|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 23 July 2002
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Behind The Bluff:
Archive through 23 July 2002
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 10:50 am |        | Melvin Harris asked if I would place the following message on the boards.
Behind the Bluff
by Melvin Harris
As Stewart Evans can testify, I held back for years before being forced to expose Andy Aliffe’s false claims. He can also testify that I have held back from answering a number of dishonest posts placed by Begg and Fido. Why? Because I was told that each man had a serious health problem and I rank compassion highly. But this restraint on my part does little to curb the sour thoughts and crabbed remarks of the twin-headed Begg-Fido combo. In my post I gave facts and dates which prove that Andy’s claims were nonsensical. Richard Whittington-Egan can vouch for that. Andy can be a jolly chap and entertaining, but this counts for nothing in this matter. I can quote scores of cases where genial and friendly characters have lied, cheated, betrayed and worse. In Andy’s case the Ripper world seems of major importance to him, but he is not accountable to anyone for his statements. By contrast, even though the subject is simply one of my MINOR interests, I am always fully accountable for anything I write on this matter. I am far from retired and the people who consult me and pay my fees only do so because I have an unblemished reputation gained over many years. If I were to sully that reputation in ANY way then
their confidence in me would vanish. That is why my posting is exact and not open to contradiction. However, some missing words may cause slight confusion over the shooting affair, and let me repeat that Bridlington was the ONLY important place named in the primary source material I discovered and provided. But the event itself had ALREADY been confirmed by Hull Customs records. Still, if the Begg-Fido combo is searching for excuses let it start by explaining away Andy’s betrayal of what he claimed was my confidential talk with McCormick. This garbled version was then used by Mrs Harrison and Feldman. In Fido’s case he fails to state that I wrote to him in 1994 and dealt with Andy’s false claims in their earliest and mildest forms. Why? Perhaps the answer lies deep in his strangely odd mentality since he openly admits that he believes my character is “sadly wanting” and that this merits his “personal dislike or moral disapproval.” Well, he can think all that without rebuke BUT the moment he begins to disparage Phil Sugden as “Melvin’s catspaw” and as an “unagreed ‘authority’ to pass judgment on the A-Z” then he has overstepped the bounds of acceptable, civilised and rational comment.Phil Sugden and Dr. Alan Gauld were asked to read the A-Z defence document and my reply to it. They were called in because no behind-the-scenes settlement was possible, since the Three delayed matters for month after month. And they sank low enough to indulge in ignorant sneers.So I sent their words and my reasoned and documented reply to two referees. Now, both Phil and Dr. Gauld are independent thinkers, well used to judging the merits of texts. And neither man would allow any sort of interference with his judgment. They are fair and tower above Fido in all respects. Of course they were ‘unagreed.’I had no intention of allowing another second of time-wasting delays. In any case did the Three ask for any independent agreement before putting in their scurrilous and lying entry? Of course not! Since Fido has foolishly chosen to wave the banner of moral disapproval, and speak of libel, it is apt to remind him that among his mean feats has been the placing on this board of a stupid libel involving myself. He has accused me of trying to high-jack a local radio programme of his, back in 1988. And he has admitted that, over the years, other people were told of this dire ‘attempt’ of mine. But in all those years he never once had the guts or courtesy to mention this to me. Had he approached me he would have learned that this was a station that did not interest me;a programme that I had no possible interest in; a programme that I had not even heard; and a programme that I never even knew existed!
All this I have since made clear, but the libel has never been withdrawn. Indeed Fido just adjusted his blinkers and went on to state, “I was personally disgusted by Melvin’s attempt to high jack my radio work.” He must have a giant sized swollen head. Why would you have the slightest interest in his tin-pot chat slot?” Why indeed! But swollen heads do cramp the intellect, even so, Fido would be wise to lay off his pompous claims to scholarship. Dickens, perhaps, but Whitechapel? No! Among other absurdities in his 1997 book is a part where he was crass enough to smear Major Smith with the monstrous suggestion that , “Smith wanted his force to have the glory of catching the Ripper ... He did not want Anderson to win the credit of solving the mystery ... He could easily have put pressure on a humble constable to retract his identification of a poor Jewish lunatic suspected by the Metropolitan CID. This, too, would explain the curious frenzy of his attack on Anderson ... The Major protests just a little too much. His vehemence has, for too long, succeeded in covering what amounts to his own slightly guilty knowledge.” This is sewer-scraping, not scholarship. The same disregard for the true tenets of scholarship has animated the McCormick section of his Foreward to “Letters Fomr Hell.” There he demonstrates that he has not read my pieces with either care or objectivity. He makes vagueness into a virtue and without producing a single fragment of evidence, misrepresents my views repeatedly. He even saddles me with opinions which I have never held and which were decisively REPUDIATED by me in my letter of January 18th 1995!But that is the man. In the past he was too lazy,or inefficient, (take your choice)to investigate McCormick in depth,despite the leads I gave him. And today, he is far too grudging to salute a job well done. Unlike others.
But this is the end-product of a mind first soured by an imaginary event of the year 1988! Thus he dislikes me on personal grounds.By contrast, I have never held his personal oddities,against him No, it is his hypocritical attitude towards evidence; his use of false information; his readiness to condemn on the basis of defective memories; and his failure to curb his prejudices that I find obnoxious. And I am in excellent company in feeling that way! |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 02:28 pm | | "If I were to sully that reputation in ANY way then their confidence in me would vanish. That is why my posting is exact and not open to contradiction."
Oh, well then. Rightee-oh! Does that mean whatever the Big Kahuna writes or says is not open to contradiction? It is a wonder at my age to learn of anyone who is never wrong, never makes a mistake, and whose motives for any public utterance are beyond question cuz: "If I [Melvin] were to sully that reputation in ANY way then their [his paying consultees] confidence in me would vanish."
It's a question of livelihood once again, is it, Mr. Harris?
Well, Big M, you still haven't provided a timeline that accounts for BOTH Aliffe's actions (or non-actions, as your original post weeks ago claimed) and your own. For instnace...
Did you "know" something (whatever that 'something' may be) BEFORE you had the proof of it (to be provided by Aliffe). And did you make use of this 'certainty' once again BEFORE you had obtained the actual proof or evidence?
Why did you wait two years for Aliffe to complete whatever task(s) you assigned him when you claim the work Aliffe was doing was of meager value? Why did you not go and get the information yourself when you returned from your out-of-England experience? Or send someone else in Aliffe's place?
But since you are a shrewd judge of human character, and you NEVER make mistakes (as is implied in the quoted statement...
Why did you ever use Aliffe in the first place?
And it is absolutely pointless to drag Martin Fido and Paul Begg into your rant on Aliffe. They have nothing whatsoever to do with what occured or did not between you and Andrew Aliffe.
Finally, your "evidence" contra-Aliffe amasses to nothing more than "he said; I said" debate. What you say to another person is not proof that what you tell them is true; no matter when or under whatever circumstances you tell your tale.
This kind of argument can only be settled by primacy of publication dates (whether in articler, book, or verbal form).
Since you waited TWO YEARS for Aliffe's research, I'm afraid it is self-evident that you relied upon Aliffe for something of such importance you did not send another to do it...and one has the suspicion it may have been beyond your own capacity since you also did not perform the task(s) yourself.
Enough, Melvin. Enough, Ivor.
"I meant to do you no personal injury and if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
--Joseph Welch, 1954. Army-McCarthy Hearings.
Yaz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 05:51 pm | | Hi all,
I took a month vacation from the boards - I wondered if the hysterical rantings on this thread have calmed down - apparently not.
I have no opinion on the Aliffe/Harris, Begg/Harris or Fido/Harris clashes (I think I am noting a trend here. . .).
I do find it odd that Mr Harris asks Ivor to post material for him - rather than simply doing it himself. My imagination conjures up a few reasons why and none of them reflect positively on the posters.
In today's battle, I would award Begg and Fido the victory - simply because they have not participated in this little melodrama.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 09:02 pm | | | Everyone is required to read the Personal Attacks Policy before posting in this thread. If you cannot follow the guideline of attacking the behavior, not the person then you will be banned from posting until this thread runs its course. No one is exempt. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 09:34 pm | | Yikes!
My apologies to the Casebook and to Ally and the rest of the moderators for immoderacy.
Sorry, also, if I offended either Ivor or Melvin or Martin or Paul or...
Well, you get the idea.
Yaz |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 09:49 pm | | Richard,
Actually you should have stuck around, the rantings didn't start again until a couple days ago. You missed the peace time.
The rest of it...
Okay. In my never-ending quest to remain openminded ( hee hee hee ha ha ha), I have thrown my support behind whomever I feel is right in whatever situation I am discussing. This situation might just possibly cause me to do mental gymnastics of a previously unimaginable level.
Random thoughts in no particular order:
1. Melvin either needs to get internet access or stop contributing to the boards. His tardy replies and seemingly off-topic posts cause him to appear more irrational than he might if his responses came in a timely fashion. Also, as I don't know to what degree accurate information is conveyed to him, we have no way of knowing whether he is being given accurate, non-exaggerated information. As has been aptly demonstrated, everyone on the boards has a grudge against someone, and there is no one I would trust to give third hand information.
2. Begg-Fido vs. Harris. I have said in the past that I understand why Harris is rather angry with the two of them. I think he has just cause to be angry. However, I think his method of expressing that anger does not at all help his cause. This is further aggravated by the time delay factor that I spoke of earlier. No one can now remember why he is ranting about Martin's ethics in the Andy situation, because no one remembers reading Martin's post about Melvins' ethics. And so Melvin just comes out looking petty and vindictive for no cause.
3. The Andy situation. I agree with Yazoo that there has not been sufficient information supplied about time dates and facts. It is *not* enough to say that your word is beyond contradiction. No one here buys Mel's services and we are the ones he is apparently trying to convince. I am afraid that so far, Mel's blusterings have done nothing to prove his claims and though he may well be telling the truth, we need to see evidence of that fact. Why should his word be of more value than Andy's? So far, I have not seen it proved that Andy lied.
Anyway, just my thoughts |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 11:22 pm | | Dear Ivor,
Please keep posting Melvin's contributions for him as, being elderly myself, I understand why he has some resistance to adopting the new modes of electronic communication. Until pressed by others - (most notably my wife) - I resisted the internet strongly from a fear that I should find my mornings completely absorbed with eliminating spam.
But I am sure you will accept that I shall have dificulty in continuing civilized dialogue with you if you post personal attacks on me without some disclaimer. I do not want you to come to blows with Melvin: since you share his published opinion of the likely identity of the Ripper it would be outrageous of me to do so. But given that some of the material he advances goes beyond anything that has appeared on the boards, and, in my opinion, some of it could be instantly disproved by anyone with enough time on their hands and little enough serious life to live that they wanted to check back all our postings, I should be most grateful if you found it possible to add to your perfectly correct statement that Melvin has asked you to post some virulent attack on me that (as I hope is the case) you do not endorse everything he says. I think it will be possible for you to perceive from his distortion of what I said about Phil Sugden, and his sinister suggestion that (unnamed) others agree with him, that an important part of his strategy in controversy is to try to drive wedges between people. If you do not think this to be the case, and agree with him that I distort people's statements for the purpose of carrying out personal grudges, it will be no loss to you to forego my interest in your very detailed examination of the site at Buck's Row, and I am sure you will not find any value in any further expressions of my hope that you will contribute usefully to Ripper studies.
I realize that you may feel I am putting you between a rock and a hard place, so please let me assure you that, provided you are willing to dissasociate yourself from some of the material you post from Melvin, without any requirement that you identify which parts, I am perfectly happy to continue regarding you as a responsible student of Ripper affairs with whom I am happy to communicate.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 07:52 am | | Hmmm...and I thought shooting the messenger was considered a shabby thing to do. My mistake.
Ally |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 04:15 pm | | I do wish that Melvin Harris would learn the benefits to be had from proper punctuation and spacing.
Maybe then I would be bothered to actually read his posts.
SPACE SPACE SPACE
PUNCTUATION PUNCTUATION PUNCTUATION |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 10:49 pm | | Richard. Melvin Harris asked if I could post for him due to the fact that he has no means to do so himself.Is that OK with you ? You stated that your "imagination conjures up a few reasons why and none of them reflect positively on the posters".If such is the case then try using other means to ascertain the true facts apart from your vivid imagination. When one uses one's imagination it can often run riot and obscure the true facts of a given situation.I find in the study of the ripper that far too many people use their vivid imagination thus confusing the issue even further.
Peter,Who pulled your chain? One day you will surprise me and state something constructive for a change.
Martin,One thing I have learnt from life is that you cannot please all of the people all of the time and only a fool would try.I have been called many things in my time but never a fool.It pleases me to know that you are aware of the situation under which I and others post on behalf of Melvin.I cannot give any opinion or endorsement on Melvin's comments in relation to the ongoing personal debate you both have with each other simply because I am not in possession of the full facts behind certain situations mentioned. Neither can I endorse your comments to him because again I am not in possession of the full facts.In short I have no intention or desire to take sides in the issue you have with each other. Look upon me as a mere postman in this situation. If you were to receive a letter from your local postman which you were not in agreement with surely you would not question his motives for bringing such a post to your attention. At Xmas you would probably give your postman a good drink would you not? Well I do not drink so this coming Xmas just give me a tenner in cash.
PS. Be generous and make it twenty I deserve it because of the dogs which attack me while I post my mail.I need a new pair of trousers !!! |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 12:02 am | | Hi Ally,
I don't really think I was shooting the messenger: just inviting Ivor to recognize that, not knowing him (or you) personally, I myself should not post abusive personal remarks about either of you without adding an explanation that I was only doing so because the would-be poster was without the means of posting, and that I did not share the opinions expressed. And I should like the same courtesy from those who are in some way in friendly contact with me.
You have said you think Melvin's objection to the entry in A-Z is justified: no problem. Nothing personal is involved. If you were to say you thought I am all the things claimed in Melvin's post, the only answer I could offer you would be that in that case I had no wish to associate or communicate with you in any way, and, no doubt, you would be gratified to be spared communication from such an undesirable and dishonest phoney.
Hi Ivor,
Of course I recognize that you are only the postman, and if we had never exchanged communications over the boards with each other, I should have made no comment at all. (Just as I have never commented on Peter Birchwood's posting for Melvin in the past. He doesn't know me; hasn't attempted to communicate with me or exchanged opinions on the boards; and so it is of no concern whatever to me whether he agrees with Melvin's view of me or not).
If the postman knowingly delivered a parcel of excrement to me without any apologetic comment, however, I should certainly decline to offer him a Christmas box. Don't you think you have been put rather in that position?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 01:58 am | | | Hi Martin, I do see the point you are making.One point I would like to make which has already been mentioned here is the entry relating to Melvin in the A to Z. I was shocked when I read it and thought it was out of order as many other people thought. Three people were responsible for writing the A to Z but in stating that were all three responsible for that entry ? or was it the brainchild of one particular person ? and if so which one? The point I am making here is that if only one person was responsible for it then the other two should not be tarnished because of it if they were unaware of its presence.Were all three authors aware of the entry prior to publication ? |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 06:26 am | | Hi Ivor,
Thank you for taking my point. Is that meant as a brief apology, or does your follow-up observation mean that you feel justified in posting Melvin's abuse without distancing yourself from it? Your use of the word 'tainted' rather suggests the latter, in which case I wonder whether you really wish to continue any discourse with me? My own experience of arguing directly with Melvon on the boards has been that it amounts to touching pitch, and I am regrettably quickly responding to his unprovoked and deliberately offensive attacks by answering in kind.
The words were my drafting. The opinion is shared by all three. We were all aware of everything that was going to appear over our names before publication. Paul and Keith were, at the last minute, uncertain about the wisdom of including the words which had been previously agreed upon; but as I had spent time drafting them with some care following their strong earlier representations, I argued strongly for their retention. The extreme restraint of the comment (I think) is perfectly illustrated by Melvin's postings on these boards, though his earlier published misplaced cavils and put-downs are more subtle and less blatant, (and all the more dangerously misleading for it). Reader resistance (beyond the confines of Paul, Keith and me) to "conclusions" stated in the course of such diatribes (and thus an illustration of the need of the A-Z's warning to others who might be more unwary) is well demonstrated in Yazoo's posting above.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 07:08 am | | PS Apologies, Ivor, for misquoting your word "tarnished" as "tainted". My point still stands, though. I don't feel that the A-Z's assessment of Melvin's published views of other people is misplaced.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ally
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 07:49 am | | Martin,
Mel Harris wrote those words not Ivor. Why should Ivor be held to be accountable for them? You said if I had written that I agreed with them you would associate with me no more and that is fine. Did Ivor ever say that he agreed with anything Mel posted? Did he type at the top One-hundred percent endorsed by Ivor. Why should Ivor have to give a line by line account or any account on which words he agrees with and which he doesn't. The rest of us don't have to. So what that he posted it? This is childish. It smacks of "Tell me you like me or I'm not playing with you anymore."
This is why there is an account with Mel Harris' name on it and I wish in the future his pony express would use it. Some people cannot separate the poster from the actual author and once again, petty bickering is leading away from any actual discussion or resolution of the case.
And here we go round the Mulberry bush.. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 03:42 pm | | Martin,
I thought I had explained my position in this matter and I certainly do not feel that I am guilty of any offence which I should apoligise for. It would be quite silly of me to apoligise for posting a message simply because I was asked to do so and given the fact I might add that I have no personal interest in its content.It is a personal affair between you and Melvin and it is not in my interests to make comments or take sides on certain situations involving you both which I am not aquainted with.If you asked me to post a message on your behalf to Melvin because you were unable to do so then I would do so simply as a favour to you.Suffice to add that I would without getting involved in the politics of the content of such a post.Melvin I know would not hold it against me for doing so and I feel that you should not either.The fact that we share the same suspect is irrelevant to these proceedings.Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and yourself were co-authors of the A to Z but I certainly would not take it for granted that the three of you agree on every point each of you make as my last post to you indicates. If you wish to use this situation ( or my aquaintence with Melvin ) as a reason for black balling my research then such a decision is yours alone.My book should be viewed on the merits of my research alone and not on the personal conflicts involving others.As has been pointed out to me I am in a no win situation as far as the authors of the A to Z are concerned. To agree with my findings at the end of the day will be to agree with Melvin simply because we both share the same suspect.Thus it is not in the interests of the A to Z authors to agree with my findings which enforce the theory of Melvin Harris. It is known fact that the authors of the A to Z will not agree with Melvin Harris so this in turn will effect my research relating to D'Onston. In stating that I do not expect the A to Z ( or any other publication ) to be used as a platform from which to launch bias opinions or personal attacks on my name or my book ( due out next month ) simply because of my association with Melvin Harris. |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 10:32 pm | | Forgive me for interrupting this thread, but so I can fully understand what I am reading here could someone please direct me to the correct archive so that I can skim all the old posts?
I would appreciate it.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:15 pm | | Hi Joe:
The is the beginning of this thread, though it is my understanding that there was a previous post that was deleted by the moderators as it was in violation of the board's personal attacks policy, or something like that. I did not read the post before it was deleted so I don't know what was contained in that message. It was, at best, irrelevant.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:27 pm | | Thanks Divia. I just was not sure if there was some background to this other than the deleted post. As you said, I am sure it was just irrelevant anyway.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:38 pm | | Hi Joe,
The real background (that Ally fears is getting pushed to one side) is the claim that Andy Aliffe has lied about his contribution to research on Donston Stephenson. Andy does not have access to the internet, I believe - (I am not in contact with him, and it seems nobody else could raise him to get his input). But I personally do not believe for one moment that Andy ever attempted to deceive anybody, and I felt it to be most unfortunate that Ivor had been given the impression that Andy had misled him. So I ventured to point out that Melvin's elaborate account diminishing Andy's impotance almost to vanishing point was in stark contrast with the fulsome praise he awarded Andy in the dedication of "The True Face of Jack the Ripper". That was the start of all this kerfuffle.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:46 pm | | Dear Ivor,
I'm sorry you apparently feel that you are justified in (figuratively) handing me a parcel of excrement, and saying "It's not mine, of course, and I'm only delivering it. I don't owe you any explanation or apology for doing this as I don't take sides." I feel differently, to the extent that I do not think it likely that I shall make any further encouraging noises on the boards about your research or respond to any of your postings.
But for goodness sake don't confuse my strong objection to what I see as a piece of bad manners with judgement of your work. I hope, as I have always hoped, that your book will be good and successful. I couldn't blackball it if I wanted to (which I don't). And you are (probably unthinkingly) offensive on your own account in suggesting that the A to Z or my postings are likely to be used as biassed platforms to denigrate your or Melvin's conclusions.
Sincerely,
Martin Fido |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:48 pm | | Dear Mr. Fido:
Thanks for the enlightenment. It makes a *bit* more sense now.
"We're not worthy! We're not worthy!" *bows down*
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:58 pm | | Dear Ally,
I should have thought there was copious evidence all over the boards that I don't require people to like me or agree with me. Nor have I ever found it necessary to depart from the boards, like Stewart Evans in the past or Paul Begg in the present, objecting that I am confronting such rancorous argument that the postings have become intolerable.
I do, however, expect that those who wish to continue in civilized discourse with me should apologise if they have - even inadvertently - offended me. And, again, I think the boards show clearly enough that this is my own practice.
Of course you may think I am absurdly touchy to have taken umnbrage. Nevertheless, I have done. And if those who unashamedly give offence may drive away contributors as valuable as Stewart and Paul, then I think it is incumbent on all of us to try and mend fences wherever we can. And where they cannot possibly be mended - as is the case in the intense dislike Melvin and I feel for each other - then my own policy (as declared some time ago) is to decline to respond to his attacks, since I know that our exchanges are distasteful to many readers, and I know that readers whose opinions I respect do not imagine that my refusal to continue the debate means that I find Melvin's points unanswerable. All the best, Martin F |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:13 am | | Hi Joe,
Well if you want the all the way back when it begins ...
There is not an easy post to point to and there are several parts to it.
Mr. Harris holds a grudge against Mr Fido, Begg and Skinner because of the entry they wrote about him in the A-Z. He feels that he was singled out for attack and as he is the only author to receive a negative bio some would say he has some justification in feeling that way. However, he behaves like a right donkey's ass in going about his grudge so some people who might otherwise be sympathetic towards him are becoming disenchanted. Mr. Begg and Mr. Fido can be just as insulting to him, but they say it nicer so they get away with it better. Honey and vinegar and all that. You can read a sort of explanation thread under the Miscellaneous: Professional Standards board .
The Andy Ailiffe thing is a result of an interview Andy did in the Casebook where he claims to be responsible for key finds regarding D'Onston ( Harris and Ivor's suspect). This has caused some simmering feelings on the part of Mr. Harris who has sat on it for years before saying anything and the situation was exacerbated by an April Fool's joke that Andy played and Ivor became the butt of, and in the course of this joke, a poster said that Ivor and Mel ought to thank Andy for his research without which their theories would never have been furthered. This of course caused Ivor to inform Mel that Andy was getting credit for Mel's research and Mel exploded in typical Mel fashion. And here we are.
So Mel is pissy at the A-Z3 and they are pissy right back and now Martin is pissy at Ivor because he posts for Melvin and Ivor is convinced the next issue of the A-Z will include a negative entry on him because of it so he will become pissy with them and the 2/3 support andy and Ivor and Mel are pissy at Andy and Andy is pissy at them right back. And everyone is being pissy at Stephen because they think they ought to be able to tell him what he should allow on his boards and I was just born pissy and have honed it to an art.
Martin,
What exactly did Ivor do that offended you? You said that posting Mel's post was acceptable. So you are offended by something he didn't do. Wow. It is really amazing that people can get offended over non-actions. Pretty soon people will be getting offended if they think you are thinking something that they think they won't like. Ivor did nothing to offend you. Nothing. And yet you are offended anyway. He can't really win there, can he?
Andy does have internet access and is aware of the situation.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:33 am | | Dear Ally and Mr. Fido:
Thank you both for giving me some background on this thread. Reading that, I can see where all of this started. I am not going to throw myself in the middle of it (indeed you do not expect me to) but, being new to the boards, I felt it was important for me to try to get some more information. At least what I am reading makes some sense to me now.
I have just a few quick questions. Where can I find copies of Melvin Harris' books? I have been looking at sites like amazon.com etc, and they seem to be sold out. Also, what is the name of Ivor's upcoming work? And, Mr. Fido, when is the new edition of A-Z going to be published?
Thanks again.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:37 am | | ... *pounce*
Gotcha, Joe!
Did you try the UK Amazon site?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:47 am | | You got me, Divia. 
I will check out the UK Amazon site tomorrow. Thank you.
For now, I am off to bed.
Goodnight, all. 
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 06:54 am | | Dear Ally,
Are you not now asking me to continue the bickering that you objected was a distraction from the main discussion?
Dear Joe,
We are not pushing for a new edition of A-Z as we are all pretty busy, and we get no remuneration for what is really very demanding work if we ask for it before the publishers declare a wish for it. So it's not in our hands, and nothing is planned at present.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 07:02 am | | | PS Joe - pace Ally's remark, I am not pissy at Ivor for posting on Melvin's behalf: as I stated, I think this is a good thing. I am offended because he makes no disclaimer when he posts extravagant personal abuse that Melvin has written. And I have remarked that anybody may feel, like Ally, that I am over touchy in taking umbrage. But the umbrage has been taken, and it falls to Ivor to cool the flames of wrath if he thinks it worthwhile, or to accept a state of non-communication with me if, as he is perfectly entitled, he wants no dealings with someone who has taken offence where he sees no reason for this. If seeing both sides of a case while still feeling personally aggrieved is some sort of "honey and vinegar", so be it. All the best, Martin F |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 07:54 am | | Martin,
I would just like to point out that you say you are concerned with the tone of the boards and therefore decline to respond to Mel's attacks but that is untrue. Your response is to attack the messenger now rather than Melvin. If you were altogether concerned with the tone of these boards, you could have emailed Ivor to get clarification rather than debating it here which would lead to more nasty posts. But you didn't. It is not fair to try to force a bystander into publicly choosing sides in two people's personal spat when they clearly don't want to.
Ally |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 09:16 am | | Hey Ally and Martin:
You're being overly simplistic on Martin's request for Ivor to explain his position vis a vis his "Melvin post."
Ivor is in agreement with much of what Melvin writes (all things Aliffe, at least). Since he is in some agreement and sympathy with Melvin's post, it is right for Martin, in this case, to ask if Ivor is in sympathy with the parts that refer to Martin. Ivor offered no disclaimer to the parts he says he did not have sympathy with -- as Peter Birchwood and Caz have previously explained when they post for Melvin and Keith Skinner, respectively.
This is especially true if Martin has been asked by Ivor to give his time to helping with areas of his forthcoming work. Why would Martin continue to offer such help if Ivor seems to be sympathetic to Melvin's vitriolic opinion of all things Martin Fido?
Ivor being Ivor (at least as I know him), Martin, means that Ivor is saying he is not in sympathy with the letter of Melvin's "law" (Melvin as Crowley mantra: "Do as I will shalt be the whole of your Law as well, buckaroos!") -- but he does not agree with the A-Z's tone and wording on Melvin.
So Martin is probably being simmplistic in his response to Ivor's explanation to Martin's question.
Will Ivor offer a post to Martin that clarifies his position that Martin can accept? I don't know, but I think not if it means appearing to back down from a position Ivor holds (again, vis a vis the A-Z entry, NOT Melvin's tone and method of response to that ongoing irritant to all things Harris).
And I will be purchasing Ivor's book when it comes out.
Martin is not attacking the messenger. He's inquired if the messenger agrees with the message about him (Martin is, I mean...this is getting confusing beyond my normal posts).
The previous thread was deleted for lack of interest, Divia (cool name!) and Joseph. I normally respond to Melvin's posts outside of the Diary threads as it seems best for a neutral third party to question the merits of anyone's case, Melvin's especially -- for the reasons Ally cites. Melvin's posts does not make him automatically wrong or a dope; but where a statement or argument is not reinforced with documentary evidence/objective proofs, a third-party can more easily raise those issues without the rancor that long personal history (see Martin's comments -- though he's not alone -- regarding his past experiences with Melvin) further causing Casebook mayhem.
Soon, if we all stop nitpicking one another's intentions, this thread will go the way of the dodo as well.
Yaz
P.S., Who's been picking on Paul NOW? Or do I really want to know? Please give my best to Stewart and Paul and all the other beleaguered souls who add spice to the Casebook.
P.P.S., SOMEONE tell Melvin to take a vacation from fretting over the A-Z to get his work republished in the States. It is costly for us Yanguis to purchase from the U.K. and I don't like to buy used books by a living author if I wish to financially support, in some small way, the author's continuing researches. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 09:45 am | | Hi Yaz,
Obviously since Ivor has no problem stating his opinion on Andy and voicing his agreement there, if he endorsed Melvin's statements against Martin, you would think he would have said something. He has gone out of his way to make no comment about that situation. There is absolutely no reason for him to be forced into making a public disagreement with Mel Harris if he does not choose to be forced into it. Which is what is being attempted. Why should he be made to declare where his loyalties or opinions lie when no one else who has posted on this topic has been demanded to state their allegiance?
Bottom line: Just because someone agrees with another on most occasions, doesn't mean they are required to post what they disagree with. Ivor is a separate entity than Melvin and he doesn't have to say that he doesn't agree with everything he said...that should be a given. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 10:29 am | | Perhaps Melvin should have his own account for his posts, even if he doesn't have internet access? That way, his opinions are purely his own and nobody has to post them under their own name.
I don't take any sides in this argument--it seems like everybody has something legitimate to gripe about. I do agree with Yaz's PPS comment one hundred percent.
Just a thought,
David |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 10:34 am | | Hi Dave,
The really irritating gripe in this is that Melvin DOES have his own screen name and his posts can be posted under it. I think it is going to become a board rule that all posts must be under the name of the AUTHOR even if they are posted by someone else. This is just ridiculous.
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 10:40 am | | Hi, Ally
Sure, and the author can just supply their designated poster with the password. What I really liked about this site was that I was asked for my name and a proper email address. I'm accountable for what I post. By having his name above Melvin's attacks on Martin, Paul, and Andy, Ivor implies his agreement silently, whether he actually agrees or not. I can understand why Martin would want him to clarify his position.
Dave |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:11 am | | Hey Ally:
It is human nature to believe in words like "obvious" and "common sense" when they are oxymorons.
Nothing is "given" unless, well, you give it.
There is a fairly unique relationship between Ivor and Martin in that Martin agreed to help Ivor with some of his book (and please, no one read too much into the word "help" -- that's already the supposed topic of this thread). Their is/was/maybe will be a personal connection between these two. In it is each other's best interests to clarify their relationship now that one of them has posted a note in someone else's behalf that casts aspersion on the other person. The two of them have to work this issue out or let it fester. Need they -- indeed, it is best especially since they appear to have a private correspondence -- to hash this out in public. Probably not.
We could request that they resolve their issues privately but neither is obliged to do so. That's where you enter in the role of Moderator.
I don't see Martin as trying to get Ivor to "distance" himself from Melvin on his opinion of the A-Z entry (when will people let this rest? a critical opinion is just that, an opinion; agree or disagree...move on.)
I see Martin trying to understand if Ivor holds the same sentiments as Melvin has displayed in his posts.
I see Ivor answering Martin that he agrees with Melvin's position on the A-Z entry (fair enough) and that the words/sentiments expressing this particular instance of A-Z (read at times: Begg, Fido, Skinner) are Melvin's.
The situation is complicated by Ivor and Martin discussing their varied reactions to the A-Z entry and each other's arguments about it -- ALL totally divorced from Melvin's form of expression. Martin's analogy of the apologetic postman is not quite fitting -- since a postman will leave the dung at your door without apology. Ivor, if this is his position rather than Martin's IMposition, is to stick with his role as another person posting for Melvin, without there necessarily being any agreement or sympathy will ALL of what Melvin wrote.
You, Ally, in the role of regular Casebooker, are squeezing the last ounce of dialectic out of this situation by interpreting and reinterpreting questions and responses from both parties. You see more where they disagree (and attribute some formula of "right" and "wrong" to each statement) than where they have actually agreed, though neither one responding in words that the other is satisfied completely with.
Personally I feel that Melvin's original post (on the deleted thread) and now this one are poisonous in respect to opening up avenues of disagreement where none previously existed -- and where none are even remotely proven by Melvin's posts. It is ironic that the majority of people who see something obnoxiously negative in the A-Z entry on Melvin are people who overtly support Melvin. I agree with the entry's statement, have offered proof of their assertion in the past (read about Stephenson's supposed reaction to being in Garibaldi's army and its peersonal consequences to Stephenson as just one example), and I STILL admire and respect and intend to go on reading Melvin Harris on most things JtR -- Diary issues excluded, as always. We all have opinions; we all should have something to backup those opinions, though that's less a requirement these days; almost none of those opinions should be liable to covert pressure or outright demands for (self-)censorship such as Melvin is asking of Begg, Fido, and Skinner.
Ivor worries that Martin will be hostile to his book because Martin objects to Melvin's tone which came to this board through Ivor who only partly agrees (and explicitly excuses himself from the more controversial aspects -- to Martin personally -- of the post...
Can't you see that this way, madness lies? Why keep pouring gasoline on a small fire to demonstrate something that is not obvious, common sensical, right, or wrong? It is a personal negotiation between two people -- off the topic of this thread; but vital for each man for their own reasons. We should at least respect the stakes involved for each man; not interject opinions of whether one side is right or wrong where it is not cut-and-dried who is right or who is wrong...or at least where or how they are both right and wrong. Such language is imflammatory.
I hope Martin and Ivor can agree to disagree on the damned A-Z (sorry, authors...is Melvin winning the censorship war by getting me to hate the very sound of A-Z?).
I hope they resolve their personal questions...or see at least what I think I see: that each really has reassured the other.
And I hope I never have to post to this thread again.
"I don't take any sides in this argument--it seems like everybody has something legitimate to gripe about."
Wise words, David, that I can agree with 100%.
Yaz |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:46 am | | Yaz,
You never have to post anywhere you don't choose to. Every post always adds fuel to the fire regardless of who it supports. So you are just as guilty as the rest of us in contributing to the conflagration.
I do not now nor will I ever agree with the idea that just because a person is friends or agrees with someone on a majority of issues that they are required to opine on every topic that person says just because someone else wants to know. Ivor has stated his opinion: he doesn't plan to get in the middle of it. Which is the sensible thing to do given his position. That does not suffice for Martin who requires a public statement of non-support. That is his choice and his right. I don't have to agree with it or refrain from posting my opinion as long as someone is posting theirs.
You object to Melvin's post as poisonous because they opened up avenues that were not previously disagreed upon. So we are only allowed to post on topics that all agree on? Well that will be...boring. And hardly helpful to furthering the case.
You say that we should not interject opinions as to which side is right or wrong when it is not clear which is and yet you have several times done so in your post. Agreeing with someone's actions or saying you understand them is giving your opinion on their merits. Saying Melvin's post is poisonous gives an opinion of right and wrong. It's not easy to refrain from opining on a message board is it? Unless you refrain from posting.
You are right that the only way for this to be resolved is for all parties to take it to private email, hash it out there and never again speak of it. I don't see that happening though.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:41 pm | | Hey Ally:
para 1: agreed; therefore I am wrong and/or guilty? You prove my point about your argumentation there alone.
para 2: whether you agree or not was never the issue. Whether you interpreted what was/is going on -- and thus interpeted accurately -- was my point. Your summation of the issues in this para is another case in point of what I wrote.
para 3: a case of exemplifying exactly what the A-Z authors believe Melvin does at times. None of it being what I said, intended, or could reasonably be extrapolated from what I said -- yet a thought process attributed to me and thereby opened for criticism of either my thoughts, my process, or me own good self. Unproven or questionable charges of misconduct, without the accompanying proof, are always poisonous. Melvin needs to learn that just saying something -- especially to outside parties not even remotely connected to the Casebook's message boards -- does NOT make his statements true are beyond contradiction; regardless what his clients, friends, or family may feel if he is criticised for what he writes/says.
para 4: mixing examples? Melvin's post offers anyone the chance to opine whether he is right, wrong, or somewhere in between. We lack objective proof because Melvin provides none -- this is clearly wrong, whether on a message board or anywhere in life. The other example. the gray areas of negotiations between Martin and Ivor on their personal relationship, is probably better handled privately. My interjections, and everyone else's good faith efforts I'm sure, are intended to help keep the argument on track. It is a matter of personal taste and opinion whether anyone's interjections add gasoline to a rather small fire or are attempts to put out the fire before it spreads. I offered my criticism of your posts in this debate as food for your thought, with respect and good intentions. We already have Melvin at the center of many controversial versions of events on different topics: my own knowledge is of the old A-Z issue and now the Aliffe one; I'm sure the Diary thread has spawned more. Is it better and best to try to resolve these controversies with facts, evidence, arguments, and reasoned conclusions, moving on when their is nothing new to be said? Or do we continue to promote controversies because their fun, promote interest, offer opportunities to vent feelings both old and new, etc.? My vote lies with speedy but well-judged resolution.
para 5: not ALL parties but Martin and Ivor; but I don't see it happening either. Maybe they've grown weary of others parsing their statements, I don't know. But maybe a moderator could...?
para 6: mine own in return, hopefuly with a smile and continued well wishes,
Yaz |
Author: Chris Jd
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 05:26 pm | | Have you ever seen a child finding out, that Father Xmas is nothing but the bloke next door?
After reading lots of good books and threads like the "Contemporary Parallels" I feel a bit that way here:
Can't believe the bigwigs are doing this or acting like this.
Respectfully
Christian |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 05:36 pm | | Yaz, You wrote, 'Their is a fairly unique relationship between Ivor and Martin in that Martin agreed to help Ivor with some of his book'.
Martin has not been asked by me to give his time to helping with areas of my forthcoming book as you have stated and I do not know why you should make such statements.Martin has made kind comments on certain areas of my work though.As for people adding fuel to the fire I could not agree more so you can lose the 45 gallon drum of petrol which you have in your possession if you catch my drift.As for it being ironic that people who support Melvin agree with his stance on the A to Z entry what do you expect? It is no more ironic than you and others jumping on the wagon everytime his name or mine crops up which in fact I have mentioned before.If your actions or motives for getting involved were honourable then I would not mind so much but it is getting to become a habit with you. Forgive me for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. |
|
|
|
|
