Casebook Examiner Number 5

[caz]

I agree. We should drop this. I just wish you had never picked it up in the first place. Next time, if you are going to read so much into the trivial stuff at least get your facts and the order of events right.

Enjoy your cleaning. I'm off to glam up for a festive night out with Elvis, Tom Jones, Rod Stewart and Tina Turner - all rolled into one.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz,
my facts and order of events were completely right, as far as one can observe such from a distance.
Cleaning's done, now to have a shower (in a real exciting afternoon).
Lots and lots of fun in your festive night out with Elvis, Tom Jones, Rod Stewart and Tina Turner all rolled into one, whoever that fascinating person or concert or club might be.

[Tom_Wescott]

Cat Fight

Just for the record, I'm far more used to having two women fight over me than I am having my spelling critiqued on the message boards. I think the reason I was offended by Caz's critiques is that I spent a great deal of time and care proofreading the article, and her comments made it sound like I am a typo factory.

But I digress, I wasn't beating a dead horse with my post to Dave, and certainly not trying to 'stir things up', but illustrating to him that he's not alone in receiving such critiques.

Garza,

Thank you for your extremely kind words. It means a lot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[corey123]

While I am not part of this discussion, I stand with you Tom and Dave, as I have horrendous spelling.

Can't wait to read your article Tom, I don't know if you read my finalized version, I believe I sent it to you, if not, then you will like it I am sure. PLus, just for the record, there might be a part-two.

[mariab]

Correy 123 wrote:
as I have horrendous spelling.
Believe us, Corey, we noticed. Still, no use on commenting on any of this, unless someone is your editor at whichever mag you decide to submit a text.
I'm afraid I won't be able to read Examiner 5 for a while, as I'm still stuck on a bunch of Ripperologist articles plus issue 117, which partly contains things that I need to read ASAP for my research. So, authors in question, please don't think that my failing to praise anyone from the current issue is intentional.
Tom Wescott wrote:
Just for the record, I'm far more used to having two women fight over me
Bet it happens every day, Tom. (In a parallel universe.)

[corey123]

Hello Maria,

I am sure Don won't mind me saying this that once we finished editing my manuscript he said "When writing to colleges, please, for your sake, use spell check.

Sad that you won't be able to read number five, sounds to be a 'good n' as we say down south. Of course, not many down here read this sort of work.

[mariab]

Corey,
I'll definitely read it, just give me a week or so, to finish up with the Ripperologist stuff. I got a lot of stuff to take care of pertaining to musicology as well, among else a tricky proposal for a conference, and a long French article to finish up. But later tonight I hope to finally take care of the French spy reports on Whitechapel anarchist activity in Lynn Cates' Kaufmann thread. And it looks like Lynn's been active all day, researching sweaters' lists, while he even managed finds on Albert Bachert and Joseph Aarons. In case anyone in this thread is interested in this, there's a thread on Albert Bachert, plus Lynn's Kaufmann thread. (While for the latter I would wait to visit until tomorrow, since the latest finds are still “under construction“).

[corey123]

Hello Maria,

Good to know.

Good luck with all your work.

[mariab]

Corey123 wrote:
Hello Maria,
Good to know.
Good luck with all your work.
Thanks so much, Corey. (But please don't remind me.) One thing at the time, first to unpack my computer bag (which also contains a couple of wine bottles tonight.)

[caz]

Caz,
my facts and order of events were completely right, as far as one can observe such from a distance.

Well, what can I say? Last try - Tom was joking when he said I certainly hadn't read his article. And I was joking about not being able to read it for laughing. You may be able to 'critique' an article you haven't even read, but believe me I'm really not that smart.

If you had read the related threads close up, and not from a distance, you could hardly have missed the fact that Tom got pissed off with more or less everyone who offered a 'critique' that wasn't 100% positive.

Many of us - yes, including me - said good things about the article itself: the writing, the material and so on, but those of us who also expressed personal reservations about specific aspects of Tom's reasoning and the conclusions he reached saw how he overreacted. He suggested that his article had proved certain things and if I didn't agree with him I couldn't have read it. Now that's not 'scholarship' in my book. It's being immature and petulant. Yet you have taken his words literally.

Incidentally, you of all people must surely be able to appreciate that in order to stumble across the smallest spelling error in mid-article, one must be reading the thing at the time! Tom's was no big deal (we all make 'em!) and it would all have been forgotten after the first minute if he hadn't thrown his toys out of the pram and then kept reminding everyone.

I still don't know about Dave receiving any 'such critiques'. I certainly haven't seen any, yet Corey is now sympathising with two of the most competent writers on the boards. How silly is this getting?

Love,

Caz
X

[corey123]

Hello Caz,

I don't know if sympathising is the right word. Perhaps I just know what it means to spell bad. As I do. I hadn't known of any 'criticing' for that Examiner article.

[mariab]

For God's freeking sake here. Wescott and Dave don't spell bad. Period.

[corey123]

Maria, just drop it. All this is doing is stiring the pot. Caz never said either of them spell bad. Neither did I. IF you see I only said I know what its like to spell bad. Sorry but I think you need to read, then write.

[caz]

What Corey said.

(And there ain't nothing wrong with his reading.)

Over and out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom got pissed off with more or less everyone who offered a 'critique' that wasn't 100% positive...He suggested that his article had proved certain things and if I didn't agree with him I couldn't have read it. Now that's not 'scholarship' in my book. It's being immature and petulant.

Steady on, Caz. This is between you and Maria. Let's not use Tom as a battering ram...in the figurative sense. Using me as a ram in the literal sense is perfectly fine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott