How Are The Mighty Fallen

[The Good Michael]

Hi GM,

Well ok, but if you saw that as Simon's desired purpose, how did he con you into helping him accomplish it?

Because I'm game.

Mike

[caz]

I think that I have already indicated that I don't see anything really derogatory about Anderson in this memo, particularly given the limited context that has been provided.

Given his age and the ever changing police hierarchy it was probably a natural progression. As to Simon's 'How Are The Mighty Fallen' (shouldn't that be 'How The Mighty Are Fallen'?) that, surely, is Simon's own take on it and I am sure that the intelligent reader has the sense arrive at his own conclusion.

As for its source, I have already stated what I think and should I be using it in something I intended to publish then I would ascertain its origin first. Here it is merely up for discussion.

Hi Stewart,

Yes, that is indeed what you indicated. And I felt the same way.

I know it was Simon's thread title and was assuming it was his own take on what he had been sent by his unidentified source. I quoted the words as he posted them, but in his defence I believe it's a biblical reference that can be rendered either way (albeit in equally old-fashioned language) to mean the same thing.*

"See how far the mighty Sir Robert has fallen by 1901 - asked to resign!"

For the record, that would just be my own - modern - take on what Simon was implying, but I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong and in the meantime the intelligent reader can come up with his/her own take.

Love,

Caz
X

*Yes, here we are:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/188450.html

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes

Hi Stewart,
Yes, that is indeed what you indicated. And I felt the same way.
I know it was Simon's thread title and was assuming it was his own take on what he had been sent by his unidentified source. I quoted the words as he posted them, but in his defence I believe it's a biblical reference that can be rendered either way (albeit in equally old-fashioned language) to mean the same thing.*
"See how far the mighty Sir Robert has fallen by 1901 - asked to resign!"
For the record, that would just be my own - modern - take on what Simon was implying, but I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong and in the meantime the intelligent reader can come up with his/her own take.
Love,
Caz
X
*Yes, here we are:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/188450.html

Yes, I am sure that is what he was implying.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

You're quite right. It is a biblical reference which can be rendered either way. I took care in the first instance not to offer any personal comment over the bare facts of the memo, and I like to think that I was subsequently even-handed in discussing its possible ramifications.

As SPE has so rightly observed, the part-memo is merely up for discussion. I posted the fragment in the hope that by doing so others might find it of sufficient interest to want to learn more, but it seems I rather misjudged the situation. Instead, a stream of people have worked themselves into a lather about me being antagonistic, derogatory, biased, denigratory, snidey and bitchy, whilst condemning the provenance of the part-memo itself as beyond crap and postulating that I have been set up as a patsy, no doubt in some dastardly conspiracy to spread wild disinformation about Robert Anderson.

Also, my not naming the source of the part-memo seems to have generated some heat, with suggestions of my having some sort of Deep Throat tucked away. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have simply chosen not to name my source; and given the aforementioned vituperation can anybody really blame me for keeping them out of the firing line?

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Naughty Boy

Hi Caz,
You're quite right. It is a biblical reference which can be rendered either way. I took care in the first instance not to offer any personal comment over the bare facts of the memo, and I like to think that I was subsequently even-handed in discussing its possible ramifications.
As SPE has so rightly observed, the part-memo is merely up for discussion. I posted the fragment in the hope that by doing so others might find it of sufficient interest to want to learn more, but it seems I rather misjudged the situation. Instead, a stream of people have worked themselves into a lather about me being antagonistic, derogatory, biased, denigratory, snidey and bitchy, whilst condemning the provenance of the part-memo itself as beyond crap and postulating that I have been set up as a patsy, no doubt in some dastardly conspiracy to spread wild disinformation about Robert Anderson.
Also, my not naming the source of the part-memo seems to have generated some heat, with suggestions of my having some sort of Deep Throat tucked away. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have simply chosen not to name my source; and given the aforementioned vituperation can anybody really blame me for keeping them out of the firing line?
Regards,
Simon

You are a naughty boy Simon - but I like you.

I have to agree that some of the vituperative responses to postings like this are rather off putting. And it's often those with nothing to offer themselves that are the most critical.

I have a ton of material that I could post, without naming the source, but I shall not be doing so for obvious reasons.

[Ally]

You know, perhaps I am in the minority but I am really sick and tired of people posting biased, misleading and un-sourced information and then crying like little babies when they aren't wholeheartedly embraced and lauded. They suddenly play the victim and a rally around a cry of this is why things don't get shared. Bullshit.

If you can't post full disclosure don't post. A fragment, carefully selected, on a contentious subject that draws the conclusion that you want to be drawn is not sharing information and something to be praised. It is misleading through omission and something to be avoided, if you want your credibility to remain intact.

If the entire document had been posted in full, then the identity of whoever sent it to Simon would be irrelevant because the pertinent information is what the document contains. But when only a carefully selected fragment goes on display and no other information is allowed, then yes, the identity of the person sending out this fragment and their motives is important and to be questioned.

And if you don't see that, and want to whine and play the victim, that's fine. But it makes you look intellectually bankrupt.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have to agree that some of the vituperative responses to postings like this are rather off putting. And it's often those with nothing to offer themselves that are the most critical.

I have a ton of material that I could post, without naming the source, but I shall not be doing so for obvious reasons.

But aren't you the person who says we should all be more cynical? In this case, you have Simon Wood of all people posting an excerpt from a memo provided to him (why him?) by some unnamed source. Under such circumstances, how could you or Simon not expect him to catch some fire?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't...

But aren't you the person who says we should all be more cynical? In this case, you have Simon Wood of all people posting an excerpt from a memo provided to him (why him?) by some unnamed source. Under such circumstances, how could you or Simon not expect him to catch some fire?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Don't you start Wescott. I am particularly fond of Simon and his credentials go way, way back in this field.

[Stewart P Evans]

Get Back

You know, perhaps I am in the minority but I am really sick and tired of people posting biased, misleading and un-sourced information and then crying like little babies when they aren't wholeheartedly embraced and lauded. They suddenly play the victim and a rally around a cry of this is why things don't get shared. Bullshit.
If you can't post full disclosure don't post. A fragment, carefully selected, on a contentious subject that draws the conclusion that you want to be drawn is not sharing information and something to be praised. It is misleading through omission and something to be avoided, if you want your credibility to remain intact.
If the entire document had been posted in full, then the identity of whoever sent it to Simon would be irrelevant because the pertinent information is what the document contains. But when only a carefully selected fragment goes on display and no other information is allowed, then yes, the identity of the person sending out this fragment and their motives is important and to be questioned.
And if you don't see that, and want to whine and play the victim, that's fine. But it makes you look intellectually bankrupt.

Get back to your dungeon woman.

[Ally]

I am reminded of the adage, "Get thee behind me, Satan". Know why Lucifer was cast down? For questioning the word of God and refusing to bow down to man.

Call me Lucy.

[Tom_Wescott]

I know Simon's credentials and that they go further back than anybody who posts on this website. I also know you're fond of him, in spite of "Smoke & Mirrors". I also like Simon and have shared some research with him that I have not shared with anyone else. But that's not the point. How you and I feel about Simon isn't the issue and I'm not saying he made a mistake by posting in the way he did. I'm just saying that we're all smart enough to know what to expect if we decide to present this information in the way Simon did, so I was surprised to see you and Simon reacting in shock to the discussion his excerpt had generated.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Anyway...

Anyway, Simon did give the source for this statement. It was written in a memo from the Permanent Under Secretary of State, Sir Kenelm Digby, to the Home Secretary, Charles Thomson Ritchie (Lord Ritchie) and dated 22 May 1901.

So there is the originator, the location (Home Office), and the recipient, added to which is the exact date. Now with all this information an able researcher should soon be able to locate the source document. It doesn't matter who told Simon about it, nor why Simon may want to keep his informer anonymous. What the hell is all the fuss about???

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,I have always thought he was ok ,old luce, ever since Milton gave him horns.

[Stewart P Evans]

Shocked?

I know Simon's credentials and that they go further back than anybody who posts on this website. I also know you're fond of him, in spite of "Smoke & Mirrors". I also like Simon and have shared some research with him that I have not shared with anyone else. But that's not the point. How you and I feel about Simon isn't the issue and I'm not saying he made a mistake by posting in the way he did. I'm just saying that we're all smart enough to know what to expect if we decide to present this information in the way Simon did, so I was surprised to see you and Simon reacting in shock to the discussion his excerpt had generated.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Shocked...moi? I don't think so.

[Stewart P Evans]

Love It

I am reminded of the adage, "Get thee behind me, Satan". Know why Lucifer was cast down? For questioning the word of God and refusing to bow down to man.
Call me Lucy.

I just love it when you talk dirty...