The Aberconway Version

[Monty]

How about with your 1886 London City police whistle?

John the Inquisitive

Still clinging to that one? Desipte the evidence that proves you wrong.

Monty

[harry]

If,as I suspect,the memorandum is that which,in it's entirety or part thereof,has already been published,then as has been stated,there is going to be a great deal of time wasted in reading it.
One thing I will say,is that I have spent quite a deal of money buying various books purtaining to the ripper case,and I would expext the authors of those books to be fair and truthfull,in revealing all knowledge in their possession,from wherever it be obtained.
From what I have read here,I seem to have been a little too trustfull.Some things haven't been shared.

[Robert]

If we cannot have the Aberconway version, could we have the Russ Conway version? Much easier to wade through - no words.

[Dr. John Watson]

You say "all this carping and criticizing isn't accomplishing a thing here." In that case it might be as well to stop contributing to it!

I wasn't aware that I was either carping or criticizing, just stating my understanding of the matter. You haven't added anything of value lately, but I don't include you as a carper or criticizer - just a defender. Which is fine.

As for the closing suggestion, I will if you will.

John the Challenger

[Chris]

This is somewhat misleading, I think. My understanding is, Trevor has been seeking that document privately and getting a run-around for some time.

The trouble is that this statement - which presumably originates with Trevor Marriott - is exactly the kind of innuendo that has caused ill-feeling and created the problem in the first place. I really do wonder why you give it credence, and what you are trying to achieve by posting it.

Who, precisely, is being accused of giving Trevor Marriott "a run-around"? Evidently it can't be Keith Skinner, because Marriott has not had any contact with him. Nor the other authors of the "A to Z," for the same reason. And who else would be in a position to give him "a run-around"? One hopes he is not accusing members of the McLaren family.

You say "all this carping and criticizing isn't accomplishing a thing here." In that case it might be as well to stop contributing to it!

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi chaps,

I find this whole brouhaha quite astounding.

The administrator of this site was quite clear about the circumstances which led to Trevor Marriott's temporary suspension, and, if you look at previous cases of this sort of thing on these boards, the powers that be have mentioned that it isn't necessarily their policy to share the reasons for their decisions with the general readership. In this case, they did, and I suppose this was to assist interested parties with their understanding of the circumstances, and to forestall the sort of fractious discussion which we're now having anyway. So, as far as I can see, no blame whatsoever attaches to the management, who have the authority and the right to make decisions as they see fit for the good of their forums.

In the meantime, Stewart doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, as he's quite competent to do that for himself, but it's surely obvious that he had offered to act as a conduit for the publication of the Aberconway papers. When things heated up, with a lot of personal feeling (and some cynical invective) involved on the parts of several posters, he felt that he would prefer not to act as a conduit for the document for the time being. Fair enough, one would have thought - whose decision is it but his? But now he has to fend off further invective based on a decision which he plainly made for his own perfectly legitimate reasons. Well, that isn't fair, in my opinion.

In the end, if people wish to see the Aberconway papers, I wonder why they do not attempt to secure their own permission to see them from the legal owners? This might be difficult for some, but it's surely not impossible. And if this is indeed too much for some people, then perhaps they need only be patient until the papers are, in fact, made publicly available, as per the agreement which has apparently been made between Messrs Mclaren and Skinner. What's the rush? And, if there is a rush, what's the point of all this excitement, when a short, calm repose would achieve the same ends?

I'm looking in from my perspective here, of course, and nobody has to agree with me, but it would seem to me that a little more omission and a little less comission would (counter-intuitive though it obviously seems to some) hasten rather than delay the appearance of the Aberconway version for those who wish to see it; it's for that reason that I think that people could usefully take a step back at this point, relax, and put their pointing fingers away.

Just my opinion.

Regards,

Mark

Well said.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

Mark,

You talk sense, may as well be Cantonese.

Personally I wouldnt trust Trevor with my shopping list.

Monty

How about with your 1886 London City police whistle?

John the Inquisitive

[Monty]

Mark,

You talk sense, may as well be Cantonese.

Personally I wouldnt trust Trevor with my shopping list.

Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

Considering the pill Trevor has proved himself to be, I would think that people are well advised NOT to hand out people's private contact information to him.

One could have facilitated mutual contact if one had been willing to help.

The facts are these: No one ever asked that the full document be posted before. The authors determined which bits they thought were relevant and presented those. NO ONE ASKED for any more information. Then, all of a sudden, there are questions being asked about it.

This is somewhat misleading, I think. My understanding is, Trevor has been seeking that document privately and getting a run-around for some time.

This next bit is presumed, but reasonable, one can guess that Stewart contacted his friend Keith and made him aware that there were questions being raised about the document. Keith decided, quite rightfully, to contact the owner of the document and get his permission to publish it.

Reasonable, but pure conjecture.

In the meantime however, the questions about the location of the document took a decidedly disgusting turn, with implied accusations of all kinds of duplicity wrongly and vilely hurled at the authros of the to A-Z, at which point, it was decided that if people were going to behave like jackasses, they were going to pack up their ball and go home. In short, Trevor shot himself in the foot. If he had just been a tad bit patient, he would have gotten the information he requested.

With exception of the melodramatic "vilely," probably dead on.

The fact that he couldn't keep his bile in check is directly what has led us to this point, so it is not at all unfair or inaccurate to say that he is solely and 100 percent responsible for the document not now being published.

Here's where you slip from objective to advesarial, and your attack on Trevor is just as unfair to him as his attack on Stewart and/or Keith et al. is perceived to be. 100 percent responsible? I think not. It takes at least two to tango. Mind you, I would not for one moment abridge your right to criticize Trevor or lecture him on etiquette, or state your fervant opinion on this or any other matter. That is the wonderful thing about Casebook - we can challenge each other and disagree on things, hopefully without fear of retaliation.

You state you are not one of the people "busting his hump" to dig up new information. Well, Trevor is one of those people, and while we are all entitled to our own opinion on the matter, not one of us has walked in his shoes, and likely only Trevor and Stewart and Keith are knowledgable enough of the true facts to say what really happened - and why. It should be up to these gentlemen to settle this between themselves. I'm sure when all is said and done, and the document has been published for all to see, a simple apology and/or retraction would not be out of order. For now, all this carping and criticizing isn't accomplishing a thing here. We've all said our piece. The best that could happen at this point is for this thread to be closed.

John

[mariab]

To The Good Michael:
I can't stand Madama Butterfly either. All the “japanization“ of melodic construction produces some really ugly music. And the story is unpleasant. I prefer La Bohème too, both musically and dramatically (which as a story stands up even today). Plus La Bohème Act II is still reminiscent of grand opéra, which is my favorite genre.
(Oh yeah, I'm the worse thread highjacker of all.)

[Ally]

The example you quote in no way refutes Trevor's statement that he tried to contact Keith Skinner but could not obtain his address from any of those he asked - or that no one shared with him the name of the actual owner of the original Aberconway document.

John

Considering the pill Trevor has proved himself to be, I would think that people are well advised NOT to hand out people's private contact information to him.

The facts are these: No one ever asked that the full document be posted before. The authors determined which bits they thought were relevant and presented those. NO ONE ASKED for any more information. Then, all of a sudden, there are questions being asked about it. This next bit is presumed, but reasonable, one can guess that Stewart contacted his friend Keith and made him aware that there were questions being raised about the document. Keith decided, quite rightfully, to contact the owner of the document and get his permission to publish it. In the meantime however, the questions about the location of the document took a decidedly disgusting turn, with implied accusations of all kinds of duplicity wrongly and vilely hurled at the authros of the to A-Z, at which point, it was decided that if people were going to behave like jackasses, they were going to pack up their ball and go home.

In short, Trevor shot himself in the foot. If he had just been a tad bit patient, he would have gotten the information he requested. The fact that he couldn't keep his bile in check is directly what has led us to this point, so it is not at all unfair or inaccurate to say that he is solely and 100 percent responsible for the document not now being published. You do not insult and disparage the people you are requesting a favor from, and make no mistake, it is a favor indeed that Trevor was asking for. Keith Skinner is under absolutely NO obligation to Trevor or anyone else to share his hard won research. The fact that certain arrogant and immature people feel somehow entitled to reap the benefits of someone elses work beggars all belief. While I personally feel that the world would be great if info was just handed out, I am not one of the people busting my hump to get it, so my personal opinion on sharing information is irrelevant.

Once again: Trevor owes the entire A-Z team a sincere and heartfelt apology.

[m_w_r]

Hi chaps,

I find this whole brouhaha quite astounding.

The administrator of this site was quite clear about the circumstances which led to Trevor Marriott's temporary suspension, and, if you look at previous cases of this sort of thing on these boards, the powers that be have mentioned that it isn't necessarily their policy to share the reasons for their decisions with the general readership. In this case, they did, and I suppose this was to assist interested parties with their understanding of the circumstances, and to forestall the sort of fractious discussion which we're now having anyway. So, as far as I can see, no blame whatsoever attaches to the management, who have the authority and the right to make decisions as they see fit for the good of their forums.

In the meantime, Stewart doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, as he's quite competent to do that for himself, but it's surely obvious that he had offered to act as a conduit for the publication of the Aberconway papers. When things heated up, with a lot of personal feeling (and some cynical invective) involved on the parts of several posters, he felt that he would prefer not to act as a conduit for the document for the time being. Fair enough, one would have thought - whose decision is it but his? But now he has to fend off further invective based on a decision which he plainly made for his own perfectly legitimate reasons. Well, that isn't fair, in my opinion.

In the end, if people wish to see the Aberconway papers, I wonder why they do not attempt to secure their own permission to see them from the legal owners? This might be difficult for some, but it's surely not impossible. And if this is indeed too much for some people, then perhaps they need only be patient until the papers are, in fact, made publicly available, as per the agreement which has apparently been made between Messrs Mclaren and Skinner. What's the rush? And, if there is a rush, what's the point of all this excitement, when a short, calm repose would achieve the same ends?

I'm looking in from my perspective here, of course, and nobody has to agree with me, but it would seem to me that a little more omission and a little less comission would (counter-intuitive though it obviously seems to some) hasten rather than delay the appearance of the Aberconway version for those who wish to see it; it's for that reason that I think that people could usefully take a step back at this point, relax, and put their pointing fingers away.

Just my opinion.

Regards,

Mark

[The Good Michael]

quote Illica/Puccini, “Non ho studiato ornitologia“ hint: it's from Madama Butterfly.)

That is the one opera I slept through. Love La Boheme, however, and many other Italian operas (and German), but Madame Butterfly was like Nyquil for me. I don't know why... maybe bad performers?

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Final Post

Regarding your first paragraph - it is one person's negative comments - that should never drive anyone's decision making - and I for one am scratching my head thinking why one person's - any one person's - comments would have a bearing on someone's decisions. What you're saying is - effectively - is Trevor Marriott can wind people up to such an extent that they act according to Trevor's comments. Never mind that 99% of people/posters are not questioning anyone's personal ethics. Why are Trevor's opinions so important? Now to me that is odd.
Regarding your second paragraph - you did say somewhere on this thread that you are not posting this due to what has been said by Trevor (something along the lines of your dishonesty being questioned). In the event it's a case of you not having the authority then that's a different matter...but it seems to me you were laying this at Trevor's doorstep due to his actions. And I for one can't understand for the life of me why one person's negative opinions would dictate your judgement/decision making. I can only guess in the absence of an explanation.
And as for 'suggestions of dishonesty'.....I gotta say Stewart....grow up man...so what...that's life....not everyone is going to give you or your mates a fair crack of the whip. Just ignore it - that's what most people do when they hear nonsense from people who they don't hold in particularly high esteem anyway.

I really don't believe this.

It is not a case of 'negative comments' it is a case of suggestions of dishonesty that were seen to be bordering on libellous. And the decision to ban was not mine. I presume that the administrators received a complaint and that complaint was acted upon.

It is also not a case of 'winding up' - it is that the adverse suggestions were made about professional authors by a professional author - not just anybody. Professional authors rely on their good reputation for a means of income - i.e. writing.

What I said was that I wouldn't post it as I didn't want the hassle - such as that I am getting now. It didn't mean that it wouldn't get posted as someone else would do it and not me.

By the way - hopefully I haven't got any dishonesty to be questioned. Or did you get that wrong?

Anyway, I have no wish to get into a 'I'll have the last word' game with you and this is my final post.

[mariab]

To The Good Michael:
Nope, I'm afraid I don't know my North American (or European, or African) bird life too well, I didn't even know that loons are birds. To quote Illica/Puccini, “Non ho studiato ornitologia“. (I'm sure Simon Wood and The Grave Maurice will get the reference – hint: it's from Madama Butterfly.)