There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Monty]

I am sorry, are you saying that Chris antagonized and provoked McCormick and that's why permission was denied?

Once again, are you claiming that Chris in his approach was rude condescending and arrogant?

Well he didn't agree according to Chris. Maybe that was because Chris was rude condescending and arrogant to him.

Or maybe its a private document which McCormick had the right to refuse Chris a viewing.

No I don't think I have a divine right to answers. But I don't believe you have a divine right to keep me from asking questions because you don't want to provide them. I have not been rude, demanding or arrogant on this thread. I have attempted as best as I can, to keep things as civil as possible. But people still claim oh, rude demanding! There was no rude, there was no demanding. There was merely questioning. So the idea that it's my tone and not my questions that are the issue is flat out balls.

As best you can? Come on Ally, this is Monty. Ive knocked around a fair few years here on these boards. I know how it works. Ok, ok, you are an Angel. Pure and unchastising. Butter wouldnt melt, blah blah blah.

Well we shall see then. Because if it is true that Trevor Marriott manages to get his hands on this document, as brash a boy as ever came around, and he puts it out there for all to see, then so much for the Rippersaurs standing up there guarding their treasure trove.

Oh yes indeedy.

Its not about guarding tresure troves, its about a private document and your misguided belief that you (or anyone else) hold a right to view it upon demand. Which is my point, and one you avoid.

How long precisely are people supposed to wait silently, not asking any questions, mum? No sorry.

I categorically deny that this is about the attitude and not the questions. I have been NOTHING but polite on this thread in regards to the marginalia and the people who own it and possess it. I made one slip of the tongue, which wasn't even my meaning in the first place, and I promptly had it erased and apologized for it.

So this continued beating of "it's your manner, not your questions" is flat out, total bullsh!t.

It's all about personal power, personal grudges and personal pissing matches. Some people can rise above their own ego. Some people can't. That's what it's really about.

Really, its about ego? Wow I wouldnt have guessed.

Monty


PS Forgive me for quoting your original post which has since been edited.

[Ally]

[QUOTE]

Or maybe its a private document which McCormick had the right to refuse Chris a viewing.

Absolutely he has a right to refuse if he wishes. But how is asking if there was a reason for the refusal at all rude, or challenging?

As best you can? Come on Ally, this is Monty. Ive knocked around a fair few years here on these boards. I know how it works. Ok, ok, you are an Angel. Pure and unchastising. Butter wouldnt melt, blah blah blah.

I have never claimed to be an angel. I can be a right bitch and know it well. But I ask you to go back and read this thread, putting aside all your bias of how you think I am, and the way you believe I behave, and ignoring the emails you've received saying "oh it's that damn Ally stirring stuff again", and find where I have actually been rude, demanding or aggressive towards either McCormick or Mr. Swanson. If you find a place where you believe I was truly aggressive in my demands, please point them out to me.

Its not about guarding tresure troves, its about a private document and your misguided belief that you (or anyone else) hold a right to view it upon demand. Which is my point, and one you avoid.

No I don't believe that anyone has a right to view it on demand. I do believe we have a right to question why its not released and the reasons for that. And I will continue to do so.

It's interesting that any questioning is seen as rude and demanding. Like the Rippersaurs are our daddies and their word is law. I said NO, and that's it. Everyone go to your rooms. Please.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Ally;162698]

Absolutely he has a right to refuse if he wishes. But how is asking if there was a reason for the refusal at all rude, or challenging?



I have never claimed to be an angel. I can be a right bitch and know it well. But I ask you to go back and read this thread, putting aside all your bias of how you think I am, and the way you believe I behave, and ignoring the emails you've received saying "oh it's that damn Ally stirring stuff again", and find where I have actually been rude, demanding or aggressive towards either McCormick or Mr. Swanson. If you find a place where you believe I was truly aggressive in my demands, please point them out to me.



No I don't believe that anyone has a right to view it on demand. I do believe we have a right to question why its not released and the reasons for that. And I will continue to do so.

It's interesting that any questioning is seen as rude and demanding. Like the Rippersaurs are our daddies and their word is law. I said NO, and that's it. Everyone go to your rooms. Please.

Whoa, I hold my own views on you and no one, absolutely no one, influences me in anyway whatsoever. You call it as you see it and I likewise.

Dont insult me again.

Monty

[Ally]

The main point stands: where have my "demands" been rude or challenging?

More to the point: Where have I even made a demand?

[John Savage]

Hi Ally,

Probably half the pencils in my mothers house date back to the 70's so it's not unlikely that an older pencil could have been used.

I am not really sure if there are any tests that could validate the authenticity one way or another. I was trying to do a search about pencil manufacturing that the color turns bluish or purple with age but I am having to troll through a billion or so "maybelline violet eye pencil ...it lasts for ages".

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but have you considered an indelible pencil? They seem to date from the early 1800's and were used to make a permant mark which could not be erased. As I recall you had to wet the tip of the pencil, and the colour came out purple. I have not seen one for years but guess they went out with the rise of disposable ball point pens.

Perhaps this link will be of interest:

https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-indelible-pencil.htm

Rgds
John

[Ally]

Hi Ally,



I don't know if this has been suggested before, but have you considered an indelible pencil? They seem to date from the early 1800's and were used to make a permant mark which could not be erased. As I recall you had to wet the tip of the pencil, and the colour came out purple. I have not seen one for years but guess they went out with the rise of disposable ball point pens.

Perhaps this link will be of interest:

https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-indelible-pencil.htm

Rgds
John

Hmm...maybe, could be. Of course the only way to test would be to try and erase it....ack!

Hmm... that's something to look into. I am sure there's probably at least examples of the writing produced by that pencil out there that could be compared visually at the very least.

[Monty]

Ally,


My point is the overall attitude, not the specific, and not entirely directed to you. However, Post 413.....429.....435

Do you or do you not demand an answer as to what happend (when, why, etc?) regarding the red lines?

Monty

[Ally]

No. I was asking questions because of the implications. At that point in the dialogue all that was attempting to be discerned was whether the markings had occurred before or after it was donated to the Crime museum. And at no time did I demand an answer from anyone. I was merely questioning and pondering the implications of what it would mean if it had been done while under guard in the Crime Museum or the implications if it was done prior.

Once it was determined that the markings occurred while it was in private hands, I had no further interest in determining who marked up the book. That is a private matter between Mr. Swanson and whomever he loaned or gave access to the book.

The only thing that is relevant is what that implies and that has been my sole focus from there on out. No where have I ever demanded that Mr. Swanson find out who damaged his book and present him or her to us for retribution. It is none of our business and I have treated it as such, ever since it was determined that it was private business.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;162697]Or maybe its a private document which McCormick had the right to refuse Chris a viewing.

Its not a private document it was commisssioned by the Met Police

[Monty]

It is none of our business and I have treated it as such, ever since it was determined that it was private business.

By bringing it to a public forum?

I see.

Monty

[Ally]

Who marked up the book is private business since it occurred while in private hands. The fact that it was marked up and the implications is public business ever since the Swanson family decided to bring the book to the public arena.

If they didn't ever want the book being discussed publicly, they should never have shown it to the public.

Or can we only discuss the marginalia on a public forum if we agree it is valid and there is nothing to question?

[Trevor Marriott]

Who marked up the book is private business since it occurred while in private hands. The fact that it was marked up and the implications is public business ever since the Swanson family decided to bring the book to the public arena.

If they didn't ever want the book being discussed publicly, they should never have shown it to the public.

Or can we only discuss the marginalia on a public forum if we agree it is valid and there is nothing to question?

Well said !

[Monty]

Trevor states -Its not a private document it was commisssioned by the Met Police.

You have evidence of that Trevor?

And if the Met did have it commissioned does that give you the right to see the results?

Monty

[caz]

You know full well that the best way to silence an idea is to pour scorn and ridicule, to try and make it seem a laughingstock or insignificant, in an attempt to make people feel too stupid to discuss it thoroughly.

To turn it all into a joke or to imply that the only people who are interested in pursuing this line of questioning are those with axes to grind and grudges to carry out and thereby distract from the actual debate with personal pissing matches.

Kind of like the one going on between you and Trevor right now.

Hmm....yes wherever would I get the idea that people don't want to actually examine the facts?

That might be because the facts will end up killing the sacred cow, and we can't have that now can we?

Trevor,

Thanks so much for helping to keep this debate on track. Once again, you have shown that your ability to handle people is MASTERFUL in bringing the facts to light and providing useful, intelligent discussion. Way to go. I am all for insulting people if the whim strikes, but you might want to work on doing it within the framework of making an overall point that's germane.

If you can’t see the delicious irony in practically every word you have written above, Allykins, then you don’t want to see it and nobody will be able to help you see it, least of all me.

Delicious, I tell you. Delicious.

But I won’t labour the point, as I don’t want to distract you more than necessary from your evidently enjoyable business of using lots of noise to pour scorn and ridicule on the very idea that the red lines could have been added in all innocence to a book containing wholly authentic examples of Swanson's handwritten notes. Wherever would anyone get the idea that the ‘sacred cow’ as you call it was dead a long time ago in your jaded eye, and this is merely a fresh opportunity for you to dance on its grave with delight, only pretending to be interested in having the 'facts' to examine?

And wherever would they get the idea that an intelligent and objective examination of all the facts, leading to resolution and concensus, is just a tad unlikely to take place on a message board where there has been a ‘defecation’ of the document in question and ‘dispersions’ cast, on top of all the grinding of axes and personal pissing contests of which you speak?

Love,

Cazzikins
X

[Monty]

Who marked up the book is private business since it occurred while in private hands. The fact that it was marked up and the implications is public business ever since the Swanson family decided to bring the book to the public arena.

If they didn't ever want the book being discussed publicly, they should never have shown it to the public.

Or can we only discuss the marginalia on a public forum if we agree it is valid and there is nothing to question?

Obviously the fact the story behind the markings was not made public indicates the matter is private.

Monty