'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Chris]

Jeff

I quoted precisely what you said. If anyone wants to check, your post is here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=73714&postcount=350

Now, kindly stop wasting everyone's time with this drivel.

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris

Everyone can read. You have clearly made a mistake. At NO piont have I suggested in that post, or any other post that i believe, that Sushka beleives, that the marginalia is Fake.

Its clear, its obvious.

Now please apologize and stop making a fool of yourself.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

I will say this just once more. You asked sushka:

Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?

When it was forged?

Why it was forged?

Quite clearly none of those questions makes sense unless they are addressed to someone who does believe the marginalia were faked. Quite clearly the implication was that sushka did believe that.

Now. Will you please stop wasting everyone's time and disrupting this thread?

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris I asked Sushka to help me with my problem.

I clearly from this post, and still dont, have any idea what Sushka does or doesnt beleive...

Indeed the ironic humour used at the beginning of the line 'fountain of all knowledge" was placed there becasue I was suggesting Sushka hadnt contributed to the thread and didnt know anything about the Marginalia, which he may or may not do, I dont know.

However at no piont in this post do I suggest that Suchka beleives the Marginalia to be fake.

You are simply trying to Misrepresent what I have said. Which is clearly a general point about who might or might not have forged the Marginalia.


Asking questiuons about something simply doesnt require you to hold a beleif in either direction.

You have clearly made a mistake. It is you that are holding up this thread.

I have never stated or suggested what Sashka believes, Apologize and we can move on.

Pirate

And even if we go with your interpretation of what i say you are wrong..Sashka could easily reply...i dont think anyone forged the Marginalia..

No where do I say i beleive that Sushka beleives the marginalia is fake!

You are trying to twist my words!!

[Jeff Leahy]

OK Chris

If you feel it is OK to deliberately misrepresent what someone has said and not apologize I guess thats your choice.

As Ally correctly says it is obvious no one is actually willing to spectulate, on who, where and when it may have been forged.

That's probably because it is NOT.

All the best

Pirate

[The Good Michael]

Jeff,

I had no problem with your post, yet Chris is correct in that your wording implies the recipient of the questions is someone who must be of the opinion that the marginalia is a forgery. If your intention was not so, that is fine. Yet,
in this forum, and without knowledge of intent a priori, I don't see how else your questions could have been interpreted.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

I had no problem with your post, yet Chris is correct in that your wording implies the recipient of the questions is someone who must be of the opinion that the marginalia is a forgery. If your intention was not so, that is fine. Yet,
in this forum, and without knowledge of intent a priori, I don't see how else your questions could have been interpreted.

Cheers,

Mike

I'm sorry Mike

There is no way that my post implies that I believe Sushka believes that the marginalia is a forgery...

My intent was quite clear. I was asking Sushka to help me with my problem, which I then listed.

At no point did I suggest that Sushka believed the marginalia was a forgery.

If I had intended to do so, I simply would have said so.

Lets again examine what I said, in context:

“Sushka as you appear to be a fountain of knowledge on such matters perhaps you could help a sneering old pirate out with his problem and explain.

There is clearly a full stop. I go on to make a list.

"Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?”

This is what I said.

It is simply asking Sushka, who he believes faked the Marginalia.

If Sushka Dosn’t believe anyone faked the Marginalia he is clearly free to do so. At NO point have I suggested that Sushka believes the Marginalia is Fake. Its very simple Mike. And at no piont did Sushka state that he thought the marginalia might be Fake, so how could I respond to that position?

I have no idea what Sushka’s belief’s are, and if you follow the posts before hand there is nothing to suggest in either my posts or Sushka’s posts, that Sushka believes the Marginalia is FAKE..Absolutely NOTHING.

This is simply another Chris Philips pedantic argument about punctuation.

If Chris Philips chooses to twist my words and MISREPRESENT what I have said, then it makes you wonder what else he is willing to MISREPRESENT.

Pirate

[The Good Michael]

I'm not taking sides here. If I were to ask you a question like... "What's it like being married 7 times?" , it would imply that I thought you'd been married 7 times. Perhaps my question was in reference to a news event involving Henry Kissinger, but without my saying that initially, the implication is that you had some sort of experience regarding this topic. My intention may have been otherwise, but the implication is somewhat condemning. Again, I give you the benefit of the doubt and if you say it ain't so, then it ain't so. I can only go by the actual words and what they imply. Your follow-up changes that.

Cheers,

Mike

[sushka]

I rest my case

Gee a lot happens when you're tucked up in bed.

If it helps you Pirate - I don't "believe" that the endnotes are forged. However, I do agree that the facts at least raise questions that are worthy of interrogation. They were written at a different time and that raises a host of questions as to why Swanson would do so - or indeed if someone else might have wanted it to appear as if he did. The analyses we have support the view that Swanson wrote both but the circumstances and lack of a complete published report do not definitively resolve the matter.

I agree with most other correspondents that your questions to me were at best poorly phrased and at worst more of the Pirate style I was originally critical of. Of course, it is the readers' fault that we couldn't discern your true meaning. Of course, it is my fault that your irony was nothing of the sort. I look forward to the real discussion on the new thread.
Ciao
Sushka

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Good Michael

In order to ask a question like ‘What’s it like being married 7 times” that question has to sit in some sort of ‘context’ other wise it makes NO sense what so ever. Even if that context is fairly lose, like it being generally in the news that Henry Kissinger was married seven times.

The context my post was made in was that Sushka, had popped out of nowhere and thrown some insults at me and I was pointing out it is easy to criticise but Sushka had not made any contribution himself. I was inviting him to help me with my problem, which is: How, when and why the marginalia could have been faked or forged.

Of course what Chris Philips actual grievance with my post is, is poor grammar, because I tend to write as I speak, with a slight estuary accent.. What I find rather sinister is that instead of criticising my grammar he chooses to take my comment, out of context, and try and imply I’d said something he knows quite well I never intended to say. Ie HE IS DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING.

He is clearly happy to let people believe ‘I am accusing innocent people of believing the marginalia is forged.”. When in REALITY Chris is aware that this is NOT the case. It is just a silly game of pedantic point scoring in his book of poor grammar.

What I find disturbing is that he is willing to forgo the TRUTH in order to score points in some silly grammatical game. He knows full well that I have no idea what Sushka’s position is on the marginalia, it is obvious from the post and the context of the posted conversation. I did not accuse him of believing the marginalia to be Fake; If I’d intended that I would have said so, it’s that clear and simple

Of course what this is really about is certain people not wanting certain topic’s discussed and analysed in any detail. So we have Ally creating a FLAT EARTH SOCIETY thread where you can discuss anything you like about the nature of the universe as long as you don’t mention gravity or any astrological observations.

A thread where a number of factually incorrect statements have already gone unchallenged and have been ignored, WHY?. Although I noticed that Chris did eventually pick up the FACT that Swanson had initialled ‘other’ marginalia, why did it take so long to notice?. Where was the sleeping Sven Garley? And in this morning political address to his Troops, Stewart seems to have forgotten that he was with Keith Skinner who had also independently examined the marginalia and not noticed the different colour pencils.

However as you are clearly not aloud to raise the question Who, Why or When the Marginalia may have been forged, it is clear that the usual ways of authenticating a document, provenance and textural context, are to be thrown out of the window in favour of the FLAT EARTH THEORY.

I shall leave you all to try and prove the Marginalia is FAKE while I head down the bookies to join the queue with Martin Fido.

Bye all

Pirate

PS And thanks Mike for your time, observation and independent thoughts.

[Jeff Leahy]

Gee a lot happens when you're tucked up in bed.

If it helps you Pirate - I don't "believe" that the endnotes are forged. However, I do agree that the facts at least raise questions that are worthy of interrogation. They were written at a different time and that raises a host of questions as to why Swanson would do so - or indeed if someone else might have wanted it to appear as if he did. The analyses we have support the view that Swanson wrote both but the circumstances and lack of a complete published report do not definitively resolve the matter.

I agree with most other correspondents that your questions to me were at best poorly phrased and at worst more of the Pirate style I was originally critical of. Of course, it is the readers' fault that we couldn't discern your true meaning. Of course, it is my fault that your irony was nothing of the sort. I look forward to the real discussion on the new thread.
Ciao
Sushka

Sushka

I appreciate your candid comments and I admit my love of ‘Black Adder’esk” sometimes gets me into trouble. However this has nothing to do with our conversation, it is about people taking what you have said and MISREPRESENTING the meaning. And as long as people are aloud to do so there is simply no point in continuing the debate, sad though that out come is.

Good luck on your voyage

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

Brother, I'm glad I'm out of this one. But I'll ask one question. Besides Stewart Evans, who of us posting here have actually seen the original marginalia?

[harry]

I believe the marginella and end notes to be written by Swanson.Possibly in collusion with Anderson.What is wrong with them is they are untruths,their purpose to claim the ripper murders were solved.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

What is wrong with them is they are untruths,their purpose to claim the ripper murders were solved.

If that is the case, then that could be the (probable) reason why the alleged culprit's identity/name was added in at a later date. So that would mean a forgery, if that is what happened.