'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Jeff Leahy]

But of course, as someone just said, this is not the Where's Begg thread.

I would like to get back to the questions that are inherent in the idea that the Swanson Marginalia was not written as a continuous whole.

Ok Ally that sounds like more fun than 'guess the identity of the casebook admin staff'

However I'm going to bed

Good night

[Ally]

I don't need to guess. I know.

So the questions are:

Why was the differing pencils deliberately omitted from the A-Z?

What does this mean in so far as Swanson actually writing it?

If Swanson did write it, why didn't he do it the first time around?

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't need to guess. I know.

So the questions are:

Why was the differing pencils deliberately omitted from the A-Z?

This is a loaded question

What does this mean in so far as Swanson actually writing it?

According to Dr Davies 'That Swanson Probably wrote it'

If Swanson did write it, why didn't he do it the first time around?

We will probably never know the exact answer to that question. However there are 'probably' hundreds of easy explanations to account for it.

Pirate

PS Although you could try Derek Acorah

[Chris]

People may be interested to know that Stewart has now put his questions directly to Paul Begg on www.jtrforums.com:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=5269&page=6

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;73193]

This is a loaded question

Yes it is. It's also a perfectly valid question for anyone using the A-Z as a resource tool.

According to Dr Davies 'That Swanson Probably wrote it'

And since probably isn't definitely, that still leaves room for question.

We will probably never know the exact answer to that question. However there are 'probably' hundreds of easy explanations to account for it.

Really? Name two. Easy explanations that would account for why a man, supposedly on his first read through and marginalizing a book, would not the first time around include the vital component--the suspects name. Instead, later, when he had ...done what? Suddenly it's important information?

[Ally]

Great news Chris. Hopefully we can get some answers. After perusing that thread, I see that it is apparently the thing to do to, if a poster won't appear on your boards, to copy their words over there. So that's what I plan to do in reverse here, with Paul's answers.

First, I'd like to start off by saying, I don't appreciate my words being taken out of context, without accompanying ironic smiley face as an effort to stir sht. I can do that quite well myself without assistance.

Second, I would like to address these particular points:

Ally has every opportunity to discuss the issues she has with the marginalia here,as she is a member in good standing...

Yes, Howard, but as on every board, some members are in better standing than others, aren't they?

I don't contribute to the Casebook message boards (never mind my reasons) and I haven't done so for years. If somebody has a question, is there any reason why they can't disturb my tranquility and join me on a fluffy cloud here.

The very good reason I have for not disturbing you on your fluffy cloud there is because, it has been proven, that if I post something over there that you don't like, you'll complain and have it deleted. So what's the point? It is better that Stewart posts the questions, because at least he has the standing not to have his posts poofed if you don't particularly like them.

And while I fully support the right of any admin to delete whatever they choose on their own board, no matter what it is or what the reason, I am hardly likely to attempt a serious discussion when asinine pieces of satirical fiction get deleted because they mocked you (at the same time mocking Stephen Ryder, Stewart Evans, every current poster on the boards, and although I hadn't yet made my grand appearance to the serial, eventually mock myself).

So while I understand completely why you would choose to post only on those boards, I am sure you can also see why I will not bother to post there when you are involved. And again, I say this stating fully: that is a choice ALL board admins have the right to make.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;73205]

Yes it is. It's also a perfectly valid question for anyone using the A-Z as a resource tool.

No it isn't..its a leading question.

And since probably isn't definitely, that still leaves room for question.

Yes I agree, but then you ask the question how probable is probable. The word probable sort of has 'odds' attached to it. One mans probable is another mans improbable. Your only course of redress is to study all the facts and draw your own conclusion. i have come to the conclusion it is almost certainly 'Written by Swanson', but one should never totally discount the improbable.

Really? Name two. Easy explanations that would account for why a man, supposedly on his first read through and marginalizing a book, would not the first time around include the vital component--the suspects name. Instead, later, when he had ...done what? Suddenly it's important information?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2sI8vIJQY8

Perhaps this happened. But I admit it is improbable.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, Howard, but as on every board, some members are in better standing than others, aren't they?
.

Sounds just like casebook...

[Ally]

That would be the point of "as on every board". You are nothing if not redundant, are you Jeff?

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;73219][QUOTE=Ally;73205]

No it isn't..its a leading question.

No it's not a leading question. Leading questions are questions that contain the answer in the question. If I had said, "Did the authors of the A-Z deliberately omit the two pencils because they themselves had forged it and didn't want to call attention?" that would be a leading question. (I don't actually think that's what happened, that's just an example). People have an idea that the A-Z is unbiased. It is in fact not. There are several instances where the authors' biases are clear. This appears to be one of them.

So the question is, how much did bias play a role and to what extent? Why was this detail chosen to be left out of the A-Z?

[Howard Brown]

Dear Al:

Just as a brief sidebar, I'd like you to kindly explain the following, since its news to me. I really don't want to start up a separate thread for the comment,since we have mutual goals for the thread here....

The very good reason I have for not disturbing you on your fluffy cloud there is because, it has been proven, that if I post something over there that you don't like, you'll complain and have it deleted. So what's the point? It is better that Stewart posts the questions, because at least he has the standing not to have his posts poofed if you don't particularly like them.

I'd like you to back that statement up with one example of that happening,when you get a chance. I am completely in the dark about this comment. Thank you.

How

[Ally]

I provided the example in the post Howard. My fictional satirical story, that I was creating on my private forum "As the Forums burns" that Paul objected to, because I satirized him in it. If I remember correctly he was a demon overlord in charge of a horde of Bat-bots about to swoop down on the members of New BookCaseia and wreak havoc.

The first and last time I posted anything to or regarding Paul on the boards. But as I said, you have the right to delete whatever you want on your boards.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Is the so-called marginalia the thing where David Cohen was first mentioned, or am I badly mistaken?

[Ally]

No David Cohen was discovered by Martin Fido. Kosminski was the named suspect in the Marginalia. Martin Fido believes that Cohen was in fact Kosminski. Or actually that it was Cohen, but the police confused the name with Kosminski. There's a podcast where he explains it. Probably better than I could.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

No David Cohen was discovered by Martin Fido. Kosminski was the named suspect in the Marginalia. Martin Fido believes that Cohen was in fact Kosminski. Or actually that it was Cohen, but the police confused the name with Kosminski. There's a podcast where he explains it. Probably better than I could.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. The Kosminski/Cohen thing always confused me. I think I'd better check out that podcast haha.

Cheers.