On The Trail Of The Forgers

[Victoria]

Hi John!

Look what I found on your university's "Rate your Professor" site! Three guesses who he or she is talking about!

" Very opinionated...just agree with him else"

You certainly didn't make the grade with this person, but in fairness some other of your students did say nice things about you. It's the last sentence that I find rather apposite to this thread, though.

Your good friend,

Graham

John,

Very impressive ... such nice comments .. ...
I can agree with the students, in that you make it very entertaining
.... and for us also, here in Diary World.
Don't let it all go to your head though.
In fairness to 'your good friend' ... Graham, even though he picked out
what suited him, as we all seem to do here, he did mention students saying
nice things.
I think his point was really just the above last line.

Victoria

[Omlor]

Thanks, Victoria.

Of course, none of this changes the issues at hand. We still have the absurd claim that Melvin Harris "fitted up" his own suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary." That's nonsense.

And we still have people playing hint and run games here, offering conclusions in public about the origins of the diary without presenting any evidence whatsoever in favor of them. Whether it's Steven or Caroline or IKJ or whoever, that's still irresponsible.

"Put up or shut up" remains the maxim most appropriate in Diary World these days, where, as the days and weeks and months and years drag on, nothing new or real is ever actually presented and the book still hasn't been properly and thoroughly tested using all the latest available technologies.

Can it be possible that this will all still be the case this coming July, when you know who will be around to mark yet another anniversary?

We shall see,

--John

[Maria]

Thanks, Victoria.

Of course, none of this changes the issues at hand. We still have the absurd claim that Melvin Harris "fitted up" his own suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary." That's nonsense.

And we still have people playing hint and run games here, offering conclusions in public about the origins of the diary without presenting any evidence whatsoever in favor of them. Whether it's Steven or Caroline or IKJ or whoever, that's still irresponsible.

"Put up or shut up" remains the maxim most appropriate in Diary World these days, where, as the days and weeks and months and years drag on, nothing new or real is ever actually presented and the book still hasn't been properly and thoroughly tested using all the latest available technologies.

Can it be possible that this will all still be the case this coming July, when you know who will be around to mark yet another anniversary?

We shall see,

--John

Paul and Graham:

Chucking here... I have not heard of anything more ridiculous than " Melvin fitted up his own suspect as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from the diary "

Lets get this right, shall we ? Melvin was writing about his suspect when his publishers called him to ask him to write about the diary. What he had to say about the diary was not enough pages to make a book about it, so they simply put the diary nonsense together on the same book of Dīonston. Clear ?

I think on the contrary, it is Graham who is trying to use a diversionary tactic by deflecting the mudbrick diary in regaling us with Johnīs studentīs opinion of him. What the heck does this have to do with the diary ??? One would ask. Answer: Nothing.

Ah do not tell me... Graham was hoping to find something derogatory in Johnīs character so he concentrated on the comment of the only disgruntled student who did not make the grade.

That is typical isnīt it ? When losing the debate... concentrate on a diversionary tactic like Johnīs curriculum ( at one point, Caroline Morris and the gang, where claiming he was not a real professor ! ) Honestly. Now they were hoping to find terrible reviews from his students. But that did not work, did it. That intension is very, very LOW.

You should be ashamed Graham.

-Maria

[Graham]

Maria,

In response to your abusive post:

1] I have never even referred once to Melvin Harris in this or any other thread on this site. So why you feel moved to address your stuff about Melvin Harris to me I haven't the first idea. I have never even made any suggestion myself as to who wrote the Diary - not ever.

2] My post about Omlor was intended to highlight the fact that he, like many, many posters to this site, are very selective in their arguments and in what they read in other peoples' posts. I hope I showed that by being very selective in the rating I picked from the university website can play that game, too. Diversionary tactic - nonsense. Victoria understood straight away what I was getting at, and if you bother to read her post (and mine) you will see that I did mention the 'good' ratings that Omlor received.

3] Losing the debate? What debate? I've hardly been involved in any 'debate' regarding the Diary, except to scan the posts and make the occasional comment. Frankly, I've just about lost interest in the bloody thing, but like a lot of people I would like to know its origins. I leave the 'debate', such as it is, to those who know a damn sight more about its background than I do - and I actually include John Omlor amongst those people. So please don't make things up about me, Maria.

4] I am no more ashamed of myself than Omlor is when he resorts to rather infantile sarcasm when he's not getting his way or when people dare to disagree with him. I make no bones about it that I do not like his style or his mannerisms irrespective of his knowledge of matters concerning the Diary.

5] As an apology for your abusive post is hardly to be forthcoming from you, I would at least ask you to engage your brain prior to putting fingers to your keyboard. You really do have a reputation for saying the wrong thing.

Graham

[Omlor]

Graham,

All this and yet you still have nothing to say about the actual issue being discussed or the merit of Paul's original claim?

You rub yourself with the caul and yet ignore the body.

It's just sad.

--John

[Maria]

Yes, John. You are now dancing because you started by misquoting, misunderstanding and getting yourself thoroughly worked up over a single tongue-in-cheek observation made by someone on a site where your own are not welcome.

X

Victoria:

What Caz actually meant to say: See above... is : " on a site you are not welcome " In her garbled English. She cannot even speak her own tongue ! or maybe her brain is garbled too.

But lets be clear about one thng... it was John who quit that nasty little site because my avatar was changed into something insulting, and this is the letter John wrote to Coward Brown before quitting:

" Howard,

I donīt know anything about what happens behind the scenes at your site.
I donīt know who has ccess to what. But if Maria did not change her own name and avatar, if someone did that intentionally to her ID without her consent, and that someone was affiliated in any way with the operations at your site, then you can count me as another permanently lost soul unless there is real punishment for whoever did such a thing.

This sort of childish behavior, especially involving the altering of a personīs ID and account is really worrisome, and not least because it raises the specter of personal online security concerns should things go much further.

I donīt like writing to you like this. I almost never wrote to Stephen about anything on the other boards ( except when we were both jointly threatened with a silly lawsuit by Robert Smith ). But I havenīt seen something like this before and if one of your moderators had anything to do with it, then I canīt consider being a member of your site as a safe choice. And Iīm afraid others will feel the same way.

I will wait to find out who did this, if it turns out it was someone on the site and they are allowed to remain there, I will post these thoughts as a farewell message and then take my leave for good.

I trust you and I think you can probably get to the bottom of this in fairly short order. I hope you make the right choices and take appropriate action.

Many thanks,

--John

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well the creep who did that, did finally owned up, but instead of taking appropriate action, he was allowed to remain in the that site. So John left.

A friend for real is John. I would have done the same and some other friends also quit that site as a consequence.

-Maria

[Graham]

Graham,

All this and yet you still have nothing to say about the actual issue being discussed or the merit of Paul's original claim?

You rub yourself with the caul and yet ignore the body.

It's just sad.

--John

Just as you once admitted you have no real interest in the actual identity of Jack the Ripper, I freely admit I have no real interest in the reasons for Melvin Harris writing his book or Paul's claim. I have said nothing about these issues because I have nothing to say about these issues. Simple as that. Yet I retain my absolute right to visit this and any other thread I choose and to make what comments I care to. As you do.

Sad yourself, pal.

Graham

[Omlor]

Regarding Paul Butler's ridiculous claim that Melvin Harris "fitted up" his own suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from that diary," and the other issues concerning evidence and the lack of it both for this claim and others here, Graham writes:

"I have nothing to say about these issues."

Thanks, Graham.

--John

[Graham]

Regarding Paul Butler's ridiculous claim that Melvin Harris "fitted up" his own suspect "as some sort of attempt to deflect the limelight away from that diary," and the other issues concerning evidence and the lack of it both for this claim and others here, Graham writes:

"I have nothing to say about these issues."

Thanks, Graham.

--John

Can you actually read, John? The only 'issue' I referred to in my previous post was that concerning Harris and Butler. Now you seem to think that I shrink from addressing both this and 'other issues...for this claim and others here'.
No, John. If you can remember as far back before this site crashed, you will recall that I have written (occasionally) on Diary issues in general. I think your post merely proves my contention that you are extremely selective in what you care to remember about other peoples' writing on the subject of the Diary. You also appear to have ears only for own extensive verbosity. But then, you ARE a teacher, aren't you?

Graham

[cappuccina]

...whywhywhywhywhy...

....did anyone have to have saved this thread when the server crashed.....(*banging head on wall*)

[Omlor]

Graham writes:

"You also appear to have ears only for own extensive verbosity. But then, you ARE a teacher, aren't you?"

And with that stunning and ignorant generalization, I think we can end this.

It's perfect.

'Nuff said.

Still nothing real, still nothing new,

--John

[Graham]

....did anyone have to have saved this thread when the server crashed.....(*banging head on wall*)

Capps,

I think you're right. It ought to be pulled. It attracts someone who has an imaginary dragon friend, for a start.

Hey ho!

Graham

[Omlor]

It's easy to understand why Graham would want this thread to be "pulled."

Personally, though, I think it's been great fun.

Carry on,

--John

[Maria]

Maria,

In response to your abusive post:

1] I have never even referred once to Melvin Harris in this or any other thread on this site. So why you feel moved to address your stuff about Melvin Harris to me I haven't the first idea. I have never even made any suggestion myself as to who wrote the Diary - not ever.

2] My post about Omlor was intended to highlight the fact that he, like many, many posters to this site, are very selective in their arguments and in what they read in other peoples' posts. I hope I showed that by being very selective in the rating I picked from the university website can play that game, too. Diversionary tactic - nonsense. Victoria understood straight away what I was getting at, and if you bother to read her post (and mine) you will see that I did mention the 'good' ratings that Omlor received.

3] Losing the debate? What debate? I've hardly been involved in any 'debate' regarding the Diary, except to scan the posts and make the occasional comment. Frankly, I've just about lost interest in the bloody thing, but like a lot of people I would like to know its origins. I leave the 'debate', such as it is, to those who know a damn sight more about its background than I do - and I actually include John Omlor amongst those people. So please don't make things up about me, Maria.

4] I am no more ashamed of myself than Omlor is when he resorts to rather infantile sarcasm when he's not getting his way or when people dare to disagree with him. I make no bones about it that I do not like his style or his mannerisms irrespective of his knowledge of matters concerning the Diary.

5] As an apology for your abusive post is hardly to be forthcoming from you, I would at least ask you to engage your brain prior to putting fingers to your keyboard. You really do have a reputation for saying the wrong thing.

Graham

Graham:

Ha,ha,ha,ha you say : " You have a reputation for saying the wrong thing " you say.

And what is the " wrong " thing I supposedly said ?? Go on ! say it ! donīt be shy.

But of course You would say that, wouldnīt you ? because it is very convenient to lead the conversation astray from the main topic here, which is the nonsense Paul has just said: " Melvin attempted to deflect the limelight away from the diary " Now that is a very stupid thing to say.

I think it is you, who has to engage his brain in this untrue statement about Melvin instead of trying to divert the subject.

If asking you to keep your brain in the topic is the " wrong " thing to say... well that is the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time.

-Maria

[Graham]

Maria,

What the hell are you rattling on about? Until my little dialogue with John Omlor I never wrote one single word about Melvin Harris and Paul Buckey in this thread or any other. If you disagree, then please reproduce here and now what you claim it is I said. Go on, do it! If you cannot locate the post or posts in which you claim I have referred to the topic of Harris' book, then I shall be obliged if you post an apology to me on this thread. Or better still, just shut up.

Graham