Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:10 am |        |
Hi All,
I do admire Peter Birchwood's moral outrage at all those who have ever tried to put, or keep, a long-dead soul in the frame for the JtR murders. I wonder if this outrage extends to Melvin Harris and Ivor Edwards for their opinion of D'Onston? Or to Stewart Evans and Tumblety? Or Martin Fido and Cohen? Or does it all come down to Peter Birchwood's opinion of the candidates, and whether he feels they deserve to be put forward or not?
What about poor old Billy Graham, Tony Devereux and Robbie Johnson - no longer with us, but all dragged back on occasion for the purpose of doubting their innocence regarding the Maybrick diary and watch?
A pity the moral outrage doesn't extend to the living, and their families, which strikes me as a little unfair somehow. Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, Gerard Kane and Albert Johnson appear to be fair game, even though there is next to no evidence that any of these people were involved in forgery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 08:01 am | |
Hi Caz,
How about we extend the moral outrage to Melvin Harris, who hasn't posted on these boards in months yet still gets vendetta bashed on a regular basis?
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 08:25 am | |
Come again? Who's been vendetta bashing dear old Mel on a regular basis? Let me at 'em. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 10:47 am | |
Jesse, Phillip and Ivor: thanks for your comments.
Let me list a few poor souls who have been accused of being Jack without, as far as I can see, any evidence whatsoever. Most recently, Claude Conder who seems to have been out of the country entirely during most of 1888 but who is apparently going to be the subject of a book accusing Warren of shielding him from the Law. The only evidence so far is a faulty address and stories of cuts on Eddowes' face made in an obscure Arabic language.
Joe Barnett who suffers from connections with Mary Kelly but against whom there is no sign that he was ever violent. The idea of a man murdering women in such a way just to save his ladyfriend from the streets is laughable. It's possible that he could have killed just Mary but the Police seemed satisfied. So many assumptions have appeared concerning him yet all we really know is what appeared in the Press and what various public records tell us. Any signs that he could be the killer? Not one.
If Karoline Leach was present, she would be the person to ask about Lewis Carroll. Is he a logical suspect? Surely not.
James Maybrick has been the subject of a lot of interest on his own boards and it would be superflous to go over the reasons why the diary is forged. The only evidence that Maybrick was Jack comes from the diary. Peter Wood should consider this: some have tried to prove the diary a real confession of JM but they end up by relying on the diary to prove itself. Isn't there a logical problem here?
Clarence seems to have a pretty good alibi for the murders. The mystery perhaps is where did the idea come from? Did Stowell really see some evidence and just misinterpret it or did he make the whole thing up? It would be interesting to know.
And for those with good memories there was the Great Weedon Grossmith Debate sponsored by Caroline Morris who now seems to accepted the true silliness of her theory and gone on to become obsessed with protecting the reputations of the people involved in the diary As far as it was at all understandable by mortal man the idea was that Weedon (co-author of "Diary of a Nobody," illustrator, actor/manager etc.,) had combined with James Maybrick to kill the victims and had then written the diary to put the finger on poor old Jim.
And to Peter Wood, it may well be that we live in a democracy and it is indeed the right of people to have very silly views and to publish them and make as much money as is proper. It's also the right and privilege of people like me to point out that in most of these cases, the Emperor is not only naked but skinless as well.
I'd like to see the thoughts of others interested in this matter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 12:51 pm | |
Thank you Peter. Of course, you are the right person to comment about the true silliness of certain theories, considering yours is (or was) that the Barretts created the diary together for financial gain. Weren't you going to write a book about it at one time? After all, it is your right to have very silly views and to publish them and make money, isn't it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 06:08 pm | |
Caroline
You made a great point there, applause all round. Peter (R.A.). Someone seems to be fighting your battles for you, he seems to think I upset you with an earlier post! As if! I agree with your views on many of the candidates, but only felt it right that we can't dismiss other people's opinions out of hand. Laugh behind their backs if you must, but allow them their views - otherwise you are going down a very dangerous road. Anyway Peter, I don't think you were being serious, just venting your spleen (ouch!), so to speak.
Anyway, who do you favour?
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 02:56 pm | |
| Caroline, I was under the impression by many of the posts here that the roles played by Anne and Mike Barrett have not yet been resolved.I have yet to see evidence to show that Anne or Mike Barrett are squeaky clean in relation to the diary. Perhaps you know something I dont. Do you have evidence to show that they were not involved in some way with the forging of the diary. Do you in fact know who forged it? If you dont know who forged it then it may well have had something to do with Anne Barrett. No one can say with any certainty that she had nothing to do with it.No one knows exactly what Mike had to do with it. In fact I have yet to see evidence which proves Peter wrong. Plenty of opinions and speculation yes but neither are proof or evidence. I am not saying that they forged the diary.Neither can I prove they did not, can you. I hope this will not lead onto the topic of handwriting!!! |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:33 pm | |
Ivor
Get back to the Diary board!!!
Peter
p.s. Why should the Barrett's have to prove anything? Innocent until proven guilty. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:27 pm | |
Peter, I inadvertently got lost.
I once told a Crown Court Judge that I dont have to prove my innocence it is up to the prosecution to prove me guilty.That did not please him. Then when it came for the prosecution to question me I refused to give evidence. The Judge went blue in the face.In fact I thought he was about to have a stroke. He wasn't having any of that. He mis-directed the jury on 24 points of law in his summing up.Then he sent them out.When they came back to ask a question on the burden of proof he mis-directed them again and out they went. They came back and found me guilty. But you are right in what you say "Innocent until proven Guilty" how they prove you guilty though is another matter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 04:20 am | |
Hi Ivor,
If the Barretts were in the lawcourts (and maybe there's good reason why it has never gone that far), Peter Wood would be right - innocent until proved guilty. Here on the boards, the rules apply with diary forging suspects in exactly the same way as with ripper suspects. I don't have to prove the Barretts didn't commit fraud, in the same way as Peter Birchwood doesn't have to prove Joe Barnett didn't commit murder. In the same way that you are trying to prove D'Onston was the ripper, you also have to try to prove the Barretts did commit fraud, if you accuse them on these boards and want to convince anyone that you know what you are talking about.
Got it? Good. Not that hard, was it?
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 04:48 am | |
Peter,Ivor,
Is'nt the full description as follows,"It is a principle of British justice,that a person be considered innocent untill proven guilty".
Never having been a policeman,I'm inclined to believe that the word 'considered'is of special meaning,and allows certain actions to be taken,that would not otherwise be possible.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 08:20 am | |
Hello Ivor, Caroline, Harry (and Jon),
why here on the boards should I respect a logic used for law enforcement procedures ?
When someone tells me:
"You have to prove there was more than one killer.",
Couldn't I just answer:
"You have to prove that it was impossible for more than one killer to have acted."
When someone tells me (as an example):
"You have to prove that Barnett or Hutchinson were the Ripper.",
Couldn't I just answer:
"You have to prove that they were not."
I mean, are we here to sentence someone to jail or to find the truth ?
Can't we simply use what I would call the logic of an historian whose only interest would be to dig out all possibilities without any presumptions about the way to conduct his research ?
Hope not to be off-topic here.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:07 am | |
Hi Graziano,
In my experience, a few of the posters who most frequently whine about the unscholarly practice of asking people to prove negatives are also the ones who freely accuse the Barretts and the Johnsons of forging the Maybrick diary and watch. They don't provide any proof that these people were the forgers, yet they ask me to prove that they weren't!
It's not the 'rules' I'm arguing for or against here - I just wish people would abide by those they wish others to follow.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 01:10 pm | |
Ivor:
I must agree with you in your reply to Banana. The obvious answer is normally but not always the correct one.
Incidentally, without any prejudice on my part can I ask how many people have seen the watch and have been able to read the scratches without being told where they are and what they say?
I would also be very interested in hearing any evidence whatsoever that Banana can produce against Weedon Grossmith. She seemed so sure about the poor fellow some time ago but when it came down to giving us the reason why she alone of all Ripper researchers of the past 100-odd years had come up with the true story she never could seem to find the time. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 01:52 pm | |
Come off it Banana,
How many high profile criminals including murderers have been found guilty by the public and the law before they ever walked into a court.Look at the parents of that little girl Ramsey in the US. The general public and the law have already decided that they are guilty. Dont be so gullible. As for Peter Birchwood and his comments on likely suspects you have missed the point yet again.There are suspects and suspects.Let me spell it out to you. Many should not be in the frame at all. It has been proven that many suspects were not even in Whitechapel at the time of the murders.This one fact alone does not stop people from placing them in the frame.As I have said before at least D'Onston was arrested twice on suspicion of the murders. People who knew him thought he was the killer. In fact D'Onston has more going for him to be named as the killer than most suspects.But you only see what it suits you to see.Peter is only stating that it is about time the chaff was sorted from the wheat when it comes to the suspects.Anyone with any common sense or knowledge on the subject would agree. He is correct in his comments. But it has been noted that you ague with most every thing he puts on the boards.So one must question your motive to whatever he posts. Just for the record he happens to be a very good researcher and writer on the subject and knows a great deal more than many. I am starting to question why you feel it your duty to try and undermine his comments all the time.For Gods sake give it a rest. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 02:35 pm | |
| Hi Harry and Graziano, Yes indeed I see your points. The law does not always practise what it likes to preach.The law is far from perfect. We know the principal when it comes to the burden of proof but this principal can be moved like a set of goal posts to suit those playing the game.We know things are not what they should be which is more the pity. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 03:17 pm | |
Why is Caz being called Banana here ? )))))))
If this is an allusion to some odd practice of yours Caz , then you should reveal all !  |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 03:37 pm | |
| Simon,Banana said that if so and so was true then she is a banana. She thinks she is a banana and she has convinced others that she is in fact a banana. So from this day forth she will be referred to as BANANA MORRIS.:-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 03:51 pm | |
Hi, Ivor and Peter B.:
Does Caz want to be called Banana, or is this something that is uncalled for and, if you don't mind me saying so, on the offensive side????? Give it some thought. I would think that neither of you gentlemen would care for such an appelation to be attached to your good selves.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 06:51 pm | |
| Exactly Chris , Caz is not a banana she is lovely ! |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 07:13 pm | |
Dear All
Harry raises a good point when he questions the exact wording of "innocent until...........", but Harry it is not the wording that matters here. In training college I was taught how to do the job of a police officer, then as soon as I got out on the streets I was told to tear the rule book up and learn the real way.
Thus with the Ripper. You have your "Street Detectives" who can employ whatever methods they like - and then there are those who like ultimate PROOF. I don't think we can PROVE anything, I just think we can make it so unlikely for the converse to be true that our argument becomes accepted as fact. As for courts of law, I don't like majority verdicts, I don't agree with 'beyond reasonable doubt' and I don't always support the right to a trial by jury.
As for the Barretts, just in case they are a particularly litigious breed, we should accord them the privilege of being ASSUMED innocent until proven guilty. You can SUSPECT what you like, but until PROOF is acquired your words are nothing but theories and conjecture i.e. whistling in the wind. The reasons the Barretts are suspected are many fold, not least of which is that they brought the diary to the public's attention, and another reason - there story is incredulous. But, the story could be true, and whilst everyone speculates behind their backs, I am inclined to believe that their story is, in essence, true. Mike didn't forge the diary, and if Anne did then she has set herself up for a big fall from grace. Remember, if you can find one letter which can PROVE that Maybrick was in America (or anywhere but London) when Mary Kelly (or any of the other victims) was murdered then Anne would have some explaining to do. I don't think I would like to face those odds, imagine the sleepless nights!
The only conclusion to be had is that Anne is only confident in the diary because she knows that neither she nor Mike forged it. I am not too sure, as of this date, if she holds PHF's view of the authenticity of the diary, but if she knows she hasn't forged it then she is entitled to earn off the back of it, without being accused of any crime.
Ivor,
I'm not sure which point you are arguing from with regards to pre trial publicity, but I think we agree that juries do not always get it right.
As for your current plight and that of your neighbour, bring back hanging!
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 08:26 pm | |
Hi Christopher and all,In all fairness Caz brought
the word banana into play. She made a comment that if certain facts were true then she was a banana. So hence the word banana.I am sure she takes it in the spirit it is intended.
Peter, The comment was made that people are innocent until proven guilty.In theory that assumption is correct. But in practise it is always not the case.Many people have been judged to be guilty before proven so in a court of law. That was the point I was making.I have known cases where the persons guilt was a full gone conclusion before they were found guilty by a jury. It happens all the time.The law in theory and the law in practise can be two different things if you see my point. |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 08:33 pm | |
| "Dont give a toss to what others think babe, I still reckon your a Peach". |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 08:46 pm | |
| In my humble opinion those people who are concidered suspect in the case of the diary and the watch should have been asked if they would agree to take polygraph tests. This should have been done at the start. Also these same people should have been questioned by those with a greater deal of experience in such matters.None of these things were done. After all is said and done if I need the services of a plumber I dont employ a garbage collector.Also it would appear that information given by certain people was ignored because it was not what others wished to hear. It was not in their interests. Therefore it does not surprise me that the whole saga has turned into a circus.Like it or not that is exactly how many people view the situation including myself. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 03:39 am | |
Hi Ivor, old fruit,
When did you start investigating the diary and watch? If you have any evidence against any of the suspects, but can't or won't share it with us here, I can understand your frustration, but why the need to keep posting, over and over again, that you are right and I am wrong, when it comes to judging the Barretts and the Johnsons? It all comes down to opinion at the end of the day - unless you really do know more than I do, and are prepared to share it.
I don't know about whistling in the wind - I'd call it something a little ruder, if I wasn't such a ladylike banana...
Dear Peter Birchwood,
Please keep up, you silly onion. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, I will not be sharing Weedy with the board any more. If you want to drag the poor old sausage back every now and again, I wish you joy of him.
Love,
The whole fruitbowl with knobs on |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 04:37 am | |
Just a fleeting observation on the matter of bananas and things, I recall that Caz actually said that having met and talked with Albert Johnson at Bournemouth she'd concluded that he didn't make the marks in the Maybrick watch. She expressed herself with words along the lines of: "if Albert Johnson made the marks in the watch then I am a banana".
So anyone calling Caz a banana is therefore questioning Caz's judgement and conclusion and is saying that Albert Johnson DID make the marks in the watch. Such a serious allegation needs to be supported by a good argument and hopefully some evidence... |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 05:37 am | |
Everybody:
"By Caroline Anne Morris on Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:11
am:
Just to reiterate - either Albert must be a liar, or the
above scenario featuring Robbie must be true, or the diary
must be old - unless someone can come up with another
alternative.
If either of the first two scenarios is true, I am a banana." |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 05:39 am | |
| Paul,Thank you for that observation.Looking at Peter's post above however I would say she is a banana.But I will say this,As far as I am concerned Albert or Robbie put those marks in that watch.Also I am going on evidence when I make such a remark. Melvin Harris met and spoke with Robbie he has also done research into the watch.He is of the same opinion as myself when it comes to Robbie.Others who met Robbie and Albert believed Robbie was pulling all the strings.Also Caz seems to think that anyone with information including Melvin Harris is under obligation to share it with her, well they are not.Albert Johnson had nothing to do with those marks on the watch because Caz said so after meeting him once and thought he was a nice guy.So that is her evidence. Well for the record I would take more notice of Melvin Harris ( who has been very involved with the watch) and Peter Birchwood before I would Caz. As for a good augument if you read the report by Melvin Harris and speak to him in person and question all of those people who met Robbie( those not involved in any way with the diary or the ripper), then I have more than a good argument.People tend to ignore the facts which do not help their case. Caz seems to think that she knows far better than Melvin Harris and others who have investigated the watch and diary in far greater depth than she possibly could.Well I tend to listen to those with the experience and track record rather than those who know nothing while believing they know it all. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 05:55 am | |
Nice to see Paul Begg back in his role of defending the fair Banana. However if he wants to be accurate (something that everyone should try to be) then he should see the alternative which I again reprint:
"By Caroline Anne Morris on Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:11
am:
Just to reiterate - either Albert must be a liar, or the
above scenario featuring Robbie must be true, or the diary
must be old - unless someone can come up with another
alternative.
If either of the first two scenarios is true, I am a banana." |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 06:32 am | |
Hi All,
Well, actually, Peter and Paul are both right, although Paul was referring to a previous post of mine, which may have disappeared by now since I believe it was on an unarchived board.
In any case, I challenge either Ivor or Peter to explain to me how they think my Robbie scenario is in any way workable - ie that Robbie made the scratches, waited for Albert to notice them and pay out for forensic tests, and left his poor unsuspecting bruv none the wiser to this day.
The alternative, that Albert willingly came to Bournemouth, primed to tell a load more lies to whoever might have questioned him, is, to my mind, equally laughable. But then, neither Ivor nor Peter had the guts to accuse the man to his face, or to even talk to him to confirm their judgement, when they had their golden opportunity. (And they think I'm yellow!) Perhaps Peter could explain to the board his reasons for not meeting the man he is accusing of being either a liar, or his brother's dupe - I'm all ears.
And I'm not sure if Peter or Melvin have ever actually seen the watch, let alone met Albert. Have they?
I wonder if Robbie or Albert knew about Maybrick's 'Time reveals all' motto, when they set about their dirty trick - because this would appear to be the funny little hoaxer's whole point.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 07:17 am | |
Peter, thank you for so subtly drawing my attention to Caz’s second use of ‘then I’m a banana’. I had missed it, as presumably you missed her first use of it when she was reporting her feelings after meeting Albert Johnson at the Bournemouth Conference. And as you have discovered several times, Caz is perfectly capable of defending herself without any help from me. It is a pity, though, that you should feel she, rather than her arguments, needed defending. Maybe it would be better all round if personal comments were left out and folk just argued points of fact or interpretation. Address Caz’s questions if you feel like it, ignore them if you don't.
Ivor: Thanks for your words and I perfectly understand and appreciate that you might prefer the conclusions reached by Melvin Harris to those drawn by Caz, although Caz surely has as much right to express her conclusions. However, some commentators might feel that Caz makes some reasonable points which deserve a proper reply rather than a sweeping dismissal. This said, I am sure that Caz, like all of us, appreciates that the constraints of time often prevent any detailed reply, although I guess that if someone doesn’t have the time or inclination to respond in detail then it might have been better to leave the debate alone. It’s a difficult choice sometimes. There is just one small point that it might be worth thinking about though. You write “Also Caz seems to think that anyone with information including Melvin Harris is under obligation to share it with her, well they are not.” Isn’t this rather a moot point. I mean, if a person makes an allegation in an open forum about somebody else then aren’t they morally and in some cases legally obliged to support that allegation with good argument and evidence if they are asked to do so? As far as I am aware, Caz has simply been asking people, Melvin included, to back up the things they’ve said. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 12:28 pm | |
| Hi Paul,Yes I agree that people have a right to express conclusions.But when they show a personal dislike for those who voice their conclusions to the contary then I question their integrity.Time and time again banana will bring Melvin Harris into her posts ( which in content have nothing to do with him ) and will take every oppotunity to run him down just because he is anti Diary and she is bloody minded.I have pointed this out before. She is at loggerheads with Peter B because he has made comments she does not agree with on the diary.In fact if I said black was black she would say it was white.I dont see her doing the research many others have done. Some of whom she condemns for personal reasons.The extent of her research into the watch is that she has the impression that Albert seems too nice a chap to have put the scratches into that watch. What sort of a comment is that for Gods sake.She is far too naive if the truth were known. You do not exclude any suspect from any inquiry just because they seem nice.I know con men that would take her to the cleaners any day. Bundy seemed to be a nice chap to his victims!!!Many con-men are nice that is one reason why they can con.In answer to your comments on whether someone has a moral or legal obligation to support an allegation in an open forum could you give me a specific instance. Banana demands that Melvin shows certain evidence if he has it of who forged the diary. She only wants to know because of her own self-gratification and not because it may be in any other interest.Why cant she go and find her own evidence instead of being critical of those who do.As I stated to Keith Skinner reasons may exist which prevent Melvin Harris from making information public.Also if little miss perfect is relating to a press report quoting Melvin Harris as knowing who the forgers are then she should be very careful.A couple of days ago I was informed about certain facts relating to that story. And I dont feel obliged to tell her what I was told. She can find out for herself. Also lets be fair on this issue, who is in a better position to know more about the diary and watch Caz, Melvin Harris, or Peter B, I know who I would rather listen to any day of the week. And for the record she does not know many details of my research and I dont intend to inform her of them either.And for her information if I get the inclination to question Albert it will be done on a one to one basis and not in the presence of her or anyone else.Stupid girl calling me 'yellow' because I did not ask Albert questions. She has proved herself to talk like a prat. Albert might fool her and she might fool others but neither of them fool me.Albert knows more than he is letting on. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 01:14 pm | |
Banana,
In answer to your question I started to investigate the diary in 1993.
When did you investigate it? Oh sorry I forgot you never did. I met Robert Smith in London in 1993. He said that my theory was certainly plausible and I have that in writing.I was also in contact with Professor Canter in 1993 when we were both in Guildford. In fact I posted part of a letter Professor Canter wrote to me on the casebook.He wrote that my material may be relevant to proving or disproving the authenticity of the Journal. He also wrote that my evidence was most intriguing.He only saw a small sample of my work. I spoke to Mike Barrett years ago and to Mr Brough who was the reporter who broke the story for the Liverpool paper. Any more such information is on a need to know basis and there is no need for you to know. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 05:03 pm | |
Ivor,
Putting aside your usual personal rhetoric for a moment, it seems to me that there is something insidious about the way you imply things.
Let me demonstrate.
In writing about Caz, you say, by way of warning:
"Also if little miss perfect is relating to a press report quoting Melvin Harris as knowing who the forgers are then she should be very careful.A couple of days ago I was informed about certain facts relating to that story. And I dont feel obliged to tell her what I was told."
Now see, here is the problem. On the one hand, you are offering her a warning which you expect her to take seriously and you are hinting that you know something that might be important or useful. Fair enough.
But on the other hand, you refuse to say anything at all of any substance.
See?
How are we supposed to take this warning seriously if it is left as merely a suggestion or implication. The sneaky way you phrase it, we are left helpless. If we dismiss it and assume you are talking out of your hat, you say "ah, but don't be too sure because you don't know what I know." But if we say, all right, Ivor is being serious. Why should we be careful about this story? You say, "I'm not going to tell you."
I think this is what Paul and Caz mean by people suggesting things here on the boards and then not backing up their insidious suggestions with any facts or supportive evidence.
This is no way to have a rational conversation or free exchange of ideas. It is simply a rhetorical power move to make you feel superior. It's sort of sad actually.
This is how it seems to me:
If you know of a reason why we should be "very careful" about this report, but cannot or will not state that reason here, then you shouldn't really mention that there is such a reason, since it obviously will not be verified by you or anyone on these boards.
If you don't really know of any reason, then you shouldn't imply that you do.
If you do say that you know of such a reason, and you say it here, in public, in a post like the one above, then it becomes your responsibility to back up your claims with facts or with evidence --otherwise there is no real reason whatsoever for anyone to take your claim seriously.
I am not doubting your implication, Ivor.
I am questioning your motives for the "I know something you don't know" schoolyard strategy of writing which you seem to enjoy, and I am wondering why, if you have no intention of explaining to us why we should be careful about such a report, you even bother to mention that we should in the first place.
I guess this is my polite way of saying that people should "put up or shut up" about such claims and not just throw them out onto the boards to dangle without any explanation or evidence or support and then just assume that people will take them seriously. I know you think it makes you look smart, or like you're in possession of important information and therefore like you are powerful, but really it just makes you look petty and mean-spirited.
At least that's my humble opinion about such rhetorical strategies of control.
All the best, Ivor,
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 06:56 pm | |
John,You are one sad litte person and you cant see any further than your nose.
It was not a warning I was giving her it was meant as sound advice.She is not aware of all the facts.She can find them out for herself if it is that important to her.I dont see why I should inform her of certain information which others are aware of. Let her do her own research on the matter.But you read more into it than that because that is how your devious, sneaky little mind works.How you see things by what you simply assume ( and that is all you are doing ) does not mean that you are correct.If anyone is the schoolboy and being sneaky here it is you.You wrote, 'I know you think it makes you look smart'.You dont know how I think so dont talk like a prat.You are wrong in what you assume on that and other points.And who are 'us' and 'we' my post was not even directed to you.Who voted you as their speaker?You seem to be taking a lot for granted.I agree that people should shut up and you are one of them.My cat shows more sense than you.As for the last part of your post and the word 'powerful' that is utter rubbish and crap.You dont know me at all to spout rubbish like that.As for your opinion about rhetorical strategies of control you have not got a clue. Just because you are sly and underhanded it does not follow that everyone else is. When I have a difference of opinion with anyone along comes the self-opinionated John Omlor to poke his oar in? I can set my watch by you. You are so obvious that your sneaky actions deserve to be treated with contemp.We are not all as stupid as you. If your motives were honourable it would be another matter but it is plain to see what your little game is. Anyone who knows me on these boards will know that I speak my mind and that I am at least up front so to speak. I am most certainly not the person you are trying to portray me as.Your opinions mean nothing to me because I am aware of your sneaky little intentions. Crawl back into your hole. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 07:53 pm | |
| You know it's really a drag to work so hard on a book, only to have your publisher pull out on you at the last minute. Kind of gives you a vendetta against the world, doesn't it? |
Author: Carl Dodd
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 08:00 pm | |
| CAZ, Here's an old police adage for you: Only the really dumb criminals go to gaol/jail or prison. The smart ones make a deal or flee the country. Think about it for awhile.... |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 09:49 pm | |
| Nelson.I dont know what idiot told you that.For your information I got rid of my publisher. So get your facts right.My books are selling very well by the way. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 10:16 pm | |
| It would appear from the post placed here by Nelson that underhanded tricks and lies are now being used againest me.This trouble started with Caroline Morris so I wonder if she has anything to do with such outrageous behaviour. Knowing some of the types who frequent these boards it comes as no surprise to me that some people are stooping so low.Nelson being one of them. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 11:30 pm | |
...And people ask me why I never express my opinions on the Diary.
Scott,
I'm rather curious...How did you come about the knowledge that Ivor was dropped by his publisher? From what I had learned, Ivor dropped him when better circumstances were presented to him. Please elaborate. If you don't wish to do so here, please email me on the matter. If I don't receive an email, I suppose we'll know who is behind such an allegation.
Ivor,
I think the name calling is hendering your argument a bit. If you do it too much, then everyone will just skim your posts to find the negative stuff to harp on it, and your entire point will be missed.
Carl,
As Ivor is not the only one on the board who's done some time, you probably lost some friends with that 'old adage'. As for myself, my record is clean. Teflon, baby! Yeah!
Caz,
I caught that bit with the 'old fruit'. I know what you were doing. I must admit you can be very clever at times.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. So I take it we're discussing Barnett on the Diary boards? |
