Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[robhouse]

In response to your previous question, "Who said?" followed by a list of quotes. My answer is, obviously, that "Veteran Diplomat" said these things. As you can see at the top of the page, "By a Veteran Diplomat".

Show me where in the article it is indicated that Anderson is speaking... anywhere.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Just check your facts.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Simon,

I am quite clear on the facts. But perhaps I am missing something. I am not immune to making mistakes. If so, please point them out to me.

You accused a previous post of mine of being "akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la-la." I might now say the same. Your response seems to be implying that my "facts" are wrong, and yours are right. I have given specific examples. Either you can respond, or you can tell me which facts to check or whatever. Or you can avoid the issue, which you seem to be doing.

I think if you publish an article making several rather outlandish assertions, you should expect to be challenged to support them.

RH

[perrymason]

Are you 2 really discussing the facts or rather the perceptions or interpretations of what "facts" there are available?

Seems to me that one huge variable in these kinds of matters is often a matter of a proper interpretation of the data within its context, not the actual wording of it.

Wanted to say Hi Simon and my best to you and Susan for the Holidays!

Best regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I cannot fault your logic. Prima facie, Anderson's NYT utterances do not make any sense, but throughout the WM and the Special Commission, and on into later years, there is a pattern of British and American readers being told very different "facts" about sensitive matters.

I don't know what mental picture you have of SRA, but it is important to understand that contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing. He wasn't the pillar of moral rectitude he might have imagined or had us believe. He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point], inhabiting an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where up was down and right was wrong, or left, or whatever else he needed it to be at any particular moment. The secret world makes such demands on its denizens. Read the full transcriptions of evidence at the Parnell Special Commission if you don't believe me. You couldn't make it up. Don't look to SRA for the truth, for it was not within his gift.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Rob,

I don't know what mental picture you have of SRA, but it is important to understand that contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing. He wasn't the pillar of moral rectitude he might have imagined or had us believe. He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point]

But surely the only expert we know on Anderson and on Victorian Literature, namely Martin Fido, does NOT...

And it is he that we shall all be quoting.

Pirate Jack

[jason_c]

Hi Rob,

I cannot fault your logic. Prima facie, Anderson's NYT utterances do not make any sense, but throughout the WM and the Special Commission, and on into later years, there is a pattern of British and American readers being told very different "facts" about sensitive matters.

I don't know what mental picture you have of SRA, but it is important to understand that contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing. He wasn't the pillar of moral rectitude he might have imagined or had us believe. He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point], inhabiting an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where up was down and right was wrong, or left, or whatever else he needed it to be at any particular moment. The secret world makes such demands on its denizens. Read the full transcriptions of evidence at the Parnell Special Commission if you don't believe me. You couldn't make it up. Don't look to SRA for the truth, for it was not within his gift.

Regards,

Simon

He was in the main charged with national security. I would not expect, or wish, truth and honesty to be his greatest attributes. These Fenians were a cunning lot.

His treatment of the JtR case may have been different as national security was not paramount in this case.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate Jack,

I do admire an open mind.

Have a warm and peaceful Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate Jack,

I do admire an open mind.

Have a warm and peaceful Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

You are more than welcome. However I have a feeling the new year is unlikely to bring all you might wish for...the anti-Aderson/Marginalia camp has no new material, and the world of ripperology has long since polarized towards three camps.

Merry Xmas

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

You're right about the new year, but the contract I've just signed should make 2011 very good indeed.

Thank you for your interest in my well-being.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

...the anti-Aderson/Marginalia camp has no new material, and the world of ripperology has long since polarized towards three camps

I can guess that two of them are "pro" and "anti", but I'm not sure about the third. Surely it couldn't be "scholarly objectivity" or anything like that?

[Howard Brown]

Moral Certainty

Jeff:



You said:

But surely the only expert we know on Anderson and on Victorian Literature, namely Martin Fido, does NOT...

Jeff,Jeff,Jeff...

What does Mr. Fido's or anyone's abilities in Victorian lit have to do with what SRA posits ?

I refer to three cases for your perusal....and review once more what SRA posits...

1. The Mylett Murder in 1888.

2. The Waterloo Bridge Murder in 1857 ( SRA said that "someone" told him that that murder was a "hit" committed by the French secret police ).

3. The West End murder which occurred a few years after the WM...in 1895 I believe... which we went over..over there on the other site...where SRA just "knew" the man he interrogated was guilty....and claimed it was a "moral certainty" the guy was guilty. The courts felt otherwise.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

This is where the "pro" lobby meet—



Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Okay, Simon, that's the pro lobby's shed.

This is the Camp 3's meeting house.


But where exactly do the Anti's congregate?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

No venue is large enough to accommodate us, for we are legion.

Regards,

Simon