie. Either way, it would be nice to resolve the issue. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 06:46 am | | Oh dear, Paul! Thank you for intervening with your recollections. Seeing you had done so, I felt compelled to go back and read Melvin's new diatribe. Especially as you dealt with matters of which I have no recollection whatsoever. You may be right that I received material Melvin had sent to Virgin in re Feldman. But I don't remember doing so. I had no connection with the preparation and writing of Feldy's book. I didn't at that time know Rod Green - I doubt if I'd ever heard his name mentioned - and I was unaware that he had called Melvin a liar as early as that.
I note that we now have what seems to you, with more knowledge of what was going on at the time, a somewhat self-serving account of the facts from Melvin. I also note that in two other cases where he accuses me of inventing or distorting events, he is either relying on absolute denial when I have pointed out that the witness from the period is beyond my power to trace, or putting forward what turns out to be an absolutely new story with an absolutely different spin on it from that he gave me over the telephone ten or twelve years ago. I regretfully conclude that either Melvin's memory is terrible and he confuses incidents, or, by your standards and mine, he is as reckless with the truth as he is with other people's reputations. So I shall continue to thank Peter for posting anything he sends in, but continue also to decline to read material which I know will be offensive, and will only provoke misrecollections, evasions, distortions or distractions if answered.
Does it occur to you that this tempestuous personal discussion is supplying a very handy distraction for a man who has been under immense pressure to answer a few straight questions on historical matters?
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 07:00 am | | Hi Martin
"Does it occur to you that this tempestuous personal discussion is supplying a very handy distraction for a man who has been under immense pressure to answer a few straight questions on historical matters?"
Good heavens, Martin, nothing of the kind ever crossed my mind! I'm sure Melvin will answer the questions put to him in the fullness of time, should I live that long, and is in the meantime just, er, well, just doing what he does. I must admit that I would prefer him to provide the evidence that Feldman accused him or rigging the ink tests rather than waste his time batting around loads of very ancient balls like this business with Rod Green that has been discussed in detai already. But hey ho, as they say... |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 02:49 pm | | I think this portion of Harris's post belongs here (more or less)
(by the way, could anyone tell me what words Shirley Harrison cut out of her quoted extract from Harris's letter to Reed Hayes? Do they seriously alter the meaning? If they do, that seems pretty disgraceful. Anyone?)
From Melvin Harris:
Re: Kane:
Both Begg and Fido are wrong in imagining that the statement in the July 1994 Ripperana was made by me. It does not even represent my views.
The facts are that when I first said that Kane's handwriting should be examined only two people knew that.
One was Nick Warren, the other Martin Fido, and the information was given on a confidential basis. That was in 1993
Following that, the same year, I had a letter from Feldman stating that he knew about my interest in Mr. Kane and "we have investigated this"
Thus a year before the Ripperana item appeared, Feldman stated that he had actively intervened in the Kane affair. I would like to know who gave him the name in the first place?
His intervention was not welcome because he has the habit of fouling up genuine and tactful enquiries. Four hours on the phone to Anne G. Two hours on the phone to Alex Chisholm. Hectoring calls that made Nick Warren's life a misery. Need I say more?
Re: the Dibdin book as a possible source for the forgers:
Begg is not thinking straight when he deals with the Dibdin book issue.
I had twice explained that the paperback edition was a popular, easy to find work. Even so, Harrison stuck to her contention that the book was "obscure, and not easy to locate".
Now if Begg was genuinely interested in the truth he would have cautioned Mrs Harrison about expressing these views. He would have recognised that my research procedures were well in advance of hers and that my facts had been checked before I wrote.
Now he tells us he has only seen one copy of this paperback outside of a collection. Well - I have seen many, and bought two in 1990.
And if Mrs Harrison had rung Faber and Faber she would have found that, far from being obscure, this work is so popular that it has never been out of print!. The most recent print runs, for 1999, and 2000 were respectively, 2,000 copies and 5,0000 copies.
Point made?
Re: the generalised personal attacks:
I notice that Begg skips mention of the deplorable, wholly unacceptable editing of the opening lines of my letter to Reed Hayes, used by Mrs Harrison on page 363 of her Blake paperback.
It is an example of a deliberately dishonest act on her part, yet Begg stays mute. Why? Because he himself has used this specific dishonst act in order to justify his own slurs on me. On June 14 1999, he placed a mesasage which ended:
"On all of which, some readers might like to look at pg. 363 of the Blake edition of Shirley Harrison's book".
But this is typical. He has even used duff information derived from Colin Wilson of all people.
And I have to remind Begg that my own views on Mike and Anne as placers and not the wscribers of the text, have nothing to do with any confidential newespaper investigations. They are my deductipns based on my own handwriting examinations and other material.
I have stated this some time back. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:52 pm | | Gee, Melvin seems to disapprove of the Kane situation being discussed or Kane being named in public. He cites the interests of genuine and tactful inquiries, and of not fouling them up.
I wonder how he'd feel about people who might come out in a very public forum and mention not only that there are new samples of Kane's writing, but that they seem to indicate, according to some new consensus, that "it looks very possible now that Kane could have written this diary?"
I wonder if Melvin would be similarly disapproving of such an announcement in public and of the people who made it?
Or maybe he'd approve of dropping this little juicy piece of info in public and then quickly and without comment running from it like the plague after a sudden attack of conscience.
I wonder.
And he's worried about Feldman "fouling up genuine and tactful enquiries?"
--John
PS: So Melvin still does not think Mike or Anne could have penned this diary, then. Interesting. Well, Kane's writing better damned-well match then, or we are all in a mess of trouble and it's looking into the unknown and unnamed void for a new penman, isn't it? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 04:51 pm | | Talk about shifting goal posts! Harris shifts the whole field – to another town! The subject was his letter to Rod Green, which he doesn't mention and doesn't deny calling Feldman a "coward" and so forth. Instead he reguritates his rubbish about what he supposes I knew about Michael Dibdin's book sales. I really can’t even be bothered to get embroiled in that fatuous argument. Talk about postulating other people’s thought processes!
“I notice that Begg skips mention of the deplorable, wholly unacceptable editing of the opening lines of my letter to Reed Hayes, used by Mrs Harrison on page 363 of her Blake paperback.”
Shirley Harrison omitted two pages. Perhaps Karoline would like to ask Harris to post the content of those pages so other can judge whether the omission was unacceptable. But it is wholly and completely irrelevant to the point I was making. This was plainly and simply that Shirley Harrison had complained in print of Harris writing unsolicited letters to various people including New Line Cinema, her consultants and the press. I mentioned this as an example of another person apart from Paul Feldman and Rod Green complaining that Harris writes unsolicited letters. Any letter editing by Shirley Harrison had nothing to do with Melvin Harris writing unsolicited letters. Either Harris wrote those letters or he didn’t. End of story.
And yes, Karoline, I guess seriously altering the meaning of what someone has said is pretty disgraceful. So ask Melvin for a copy of the letter and judge it for yourself. Oh, and by the way, if you could please point me to the post where Melvin said what you quoted about nigrosine I would be very grateful. Thanks. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 04:24 am | | Glad to see Karoline admitting that altering the meaning of what someone has said is pretty disgraceful. I guess it took quite a bit of practice on her part to come to that realisation. Perhaps she'll stop doing it herself now? (I can see those pigs above my head now....)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 05:01 am | | Hi Caz
It will probably cause a furnace-like blast from Harris if I say this, but I am not sure what Shirley Harrison is supposed to have omitted that makes the slightest difference to the intent of Harris's letter to Reed Hayes.
Shirley Harrison said the debate surrounding the diary had become ‘bitter, confused and often personal’ (pg. 363) and she cited Melvin Harris writing letters to ‘almost anyone who had dealings with the Diary’ and quoted some personal remarks he had made in a letter to Reed Hayes. For example, the sentence in which he called her a practiced evader reads in full: ‘Since the Leeds fiasco Harrison has been promising new tests and keeps posing as someone concerned to reach the truth in this matter, but she is a practised evader and has deliberately drawn things out to the point where I and others, no longer believe her promises to be sincere.’ This strikes me as explicit and I don't immediately see how much of Harris’s letter Shirley Harrison need have quoted to demonstrate that Harris thinks she is a liar, evasive and untrustworthy and will say this to strangers like Reed Hayes.
Shirley Harrison said the debate became personal and she cited personal comments by Melvin Harris. Harris made those comments and it seems to have been his clear intention to portray Shirley Harrison as a liar, evasive and untrustworthy. If that was not his clear intention, I'm not sure what Shirley Harrison omitted that created the wrong impression. As far as I can see, the obvious and indeed the stated purpose of Melvin’s letter to Reed Hayes was to demonstrate that he had been provided with incorrect information. All that Shirley left out was the material on which Harris based that assertion and his personal view that Shirley was consequently a liar, evasive and untrustworthy.
The only real issue seems to be whether or not it is right to make such comments. This, I think, is probably the issue one should reflect on. But maybe Melvin can demonstrate how he said something that showed he didn't really mean that Shirley was a 'practised evader'. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:48 am | | Paul:
"And yes, Karoline, I guess seriously altering the meaning of
what someone has said is pretty disgraceful."
After having read the letter to Reed Hayes and after re-reading Shirley's p.363, that I believe is what she did in that instance. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:52 am | | This went on the Maybrick Diary Board instead of this one. Sorry!
It's been asked what the words were that were omitted from p363(Blake Edn) of Shirley Harrison's book, concerning Melvin Harris' letter to Reed Hayes.
The letter starts: "You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies." It is not until the 10th para on page 2 some 76 lines after this that the lines appear: " Since the Leeds fiasco Harrison has been promising new tests and keeps posing as someone concerned to reach the truth in this matter, but she is a practised evader and has deliberately drawn things out to the point where I, and others, no longer believe her promises to be sincere."
Regretfully I have to say that the passage mentioned in the book gives a very different meaning to the passage actually written in the letter to Reed Hayes dated June 12th 1995. The "deliberate lies" are a/ "...that I (MH) received the tested ink samples at third-hand." and b/ "...that I (MH) supplied the chloroacetamide to the AFI laboratory." Nothing to do with Mrs. Harrison but the printed version gives the plain impression that Melvin Harris is accusing Mrs. Harrison of deliberately lying. Based solely on this (and of course we must assume that Mrs. Harrison did have the full letter to Hayes otherwise she would surely have been ill-advised to quote from it,) I would suggest that any comment concerning Melvin Harris in Mrs. Harrison's book should be carefully judged. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:26 am | | Peter
I don't agree with you at all. Was it or was it not Melvin's intention to portray Shirley Harrison as a liar, evasive and untrustworthy? And wasn't that intent precisely what Shirley Harrison's quote showed? And wasn't Shirley Harrison's sole point that the debate had become personal? And weren't Melvin's remarks personal? And as said, isn't the real issue whether or not such personal commentary has a place in a letter to a comparative stranger? |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:29 pm | | Paul,
how can you justify such a claim?
Harris's full letter makes it clear that the "deliberate lies" he is talking about are the smears being made against him by Paul Feldman.
In Shirley Harrison's book, the text is cut to give the impression the "deliberate lies" are allegations Harris is making about her.
That's a completely unjustifiable distortion
Did you know about this distortion when you recommended people on the Casebook to read the quote in Shirley's book?
If so, that's pretty poor of you really. But then, I'm getting used to the standards employed by some here.
And I love your reasoning - it's okay to pretend Harris was accusing Shirley of 'deliberate lies', because we all know he would have done anyway sooner or later.
Do you ever read this stuff you write?
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Do you ever really read any of the stuff you, or anyone else, writes? Sometimes I think all the posts are translated into Serbo-Croat by the time they reach your computer. It would explain some of your confusion over who said what and when.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:54 pm | | "Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and decieved mightilly. You are also being fed deliberate lies."
Melvin is telling Reed Hayes he is being deceived and lied to.
"Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and decieved mightilly. You are also being fed deliberate lies."
Melvin is telling Reed Hayes he is being deceived and lied to. Melvin then goes on to give examples of how he believed Reed Hayes was being deceived and the lies he believed Mr Hayes was being told. The "deliberate lies" are lies Reed Hayes is being told and Melvin makes clear that they are being told by Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison. Paul Feldman and Shuirley Harrison are telling "deliberate lies" to Reed Hayes.
Calling someone a liar is a personal comment, which is what Shirley said - the debate got personal. Calling someone a liar is personal. Melvin called Paul and Shirley liars.
I hope this makes it clear for you. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 03:00 pm | | I can't myself see that Shirley can be held guilty of 'deliberate distortion' for tactfully declining to embroil her own book with Melvin's raucous (on both sides) 'debate' with Feldy, but restricting her quotation to the passages referring to herself.
Peter - I think we've had a very similar discussion before. At the horrible risk of sounding like the (convicted liar) C.E.M.Joad, I'd have to say, 'It all depends on what you mean by lying'. Ethically I don't see any distance at all between 'posing as someone concerned to reach the truth' and 'telling deliberate lies'. In a recent posting Melvin accused Shirley of 'duplicity'. I call all this the use of smarmy insinuating language to call her a liar without using the word. If Melvin were to come out and say he never intended to suggest that Shirley told lies to mislead Reed Hayes and other researchers, I should say Melvin was posing as someone concerned to reach the truth - (which actually strikes me as a very good description of some of his work) - and was practising duplicity, and, in fact, was a bloody liar!
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:13 pm | | Peter
You are saying that the words “Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies” applied to Paul Feldman, not to Shirley Harrison, and that Shirley Harrison’s quote made it appear that they were being applied to her.
I do not believe that this is true. Of Shirley Harrison, Melvin Harris wrote: “Since the Leeds fiasco Harrison has been promising new tests and keeps posing as someone concerned to reach the truth in this matter, but she is a practised evader and has deliberately drawn things out to the point where I and others, no longer believe her promises to be sincere.”
“posing as someone concerned to reach the truth” means that she isn’t someone concerned to reach the truth. You don’t say that a police officer “posed” as a police officer. You only say “posed” when the person isn’t what they claim to be. Thus Melvin is saying that Shirley was NOT concerned to reach the truth. She was deceiving someone. This is confirmed when he calls her “a practiced evader”. He also says he no longer believes her promises to be sincere. If he thinks the promises are insincere then he thinks they are empty, meaningless and to all intents lies. Since this sentence represents Shirley Harrison as someone who at the very least isn't direct and sincere and at worst is a deceiver and liar, I think it is perfectly legitimate for Shrley Harrison to conclude that “Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies” applied to her as well as Paul Feldman.
Since information being conveyed to Reed Hayes concerned the ink tests and things for which Shirley was responsible, such as the Leeds test from which allegedly there sprang accusations that Melvin rigged the ink tests, to which Melvin devoted two long paragraphs, I think she had every reason to suppose that she was being embraced by and included in the opening paragraph “Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies.” Furthermore these charges were made in the opening paragraph of a letter that went on to describe both Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison and there was no indication such as a sub-heading to suggest that they be exclusively applied to Paul Feldman alone. Reed Hayes would have been perfectly entitled to conclude that both people were untrustworthy. And that is the overall conclusion conveyed by Melvin Harris’ letter.
Melvin opens his letter by telling Reed Hayes that he is being lied to and deceived, the letter concerns matters with which Shirley Harrison was associated and later in the letter Melvin portrays Shirley Harrison as a deceiver and a liar. Why on earth should anyone imagine that the opening paragraph didn’t embrace Shirley Harrison! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 10:43 am | | Because they don't if you read the entire letter but if you only read the few words printed, then your mind is irresistably drawn to the assumption that Shirley is being accused right from the start of having lied and deceived Reed Hayes. It's plain that the first para refers to the references I mentioned from Hayes' May 30th letter which are (as I previously cited) that Melvin had received the ink samples third-hand and that he had supplied the chloroacetamide. Whether Hayes had been told these things by Feldman or by another person is something that I am sure you are able to tell us. What is plain is that Melvin refers to Shirley in a very few lines in a very long letter and I note with interest that you have not addressed my point as to whether Melvin was justified in his comment concerning her Diamine ink statement. Please tell us clearly whether she said this and whether it was accurate so that we can judge if Melvin's judgement of "utterly false" is reasonable or not. If the statement is wrong then there is a good reason for that particular section not to have been printed: it would have been possible for someone not in possession of Melvin's letter to check the facts concerning Diamine and Shirley's statement.
You say: "I think it is perfectly legitimate for Shrley Harrison to conclude that “Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies” applied to her as well as Paul Feldman."
You have every right to believe this but I submit that the facts of the letter (of which she must have had a copy) show clearly that this statement applies to the person who gave Reed Hayes the incorrect information previously mentioned. The very beggining of the clause concerning the Diamine ink statement: "As for Mrs. Harrison..." would show clearly that she was being dealt with separately to the situation outlined in the first 7 paras.
The situation is, I am afraid, clear: the Hayes letter was drastically edited to give an impression to her readers: an impression which I feel is not born out by the full contents of this letter.
By the way, in another place you said apropos of my finding of what I believed might have been the first mention of the name Kane on these boards:
"Thank you for that bit of old news Peter, but it was hardly
a new name in 1998 now was it, having been published in
Ripperana in 1994 and in Paul Feldman's book."
And thank you Paul for your politeness in responding to a message which I had thought relevant to a current discussion and where there was no comment from me apart from a request for further information. Perhaps you would assist me again in telling me of the source of the "Diamine" quote attributed to Mrs. Harrison, whether she clearly said it and whether information from the company proved it wrong. Thank you again. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 12:28 pm | | Peter,
Let’s try to address facts here instead of thinking that we are arguing partisan corners. If I wrote a message here and called it “LIES”, discussed a few lies told by Joe Bloggs and then turned to some statement you had made and described you as posing as someone concerned to reach the truth, called you a practised evader and said I didn’t believe you to be sincere, are you seriously telling me that you wouldn’t think that the heading applied to you or that you would be surprised if readers thought the heading might apply to you?
But the fact is that Melvin Harris wrote a letter in which he was critical both Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison. That letter began “Dear Reed Hayes, You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies”. That's it. That's the first paragraph. There is nothing to suggest that it should apply to just Paul Feldman. It looks like and reads like a catch-all criticism.
Later in the letter Melvin Harris wrote specifically of Shirley Harrison: “Since the Leeds fiasco Harrison has been promising new tests and keeps posing as someone concerned to reach the truth in this matter, but she is a practised evader and has deliberately drawn things out to the point where I and others, no longer believe her promises to be sincere.” This doesn’t portray Shirley Harrison as reliable and trustworthy. These words portray Shirley Harrison as a deceiver and a liar and she and every readers could therefore legitimately think that she is embraced by the words “You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies.”
I don't really think anyone is going to read a letter with anything like the critical awareness you demand to arrive at any conclusion other than that the opening paragraph embraced Shirley Harrison. But paragraph four begins ‘It is a lie’ and ends by indicating that the truth was ‘known to both Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison’, from which is may fairly be supposed that if they knew the truth they were party to or condoned the lie. Paragraph six says that ‘The deception begins with the supplying to you of the tests made at Leeds’. These were tests arranged by Shirley Harrison. And again “Smith and Harrison” are stated as having known things Reed Hayes was not told. In paragraph eight Shirley Harrison is referred to as issuing a statement that is utterly false (she lied!). Then we come to the Leeds fiasco statement.
I can't see any reason for supposing that Shirley Harrison was not embraced by that opening paragraph. And if Melvin meant differently then he should have made himself clearer - or, preferably, just cited the facts and left the personal remarks alone. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 11:28 am | | EVADERS INCARNATE MELVIN HARRIS
Begg is intent on making himself even more insufferable. He knows that I often do not see postings until days after they appear. He knows that I do not have time on my hands. Thus my posts have to lag behind and deal with errors some time after they come to my notice. (This also applies to other people known to me.) Despite this he indulges in cheap sneers about "the subject was his letter to Rod Green." Since I decide how I dispose of my limited time, Begg's naming of the topic to be discussed is plain stupid. I have dealt with the Rod Green affair. Only the desperate think otherwise.
The Dibdin book issue was about Harrison's dogmatic and false claim that the book was obscure. Thus implying that SHE had checked on the matter and found my research and reasoning faulty. But it was contrariwise. The lady was talking from a standpoint of sheer ignorance which, in itself, was the product of either lack of knowledge or laziness.
And the same lack of know-how plus laziness has virus-fashion spread to Begg since he quotes sayings of hers which he must know are untrue. He brings in her claim about my "writing unsolicited letters to various people including New Line Cinema, her consultants and the press." But there were only three consultants that I know of: Skinner, I never wrote to, Fido I wrote to in continuation of corrspondence which began with A-Z revisions BEFORE the diary emerged. And my only letters to Begg came after the publication of my book in 1994 and were in responce to his letter TO ME. Thus Begg knows that all talk of unsolicited letters to her consultants is pure fantasy and irresponsible and reeks of malice.
Likewise with the contact with New Line. Material from me was ASKED FOR by a New Line Official. This request was conveyed to me by Paul Gainey, who had made contact with the film company without my knowledge or assistance. I made this clear years ago!
As for Reed Hayes, this chap first rang me from Feldman's house at Feldman's request and my later letter to him was in responce to a letter from him. Now since Begg, as ever, is determined not to lose face and will chunder and blunder on, in an attempt to distort my perfectly clear sentences, let me treat him to a guide to plain English. Reed Hayes first wrote to me on January 4th 1995. I replied on 18th February. I promised to send some new information on the ink tests. I was not able to do this because Mrs. Harrison failed to keep her promise. (More on this later.) In the meantime, Reed had a letter from Feldman. Understood? Not Harrison but Feldman. Reed then wrote to me. In his letter he repeated Feldman's lies about the ink tests. I wrote back saying:"You are being deceived. It is a lie that I received the tested samples at third-hand...It is a lie that I supplied the chloroacetamide to the AFI Laboratory. The chloroacetamide was sent to them by surgeon Nick Warren and came from the Diamine laboratories in Liverpool."
So the deliberate lies were the ones BEING FED TO HAYES. This was not Harrison's work. It was not her letter. The lies were not created by her. She knew better, since full details of the tests were supplied to Robert Smith, three days after the results were published. Thus the opening sentences of my reply to reed did not apply to her. They applied to the distributor of the lies. The man who sent them to Reed. And that was Feldman. Understood?
So Mrs. Harrison had no right to edit out my qualifying words and create a bogus attack on her. She deceived her readers. Her action was despicable and no ammount of toadying fudging by Begg can alter that. I should add that Reed later apologised and regretted having been put in a position where he was unwittingly repeating false information.
As for unsolicited letters to the Press, this has a crazy ring to it. Since when has anyone had to get permission from a newspaper before writing to it?
So there it is, a welter of easily identifiable false statements meant to disparage my actions and add to Mrs. Harrison's hard-done-by pose. And her action in rigging the quotes from my letter was just another example of a deplorable approach to debate.
But I have been personal, claims Begg, and asks if I intended to portray Mrs. Harrison "as a liar, evasive, and untrustworthy." No, I do not say that she is a liar but I note that she has used bogus versions of documents in order to give credence to her beliefs. The Spicer story, for one, as used by her has been mangled and wangled. The same goes for her various claims about the Will. And she has not been forthright with her use of test reports. (See my revelations about the watch tests.) And, yes I do not trust her and she has proved to be evasive more than once.
Once I trusted her to keep her side of and agreement that had been worked out between myself, Nick Warren and Robert Smith. The plan was to have the diary ink retested by both AFI and by another lab chosen by Smith and Harrison. Both labs would repeat the original tests exactly, using the same anti-contamination techniques and the same solvent and apparatus calibrated to match. I even offered to pay for these tests if they failed to find any chloroacetamide.
Yes, I trusted her. And what happened? Without any attempt to consult, Mrs Harrison arranged for just one set of tests at Leeds. Tests that failed to duplicate the original AFI tests; tested irrelevant material and produced confusion, including the strange claim that the ink contained no sodium. That in itself was in direct conflict with Dr. Easthaugh's tests of 1992.
When the confusion became obvious, Mrs. Harrison, on December 12th 1994, then stated that she would offer both Dr. Baxendale and Dr. Simpson a chance to retest the ink. So I gave her one more chance to prove worthy of trust. In my 15th December letter to New Line I even stated that that new tests were imminent. But the months sped by and she made no attempt tp keep this promise.
When I wrote to Reed Hayes on 12th June 1995, six barren months had elapsed and I had given her up for lost, and I said this: "I am sorry that I was not able to send the proofs earlier but we had been promised further ink tests from Mrs. Harrison and I thought it only fair that you should have copies of her new test reports when they reached me. You see, I have no doubts whatsoever that a repeat of the tests we commissioned will bring about the same positive results. But the months have rolled by with all sorts of excuses being offered for the delays, until I have to accept that there is little chance of the Diary people acting fairly and responsibly in this matter.
This is yet another section of my letter that Mrs. Harrison CONCEALED. Yet it is the sole reason why she was ever mentioned.
To sum up: she had evaded her responsibilities, both in this matter and with other matters involving documents. Hence my judgement that she was an evader and I no longer believed her promises to be sincere. I had every right to conclude that and I stand by it. Her later misrepresentation in her bppks proves my stand to be sound.
But why is it that Begg is always ready to make excuses for her and is never known to point to any of her many errors and wangles? The answer lies in a passage from a letter to her attacking my view that the diary research was bungled. It reads: "... maybe Harris should be advised to check whether in questioning my competancy in a letter to a former employer, he is running the risk of persuading you not to use my services in future and thereby opening himself to litigation. Maybe you should ask, on my behalf, for a formal apology to be sent to you, Robert, myself and anyone else to whom Harris has expressed these conclusions?" In other words, it is about an inflated reputation and about money. Begg saw ahead to a time when he could shine and pocket gold from the dreamed-of film. But he had overlooked the fact that earlier he had disclosed to me that he had never even read the essential modern works on the Maybrick case. He wrote: "I was a consultant...I was not investigating the journal. I was not investigating Maybrick. I was a consultant about the Ripper and was far too busy with paying computer work to wade through MacDougall." So he was never able to spot the Diary sources! Despite this, he voted on the questions a/ was the journal written by Maybrick? and b/ was Maybrick the Ripper? And he was prepared to pontificate on the issue. Yet another crazy position.
He had also disclosed that: "As Martin Fido will confirm, we were led to believe that scientific evidence (ink analysis, handwriting and so on) was highly favourable and indeed supportive of the journal." Consider the incredible admission "...we were led to believe..." No level-headed researchers or consultants should tolerate a condition where they accept second-hand verdicts on important pieces of evidence. Is it any wonder that I regard such Diary research as pathetically inadequate? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 12:42 pm | | Martin:
Thank you for your helpful messages. I accept what you say about: "I am only concerned about
the recurrent innuendoes and assertions that the people
working on it were slack, dishonest or incompetent. In this
case, I know that Shirley's words, now alleged to be a
deliberate deception, were nothing of the kind, but an
accurate citation of what she had been told by Alec Voller."
I hope that you will accept that my personal knowledge of the various persons involved in the diary is slight and therefore I can only judge them by their words,on paper or on screen. Thus my judgement on Shirley's incomplete quotation from the Hayes letter which I find unfair and misleading. Do you happen to know where her "Diamine" quote comes from? Was it wrong? I'm told that it may have appeared in the pb of her first edn. Was it altered or erased in the Blake edn?
Paul:
I believe you to be wrong in your impression that the imperfect and misleading quote used in Shirley's book was justified. I have already given my views on why you are wrong. Melvin has (via myself) explained why you are wrong. I think most reasonable people given the full text of the Hayes letter or at least one not so unfairly truncated would also agree that you are wrong.
So, Paul, as I have never to my knowledge seen you admit on this or any other board that you could be wrong about something, then we will just have to leave it at that. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 04:36 pm | | I don’t suppose many people find Melvin Harris’s attempts to obscure some of his more unpleasant habits in the least bit illuminating or, indeed, penetrable, and I am afraid that I can’t be bothered to continue venturing into his own wildly spinning universe of changing allegations, charges and arguments, especially as he is becoming increasingly vindictive and biased, intent on causing trouble and uninterested in the truth and reality.
On Monday, May 14, 2001 Melvin Harris described Martin Fido as a “mischief-maker and event-inventor” and claimed that the editor Martin said had called Harris a liar was Rod Green, formerly of Virgin Books. This episode concerned a telephone call made by Melvin to Rod Green which Melvin asserts was concluded by Melvin being asked “asked to put my charges in writing.” Melvin therefore says that the material was solicited. Martin has said on the authority of Rod Green that it wasn’t solicited. Now, the TRUTH, rather than Melvin’s one-sided view, is that Martin Fido did not see a covering letter which possibly supports the claim that the material was solicited and he was not informed that the material had been requested. So Martin was only saying what he believed to be the truth. Furthermore, when asked if the material had been requested, Rod Green said no. He has since explained that he refuted Harris because he had no memory whatever of asking for or agreeing that the material be sent. However, he recalled being anxious to get rid of Harris and suggested that he may have asked or agreed that Harris’s complaints be put in writing. Thus Martin Fido was not inventing or making mischief, but honestly stating what he believed to be the truth.
(And I would like it noted here that nobody has said that Melvin’s version is a lie. Everyone has bent over backwards to accept his version of the story. Only Harris accuses people of being liars.)
Now, the point is that the material Melvin sent to Rod Green did not simply stick to stating alleged libels, but contained the sort of unscholarly rudeness and personal remarks so typical of Melvin’s posts on these Message Boards and so effectively parodied and ridiculed by John Omlor. This was what upset Rod Green, Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner, and why Martin Fido commented on it. This – not the fact that the letter was solicited or unsolicited – was the real issue, was why Martin mentioned it. And I pointed out that it was not the only one of its kind, writing “this was but one disparaging letter allegedly sent by Melvin, apparently unsolicited; (see Shirley Harrison’s revised edition from Blake, pg. 363).” And I’d like to draw attention to the words here that I have emphasised.
The quote was intended to point to another person complaining about letters, “apparently” unsolicited”, that contained disparaging remarks.
Rather than address any part of the foregoing setting of the record straight, Melvin and Peter Birchwood launch into a protracted and largely pointless argument about whether or not Shirley Harrison could fairly assume that the single and unqualified opening paragraph of Harris’s letter to Reed Hayes could be applied to herself.
But this is an entirely different argument and has no bearing on anything I have said. I said that the material sent to Rod Green “was but one disparaging letter allegedly sent by Melvin, apparently unsolicited; (see Shirley Harrison’s revised edition from Blake, pg. 363)” – where Shirley Harrison said that the debate surrounding the ‘diary’ had become ‘bitter, confused and often personal’ and where by example she cited Melvin Harris writing letters to ‘almost anyone who had dealings with the Diary’ and quoted some personal remarks he had made about her in a letter to Reed Hayes. And he did make some personal remarks about her. He wrote that she posed as someone concerned to reach the truth, that she was a practised evader and that he thought he insincere.
In the context of my comments, Shirley Harrison’s complaint was justified – Harris did write those letters, the debate did become bitter and personal and the quoted extract did contain material that was personal (and deeply so).
Nothing was said that is wrong. Yet Melvin and Peter seem oblivious to his and are concerned only to blow out of all proportion some argument about whether or not the opening paragraph can fairly be ascribed to Shirley. And the argument seems to revolve around what I can only describe as hair-splitting banalities. The hard bottom line is that unless Melvin really means that he never intended to suggest that Shirley told lies or was party to or condoned telling lies to mislead Reed Hayes or other researchers , then Shirley had every right to think the opening paragraphs referred to her - if, in fact, that is what she ever actually thought; she only cited extracts from a letter showing that the debate had become personal.
My only real point was to explain why Rod Green was angry with Melvin’s material, to explain why Martin Fido wrote what did and to point out that the material being solicited or not was never important to anyone except Melvin. Instead of addressing this, Melvin and his friends launch into an ultimately pointless tirade against Shirley Harrison. I am not Shirley Harrison’s spokesperson or her nanny and if either Melvin or Peter want to dispute what she wrote in her book then they are at liberty to dispute it with her. I have simply cited Shirley Harrison complaining that Harris wrote letters to all and sundry and that the debate became personal. Melvin wrote the letters. They were personal. They’ve asked my opinion about the quote. I have given it. They have given theirs.
And to quickly reply to Melvin’s fatuous arguments about Dibdin, he inexplicably assumes that I am Shirley Harrison’s advisor and in a position to caution her; he assumes that I have knowledge about the availability of Michael Dibdin’s book; and he assumes that I should prefer his conclusion over Shirley’s because his research procedures were better than hers. He accuses me of ‘not thinking straight’ and implies that in not having cautioned Shirley I am not interested in the truth. Melvin says the book was popular and easy to find, but he has provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim. The Last Sherlock Holmes Story was the first novel by Michael Dibdin. It was not a best-seller and the author wasn’t and isn’t the sort of media personality who might have attracted attention, so I think it is fairly fair to say that The Last Sherlock Holmes Story is “obscure”. In my experience it was also relatively difficult to find – as I said, of 200+ copies currenly available through ABE, only 9 are the Faber edition. ABE may not be the most ideal indicator of the availability of the Sphere edition in the UK, but 9 out of more that 200 is nevertheless a very small percentage. UKBookWorld has only 9 copies, only 1 of which is the Faber paperback. That the book has never been out of print is in the main due to the growing popularity of Michael Dibdin’s Aurelio Zen series and his craftsmanship as an author and should not be taken as an indicator of The Last Sherlock Holmes Story popularity now or when it was published. The current sales figures as cited by Melvin probably indicate this overall growing increasing popularity rather than the popularity or the easy availability of the book. It would have been more appropriate for Melvin to have quoted the print run for 1989-1992 if he was attempting to substantiate his claim. It is something he should do, since he presumably contacted Faber at the time to substantiate what he thought. But insofar as I have or have ever had any knowledge of Michael Dubdin’s book, I would say that “obscure, and hard to obtain” was a fair comment. But if Melvin Harris wants to get deep into this question, he should really establish precisely what he meant by popular and easy to find and what Shirley meant by obscure and hard to obtain. Prints runs don’t really reflect the popularity of a book or its obtainability. Sherlock Holmes pastiches can gain a large following among Holmesians but remain largely unknown to a genre readership. If by popular and easily obtainable, Shirley Harrison was comparing The Last Sherlock Holmes Story to a Ruth Rendell novel, then she would without question be absolutely correct. And this may very well have been exactly what she did mean. Did Melvin contact her to find out?
As for the rest of his post, it’s typical Harrisian one-sided, goal-post shifting argumentative claptrap and garbage which just absorbes too much bandwith and life-expectancy to even bother correcting. Sadly, I really don’t find any pleasure in Melvin Harris’s gutter-level brand of argument, as he and his friends seek to throw up smokescreen after smokescreen to avoid responding straightforwardly to facts and resolving long-standing disputes and misunderstandings. I shall therefore reluctantly follow my colleague Martin Fido and henceforth cease to respond to their obnoxious rubbish, which will no doubt cause Melvin to crow and gloat with pleasure. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 10:17 pm | | Hey Paul:
I want to read what John makes of Melvin's latest screaming headline:
EVADERS INCARNATE MELVIN HARRIS
Is he gonna call The National Enquirer or should I?
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 10:47 pm | | Hi Yaz:
You bring up a good point that Melvin Harris's upper case headlines are National Enquirer-like. We have had some conversation here on this side of the Atlantic of how rude Harris is in terms of always talking of Paul Begg and Martin Fido as "Begg" and "Fido" and how he undermines his own credibility with his manner of comporting himself. I wonder whom he thinks reads his posts? Soon he will be talking out in the desert all alone. A shame because he has much to say, particularly when he is not hurling insults or rehashing old feuds.
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:22 am | | Chris,
I think your remarks are grossly unfair and inaccurate by any standard, and I admit I am rather shocked and disappointed to see you take the easy option of joining in the general Harris-bash that is the quick road to popularity here.
I agree his manner lets him down. I agree he employs perjorative remarks that have no place in a reasoned argument and which undermine the considerable value of his work.
But so do Martin Fido and Paul Begg.
And how can anyone say Harris is more abusive than Martin or Caroline?
Chris, have you read the things they wrote about me? Have your read Caroline descending to the level of calling calling Peter Birchwood "Birkwood"? (I ask you!).
I think you must have done - yet you didn't choose to voice a word of critcism about their credibility being undermined by the way they "comport themselves".
And the truth is that Harris has been unjustly libelled and maligned here and in the pages of the A-Z by three people who have chosen to try and use public defamation as a weapon in a private dispute.
You are well aware of this, because it was you who suggested to me that we try and persuade Paul to see the error of his ways and make changes to the A-Z entry.
The conduct of the A-Z authors is unethical and unjustifiable and has been roundly condemned by the whole of the ripperologist community and beyond (you may not be aware of this, since most of these key players are not online or choose not to take part in this discussion - but this is still true).
In reality, outside this board, if anyone risks being alone in the wilderness, as you suggest, it's not Harris, but these three, whose refusal either to acknowledge the utter unprofessionalism of their conduct or to modify their behaviour is alienating many erstwhile supporters.
And it was not Harris who began this "rehashing" here - it was Martin, who posted up the offending A-Z entry in order to condemn Harris for finding it objectionable.
Alegria and I then asked Martin to justify the claim it made. He informed us that it was based on Harris's alleged accusation of plagiarism against Bruce Paley.
When Alegria and I examined the background evidence to this claim, we both found it was simply not justfiable, and we said so here.
Did you not read any of this Chris?
Martin also made a number of other allegations against Harris - including that an unnamed publisher had called Harris a "liar."
When asked to produce any evidence for these claims, he simply refused - and abused me in the most insulting terms for asking him in the first place.
Again, Chris, did you not read this stuff?
Under these circumstances, is it very surprising if Harris feels he needs to respond? Is it even surprising if his tone is more aggressive than is politic?
In his place, many would have sued by now.
Supposing, Chris, that I told everyone here that you had a conviction for fraud and thatsome guy I won't name called you a "liar"
Would you expect everyone just to take my word for it? or would you like to think someone would come forward to apply some ethics? to say "hey, please prove the allegation or withdraw it?"
And if I refused to prove my allegation, wouldn't you expect people to condemn me or my unethical unprofessional behaviour?
And if I just kept repeating the same allegations over and over while tacitly encouraged by a few of my best chums, wouldn't you in the end be damn angry?
Just ask yourself Chris, if one day anyone ever does treat you as the A-Z team have treated Harris - what would you hope to get from your fellow human beings?
Someone commenting that you were a sad case crying in the wilderness? or someone prepared to try and see a little right and justice done here?
If you ever are accused like that Chris, then if I'm around I'll do the same for you I've tried to do for Harris. Because for me this isn't a personal thing (I don't know any of the people involved, and their personalities are not relevant here, it's simply an ethical thing. What's right is right. That's all.
Basically, you don't make public allegations without evidence to back them up. And you don't misrepresent facts in order to defame someone's character.
Agreed?
How about a little balance here maybe. A little fairness even. It's about time.
Karoline |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 08:26 am | | Speaking of that A-Z entry on Melvin:
Why didMelvin approach the A-Z publishers and what did they discuss?
Besides that:
1) When will Melvin learn to talk with other people instead of talking over or around them?
2) If Melvin continues to address his posts to the ubiquitous "crowd," Melvin should become accustomed to the forms and the manner in which the "crowd" answers back.
3) If Melvin can't learn to take himself a bit less seriously and to cultivate a sense of humor, even -- maybe especially? -- about himself...
...I'd have to ask if he plans to copyright that title or can I contact Universal Studios to see if they want to make a movie called:
Evaders of the Body-Snatchers!!!
Could you ask Melvin what planet the Evaders are from?
Could you ask Melvin if the Evaders come in peace or do they plan on incarnating any of the rest of us?
If the Evaders plan on incarnating me, I'd like to know ahead of time so I can notify all my creditors to send their bills to my new incarnation...but I'm keeping cable TV!
Those dastardly Evaders can get their own HBO!!
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 11:11 am | | Hi, Karoline:
You and I have agreed that Melvin Harris has a case about the way he is described in A to Z. You and I have no argument about this and I continue to agree that he was justified in protesting the way he was portrayed in a supposedly objective encyclopedia-like work. But our offer to intercede with Begg, Fido, and Skinner to bring about a reconsideration of the entry on Harris went nowhere. I also agree that there have been pejorative remarks from both sides and uncalled-for and cutting remarks between you and Caroline Morris and similarly unnecessary remarks back and forth between Caroline and Peter Birchwood.
I am glad that you are in accord with me in regard to Harris that, as you put it, "I agree his manner lets him down. I agree he employs perjorative remarks that have no place in a reasoned argument and which undermine the considerable value of his work." This is all I was saying, Karoline, and in saying this, you confirm that you also find Harris's manner objectionable.
No, I have not read all that has been written here by Harris and all that others have said back to him. I have better things to do. I think the low blows from both sides are uncalled for, and that they merely eat up bandwidth unnecessarily, as does the rehashing of old feuds, which, as I put in my post of yesterday, is objectionable in this forum.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 03:31 pm | | Talking about how people are described in the A-Z, I have already picked out the way I want to be referred to there, as soon as I'm ready with my thesis:
"GRAND GENIUS OF THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS"
How's that grab ya'?
David |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 04:31 pm | | Hey David:
You're under arrest on suspicion of being the oldest man alive who also killed -- or was involved in planning the murders of -- up to five, maybe more, women in 1888.
Yaz |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:21 pm | | Mrs. Leach,
Your moral indignation over your perception of a "Harris bash" is laughable; yet when one considers that you and Mr. Harris share a common base of crass pejorative, and that you are defending yourself as well, it becomes understandable.
"And how can anyone say Harris is more abusive than Martin or
Caroline?" (Leach, 20, May)
Mrs. Leach, Harris is more abusive the Mr. Fido or Caroline Anne Morris on their worst day, and by suggesting otherwise you insult the intelligence of the Casebook readership; we don't need you to tell us what we're reading.
Caz, Paul, Mr. Fido, Mr. Skinner, Ms. Harrison, and most everyone else that you and Mr. Harris come in contact with, sometimes respond to the both of you with the same level of abuse that you initially heap on them; the difference is, they don't whine about it. If you do not possess the strength of character that is necessary to cope with receiving the type of malice that you yourself initiate, then stop dishing it out and spare us your faux sensitivity.
"In most moderated discussion lists the contributions of the style frequently offered by Caroline and Paul would just be ruled out of
order as libellous and inflammatory. They'd be warned to change their ways and if that didn't work they'd be banned, or the
offending portions of their posts removed.
That's what moderators are for!"
(Leach, Wednesday, May 16, 2001)
Mrs. Leach, as you demonstrate in the above quote, you are a paradigm of hypocrisy. You slam the Casebook moderators as negligent and inept in one message, and out of the other side of your mouth, you imply that the same folks you demeaned as slackers on Wednesday, are today like-minded associates. Which is it? A close reading of the messages you refer to, indicate that on this issue, Alegria and yourself share common questions and concerns, and not, as you would have the readers believe, a common bond of righteous character; in short, you are using her reputation to lend credibility to your uneven, and deceptive diatribe.
Your use of reprimand, as a tool to lever allies to your point of view, is an amusing, if inadvertent, exposure of poor people skills; as is evidenced by your insensitive, and undeserved public scolding of Mr. George, solely because he is an independent thinker. It comes as no surprise to see that your written history here shows you consistently attempting to gather consensus by intimidation, rather then relying on the strength of your argument. You insist that your perspective is the archetype everyone subscribes to, and all others fall short in intelligence, or good taste.
What's more remarkable then your disrespectful treatment of Mr. George is your utter astonishment with your diminished level of support from an imaginary "silent majority". Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps you are being left to your own devices because you've worn-out your welcome, your style is banal and nobody wants to be identified with you lest they garner the same reputation.
As for your appeal to the "silent majority" for approval is concerned, a person with similar limitations tried the same tact once and failed, but at least Spiro Agnew had the good taste to leave and remain gone. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 04:02 am | | Basically, you don't make public allegations without evidence to back them up. And you don't misrepresent facts in order to defame someone's character. (By Karoline L on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 05:22 am)
So, Karoline, what have you done so far to put pressure on the owner of citizen Kane's handwriting samples to get them analysed, so you can back up your own public view that he could have penned the Diary?
And how would you feel, if someone called you 'a known associate' of mine, because we both know Chris George through the Casebook, for example? And how would you feel if someone kept suggesting that it was possible you were involved in something underhand, because of the style of your writing?
Or can't you make that leap of imagination that could put you in the shoes of a possibly entirely innocent fellow scouser - citizen Kane?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 04:05 am | | Yazoo,
I am sure you are a fair-minded person who is looking to see justice done, and I have nothing but respect for your recent stand against some of the allegations being made here - even though, as you've said we have had our differences in the past.
So, from the standpont of our mutual interest in trying to be fair across the board - can I ask you to consider for a moment.
Harris isn't on the internet. He can't engage in the personal chat and give and take we all do.
Of course his posts read like speeches - they are. He has to prepare them and get others to post them for him. It's the only method he has of putting his side of the story.
Maybe we should take this into account. Maybe he would chat and talk if he could. Maybe what seems like arrogance is just the result of the system he's forced to use.
And he's been terribly abused and misrepresented here for yearsand years. No wonder he's pretty mad. It's hard for anyone to take. He's had to endure people repeating allegations he proved to be untrue years ago.
That's enough to drive anyone crazy and make them sound pretty damn hasty if we don't know the correct context.
Yazoo, just look at that letter of his printed in Harrison's book, to take simply one example.
Look at how it's been cut to completely change the meaning.
How would any of us like to be on the receiving end of treatment like that?
And one thing you obviously don't know which will probably change your thinking a little once I tell you -
Harris only approached the A-Z publishers after he'd tried for ten months to persuade the authors to agree amicably to a change in the wording.
I'v seen the correspondence, Yazoo. The man tried for ten months to persuade these guys to just graciously climb down from their libel - and they simply refused.
I mean he had the opinions of three independent witnesses that the A-Z entry was unacceptable, and the authors just refused to acknowledge or even discuss it with him.
What else could he do after that but go direct to the publishers to try and get the libellous entry changed?
The authors have no one to blame but themselves that he was forced to take that step and their arrogant unethical conduct should be condemned by us all.
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 04:30 am | | Libel is a strong word, Karoline, and shouldn't be used lightly by those who may not understand exactly what it means.
So, why do you think Melvin hasn't taken legal action, but resorts instead to a life spent making undignified public pronouncements to vent his frustration? Do you believe it has something to do with sparing Messrs. Begg, Fido & Skinner the rod?
My goodness, if you do believe that, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Mike Barrett could get one over you with the assorted confessions of a master-forger....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 05:02 am | | I think the responses of Chris George and the person named Joseph are a perfect representation of the appalling double standards that presently apply here.
Basically there are one or two people here who are abusive. And when they decide to target an individual for their abuse, their friends defend or cover up their actions by claiming that they are simply responding in kind or whatever.
This is simply untrue.
Chris, you claim that Caroline and I have exchanged abusive comments. That is false and you must know it's false.
Caroline has called me stupid, dishonest, blinkered, and has claimed my behaviour makes her sick.
Can you name one single similar comment I have made to her?
Please search the archives, I assure you - you will find none.
Likewise, Martin Fido has called me "stupid, intellectually dishonest, incompeten" and claimed he found it impossible to believe I could write a publishable book.
Can you find one single abusive comment I have made to him?
As for the person, Joseph, who responded after you. He has a history of using the most violent almost insane abuse here and has recently likened me to a case of "food poisoning".
Tell me Chris, have I ever used such language against him or anyone?
No I categorically have not. In fact I appeal to the moderator to confirm this fact.
The personal abuse directed at me over the past few weeks has been vindictive and entirely one-sided, hasn't it?
This is an important truth, and to try and conceal or misrepresent it is just another kind of abuse.
Chris, do you agree with me here?
I'm also sorry to understand, that you didn't bother to read the enquiries by Alegria and I into the recent allegations by Fido against Harris. Through your failure to read you are in fact seriously misunderstanding the nature of recent events. I suggest you go back to the archives.
You rightly say our (yours and my) attempts to mediate between Paul Begg and Harris in 1999 failed - but you don't say why.
You may correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that Paul Begg refused to accept there was anything wrong with the wording of the A-Z entry, and claimed he couldn't be held accountable in any case, because he had two co-authors, Fido and Skinner.
He refused to consult with them, or to accept there was any problem at all, and therefore you and I were forced to abandon the business.
Is that not so?
Tell me Chris, you have volunteered your opinion of Harris in no uncertain terms - what then is your opinion of Paul's conduct in this matter?
I think it was irresponsible and arrogant, do you agree?
I'm afraid the A-Z team and their few followers here are the instigators of the abusive system. They applied it against Harris in order to discredit him since his work on the diary was an embarrassment to them. They continue to apply it to anyone who they see as "opposing" them or who simply asks them questions they prefer not to answer.
Their crusade of rudeness, false-allegations and character-assasination makes it simply impossible for any fair-minded debate to happen here.
I am for the last time appealing to Stephen Ryder here to set up a properly moderated board, which follows the principles of rationality and fair play.
If he wants so see examples of how other discussion lists operate then he can find them online. As I've said before, I know good moderatorial conduct isn't easy - but it has to be done if a reasonable discussion is to be possible.
A well moderated board should apply certain basic ground rules that can nip the abuses that flourish here in the bud.
1. No gratuitous personal abuse of any kind to be tolerated. if abuse occurs the moderator should step in immediately, warn the individual that such behaviour is not tolerated. If it happens again, the offending portion of the message are removed, and if the abuser persists despite all warnings as a last resort they are banned from posting, or their posts are sent to the moderator for approval before being allowed on the screen.
2.If questions are asked that have already been answered, the moderator directs the questioner to the earlier discussions in the archive. This prevents circular repetitive questioning which can take up space and be wearisome for other posters.
3 Allegationsd (as opposed to abuse) are to be discouraged, but if they are made, then the moderator must insist they are backed up with evidence. If the maker of the allegations refuses to do this, then the moderator should insist that the allegations are withdrawn.
If these simple rules were applied impartially here then all the abuses that presently happen, would be fairly easily prevented. There would be no censorship of opinion, there would just be the rational management of a good debate.
The alternative is the chaos of abuse and the bullying domination by a vociferous minority we currently 'enjoy'.
Just to give an example - Caroline Morris' latest post to me would bring the intervention from the moderator a)that, as has been pointed out repeatedly, I did not instigate any allegations against Kane; b)that as has also been repatedly pointed out, I have already asked the owner of the handwriting sample to publish it, and c) therefore this particular thread should be closed pending further developments.
As I've mentioned before, if such a system isn't employed then it's becoming impossible for victims of the vociferous minority like me to contribute here. The effect on one's nervous system of enduring this constant hammering to say nothing of the time wasted in making replies that need not be made if the moderator stepped in, make it just more trouble than it's worth.
So Stephen R, if you don't want these people to drive all other reasonable contributors away — moderate your boards please.
Karoline |
|
|
|
|
