The History That Never Was by Alex Butterworth

[David Orsam]

At the express request of Phil Carter, I have read Alex Butterworth's 2010 book and written a short article about it entitled 'The History That Never Is' which can be accessed here:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/historythatneveris.htm

[Phil Carter]

At the express request of Phil Carter, I have read Alex Butterworth's 2010 book and written a short article about it entitled 'The History That Never Is' which can be accessed here:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/historythatneveris.htm

I only asked you to read it.
Get your facts right.

And for your attention.

You have quoted me from my posts and used them from Casebook WITHOUT my permission.

I have checked with Admin about this. .as long as you are linking to something using Casebook posts in it's contents, BOTH Casebook and the selected authors whose posts you use must give their permission. I see no reference to that piece which refers to or thanks for...or acknowledges that permission given.
I urge you to retract the reference to the link on this site. I refuse to give you permission to use my posts..now or at any time.
If you wish to check the above..contact Admin. They can refer to a pm sent from them to me earlier this year.

[David Orsam]

I only asked you to read it.
Get your facts right Sherlock.

Have you actually read the article Phil?

As I point out in the first paragraph, you said to me last year:

'I now FULLY expect you David to "disembowell" the efforts of... Alex Butterworth...' (The Suckered! Trilogy thread, #430).

So my facts are correct.

[David Orsam]

Good grief..talk about self promotion. ..Sherlock strikes again. ."look how clever I am"..

You do realise that the image that you have constructed in your mind of the person you think I am, based on my online writings, is a wholly fictional character, don't you Phil? Very much like Sherlock Holmes himself in fact.

[David Orsam]

I fully expected you to tear it apart. As you do with anything that questions what were have been led to believe.

I thought, from what you posted, that you expected it would make me look 'rather silly'. It didn't.

[David Orsam]

Now..another request Sherlock. Take the Kosminski suspect theory apart. That will really upset your hero..who on film states that Kosminski as a suspect is "top of the totem pole"

My 'hero'? I literally have no idea who you are talking about.

[David Orsam]

You won't...of course.

I would have no problem in critically analysing a theory that says Kosminski was the Whitechapel murderer. None whatsoever - but I don't have any great knowledge about Kosminski nor have I seen any primary sources which relate to Kosminski, other than the Macnaghten memorandam. If, however, I read a book promoting Kosminski as the killer and felt the author had made some factual errors and/or that I had something to contribute on the subject then I would. I have no idea why you think I wouldn't.

But if you think it's easy, why not have a crack yourself rather than ask me?

[Phil Carter]

If you read my post..before you write..you will see all of the above was deleted.
See post No.2.

[David Orsam]

If you read my post..before you write..you will see all of the above was deleted.

Of course I read your post before I wrote Phil. If you think about, it would have been impossible for me to quote from your post if those words weren't there.

You happened to amend your post after I had responded to it.

[David Orsam]

I have checked with Admin about this. .as long as you are linking to something using Casebook posts in it's contents, BOTH Casebook and the selected authors whose posts you use must give their permission. I see no reference to that piece which refers to or thanks for...or acknowledges that permission given.

The grounds you must be thinking of are breach of copyright, Phil, but the very small and short extracts from your posts that I have quoted are de minimis - far too small to claim copyright on. Therefore I dispute your claim that I cannot cite small extracts from posts on this site or that I need your permission to do so.

[Phil Carter]

Incorrect. After I posted my amendment. Cross posting I think.
Either way see post 2

[David Orsam]

I urge you to retract the reference to the link on this site.

That is a strange request Phil. It's impossible for me to edit my post now to 'retract' the link. I couldn't comply with it even if I wanted to or thought it was a reasonable request (which I don't).

If Admin want to delete it then no doubt it will be a simple matter for them to do so.

[David Orsam]

Incorrect. After I posted my amendment. Cross posting I think.

It's not incorrect Phil. At the time I quoted your words, they were still there. They must have been for me to quote them.

By the time I had finished my last response you had deleted those words but you are surely not suggesting I should check every single post I am responding to, to see if it has been amended since I started writing my response, before I press the "submit reply" button are you?

[David Orsam]

Either way see post 2

Yes I have seen your amended post 2, Phil, and replied to it before you posted too, so perhaps you should read before you write!

[Phil Carter]

No further comment