Originally posted by rjpalmer
View Post
... please read this post slowly as you tend to misread.
Before Lord O carves you up yet again ...
... let me just gently point out that he 'definitely' did not make that suggestion.
Actually, I did in the comment section of his website, and at no time did I claim that I believed that the diary actually says 'peelers.'
My point ...
... was that an innocent transcriber, with nothing to guide them but the context, could conceivably conclude that the word was 'peelers' because 'peelers' was a nickname for the London Metropolitan police, particularly among the Irish, in dubious homage to Sir Robert Peele, its founder.
Similarly, with nothing but the context to guide one, the word could conceivably be 'powers'--but neither I, nor 'Observer,' nor your good friend Lord O believe that, either, and believe the correct word is indeed 'persuers.'
Having yourself had access to the typescript for quite some time, I am a little surprised to see that you're suddenly on the 'powers' train, when last week you were freely using the word 'pursuers' as you weaved your 'doppelganger' theories about Mike Barrett's motivations, and even joked that you tried to spell in persuers, so you must be rather late to the powers party. Fair enough--it doesn't really matter.
My original point is that we can argue to the cows come home what the diary actually says, but what you don't quite seem to grasp is that Keith, in making this 'powers' suggestion, expressed doubt.
He used a question mark. [/B]
He didn't have it down as 'powers' -- he had it down as 'powers?'. Do you see the difference?
That's my point. An innocent and honest transcriber would express doubt instead of the confidence we see throughout the Barretts' version--not in just this word, but in all words.
And how can you be so certain that their lack of apparent uncertainties was actually just a complete lack of concern for them?
... I do know that Mike and Anne make no indication that they don't know what the diarist meant!
Cue tunnel-visioned argument selecting only those snippets of what we know or RJ has decided to interpret which leads to the conclusion he wants us all to draw ...
To me, placing myself in Barrett's position, I rather think he was over a barrel. It would have been more natural, and more in line with Mike's preferred acting role as a humble 'ex scrap metal dealer' to have made a 'dog's breakfast' of the typescript, but he was pitching the story to London publishers and the typescript was part of that pitch. Mike wanted to get a publishing contract. There's a later letter somewhere with Doreen saying she's sending out tidbits from the diary to publishers. Barrett, when preparing this typescript, had to choose whether he was going to play it straight and turn in a professional typescript to impress his agent and any potential publishers or whether he was going to stick to his role as an innocent babe-in-the-woods and make a muddle of it, and he chose the former. In my opinion, he and Anne did too good of a job it, and it is not natural. It doesn't ring true.
The crux of all that was the bit where you typed 'In my opinion'. The rest seemed to me to be blinkered supposition straight out of the rule book for a gang of presuppositionalists (consisting of pretty much just two people) that would make the Flat Earth Society blush at the lack of apparent candour.
Of course, if you feel the same two people who handed in what certainly appear to be bogus research notes are playing it straight in this instance, no one can stop you.
Get yourself back to bed, RJ. You know you're tetchy when your sleep is broken ...
Ike
Concerned Citizen
Comment