On The Trail Of The Forgers

[Victoria]

Thank you Stephen...

That is exactly right. Iīm tired of the lies that Caroline Morris, Keith Skinner and the newest person to join them who makes all the theatricals to deceive the public one Chris Jones who doesnīt care about twisting history, as long as the cash till makes a noise with coins at the end of the day.

Victoria:

I never said we ought to live in the future... is this a female thing ? I say one thing and its immediately turned up side down.

What I said was... what we do in the past has consequenses to our present and future life. NOT that we should live in the future. Comprende ?

-Maria

Hi Maria,

Your words,
"All the actions from the past have consequences which we have to live in
the present and the future ..."

I was responding to your words ...
I made the comment re we can't live in the future, because of your words,
and mainly in context to my conversation ... also partly in jest (re the movie bit) .. because of your wording.


Your words,
"What I said was... what we do in the past has consequences to our present
and future life."

I totally agree and comprende completely and more... as I had stated in my post to you.

Hope we are all clear and understood,
Victoria

[Victoria]

Victoria:

Yes, that question should be asked to Caroline Morris, since John and also myself have been waiting for this answer over a year now.

Keith boasted that he had the evidence to convince a jury that the diary came from Battlecrease, yet a year has gone by and nothing, nothing has been shown of this so called evidence.

So now that a full year has passed we can safely assume that such " evidence" doesnīt exist, that it was said for effect on the assumption people would just trust Keith on his word. Well we donīt. We are asking him to show us the evidence. Instead, Keith hides underneath Carolineīs skirt.

-Maria

Yes thanks Maria,

just read your post .. we were obviously both writing at the same time.
Hopefully when she sees my post and yours and John's numerous attempts
.. we shall have an answer or at least an explanation.

Can't wait .. seems long overdue.
Victoria

[caz]

"But maybe they don't care as much as they like to claim."

I love the tone of this. Both paranoid and provocative at the same time. Apparently, there's a "they" out there and they are somehow responsible for what Maria writes and they are really lying about how much they care about something.

It's all vaguely conspiratorial and accusatory without actually accusing anyone (except Maria) of saying or doing anything (since no one else has said or done anything to warrant any direct accusations).

But responding to Maria is obviously, for Caroline, not enough fun. So she must direct her fire outward and in a scattershot fashion towards the larger and more important "they" that she wants to be her real target. Even if she can't bring herself to name them or detail the way in which "they" are in any way responsible for what Maria writes or doesn't write.

Well, as a wise person once wrote,

"So why say anything, Sam, if you are not prepared to say it all?"

In this strange world of the perpetually vague and of the secret squirrel evidence that can be mentioned but not seen, that is still an excellent question.

"I stick my neck out for nobody..."

--John

Ha ha

I don't love the tone of your posts, Omlor, whenever you refer to Keith Skinner, as if anyone here were somehow responsible for what he chooses to say or do, or what he doesn't choose to say or do.

But responding to Keith is obviously, for you, not an option, since he is not here to read your constant whining. So instead you take it out on your tiny audience here, without being able to hold anyone else directly responsible for what, in your little world, crosses the line into unacceptable behaviour.

Lifting people’s words right out of context only makes you look smart to readers who are so brain dead that they don’t appreciate that one set of words rarely fits all situations. To anyone else it just makes you look sad and desperate and a terrible example to your students, if you seriously believe the meaning behind words can be stripped away so easily. All you are doing is playing word games to score some moronic little point that will only impress the moronic. Is that an example of what you do in your working life too? Or do you have more respect for your students than you do for your readers here?

This is very simple. You rant and rave about the line you accuse Keith of crossing into unacceptable behaviour, in the course of his professional investigations into the diary’s origins, when he is not here to answer for himself and there is bugger all you - or I - can do about it anyway. (Incidentally, if you really think the situation is the same as the one in which Sam was asked a question, then can we expect similar ranting and raving about the line Sam crossed, for choosing not to speak his mind fully? If not, I think that neatly proves my point about context and different situations.)

And yet nothing could be finer in your little world than having Maria right by your side, spouting ten types of unadulterated crap about people and situations she knows precious little about, including the idiotic idea that Feldy was behind the diary’s creation.

What are your readers meant to think, when you make no attempt to correct any of her outright lies or to ridicule her more fantastic claims and suspicions? The only reasonable conclusion is that you consider her behaviour to be well within the bounds of acceptability in comparison with Keith’s, and by reading her unsupported or blatantly false claims and saying nothing at all you are effectively endorsing what she writes.

Do you really need me to spell out for you exactly where this dumps any remaining claim of yours to care tuppence about the truth?

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

Did Caroline Morris really just begin a post by writing "Ha ha"?

My, how the rhetoric truly has sunk to new and depressing levels of banality here in Diary World, even among the once proud and witty.

And then there's this...

"All you are doing is playing word games to score some moronic little point that will only impress the moronic."

Apparently, the key word here is "moronic."

She then puts together Keith Skinner and Maria in an odd sort of comparison that I suspect she didn't really intend (knowing how she feels about the two people involved) and ends her rant mysteriously concluding that I "endorse" whatever Maria writes (knowing as she does that she can't quote me saying any such thing anywhere) and implying that I do not care about the truth.

Of course, my attitude towards the truth in this case concerning a pair of obvious hoaxes and the secret squirrel evidence that can be mentioned but not seen is fairly well known.

But, the best way I know to sum it up is to ask a simple and direct question. I can't take credit for the question because it was composed by someone else, someone wiser and with more common sense than I have ever had.

But it is still appropriate to the situation, whether Keith is here to answer it or not.

"So why say anything, Sam, if you are not prepared to say it all?"

Well said.

--John

[Maria]

Victoria:

We cannot live in the future since thatīs impossible. Unless you have a time travel machine !

Our actions from the past have repercutions for example if you have killed someone in the past, the consequences are that you will find yourself in jail now and depending on what the judge says, your future could be life in prison. All explained in one stroke.

I donīt undertand how you could have misunderstood that. Victoria I have never heard of anyone who lives in the future, unless they have a time travel machine like the ones on science fiction.

In anycase, Stephen understood what I meant to say I do not understand
why you fail to understand the obvious.

-Maria

[revpetero]

The Problem seems to me to be....

"All the actions from the past have consequences which we have to live WITH in the present and the future ..."

Was the word with missing from the sentence. I presume that is where confusion sprang from.

Peter

[Maria]

Yes thanks Maria,

just read your post .. we were obviously both writing at the same time.
Hopefully when she sees my post and yours and John's numerous attempts
.. we shall have an answer or at least an explanation.

Can't wait .. seems long overdue.
Victoria

Victoria:

I wouldnīt be so sure about that. John O. to his credit has been asking her for a year now. The evasiveness is amazing.

So Iīm not holding my breath that Caroline is going to answer this question any time soon. If she has failed to answer it for a year now, she is not likely to suddenly answer it now.

You will see how she avoids answering it as the days, the months and the years slip by and surprise, surprise, no answer... that is Caroline for you.

You will get to know and get used to this evasiveness. It is all old and in the end it gets very boring.

-Maria

[Maria]

Peter:

Thank you very much. I do appreciate when someone helps me out with my
English !

I know a lot of people here take offense if their English is corrected. Not I.

Iīm always grateful to know where I went wrong with my English, sometimes, I write very quickly and omit words...and find that reading over and over again to correct mistakes, makes me lose precious time, when I do have other pressing things to do.

-Maria

[Maria]

Caz:

You donīt know who made the hoax either.

So for you to say that Feldman did not do it... its rather strange to say the least.

Unless of course, you know who faked it. So far... only a few people including yourself have profited financially from the hoax.

I have never made a dime on it, not even when Peter and I were offered money on the table if we could find " coincidences " to tie the watch to the diary.

-Maria

[Victoria]

Victoria:

You will see how she avoids answering it as the days, the months and the years slip by and surprise, surprise, no answer... that is Caroline for you.

You will get to know and get used to this evasiveness. It is all old and in the end it gets very boring.

-Maria

Hello Caz,

Maybe you missed my post from yesterday .. that only required some
small answer or explanation .. I felt ignored, or at least left out.

I thought possibly that you had given an explanation maybe before,
say on the crashed thread and I may have missed it, and you were sick of repeating yourself.
But probably not, as I see from John's persistant questioning and Maria's
above words.

There should be no problem answering, the best way you can, it should show that you have nothing to hide ..
and it is a chance to prove Maria's words
wrong .. that should be tempting.

~Victoria

[Steve Powell]

'Last Card' Battlecrease.

There was a time here when most of the troopers
thought that I was being stupid and theatrical
about naming Feldman as the man behind the hoax diary.
That perception I feel has changed somewhat now
as you begin to see that there is something
in what I have been constantly saying.
The wonder of the whole diary fiasco
is that Feldman managed to pull most of it off.
The man was a near genius and deserves credit
for his outrageous and near perfect plan.
It is so like something out of a hollywood movie
that it is very difficult to believe it true, by anyone.
He created all of the scenario provenances we know.
Even the one that Keith Skinner is juggling with now:
The finding of the diary at Battlecrease.
Steven Park told me that this scenario was thought of
by Feldman way back in the late 1970's.
The real question for me, and should be for you,
is why Mr. Skinner is thinking of using this 'last card' tale?
Skinner is not stupid, we all know that.
Yet he seems determined to hold faith with Feldman.
When I asked Caroline by PM to ask Skinner if he would
contact me about some interesting information
that I had regarding the matter of the diary,
she came back to me and said that he didn't mind if I
told all of the 'troopers' whatever I knew.
In other words 'bugger off'.
Don't you think Keith Skinner would like to hear
a little bit more of what I know that hasn't been said here?
You bet he does, but he can't take that path,
as the tactic of the protectors of the diary
is to try and discredit me whenever they can.
After all, my story is so fantastic it just couldn't be true.
Could it?
What has Skinner got to lose if the truth about Feldman
and the hoaxing of the diary ever comes out from the mud?
Maybe a lot.

regards troopers,
Steve Powell
thu5june2008

[Graham]

Steve,

If you've got never-before published information regarding the Diary and don't share it with us, then quite rightly you'll be accused of adopting the Skinner Tactic that you and others so strongly condemn.

Spill the beans, mate!!

Cheers,

Graham

[Maria]

Graham:

Steve Powell has already spilled the beans by telling us about Feldman being behind the hoax in collaboration with Stephen Park and Ann Graham who was in Australia by her own admission at the time. Australia, where all this hoax was hatched. What else do you want ? It all adds up to me.

-Maria

[Omlor]

I think Graham was referring to what, in Steve's last post, he refers to as "what I know that hasn't been said here". He says this is information "regarding the matter of the diary."

Well, I hope Steve isn't just mentioning some secret evidence he has that he won't show us. And I hope he won't refuse even to explain why he won't show it to us, despite announcing to everyone what it allows him allegedly to conclude.

Because if that's what he's doing, then Graham is right. It's the "Skinner Tactic" all over again.

Glad the thing now has a proper name,

--John

[Maria]

John:

What Graham meant, he has to explain to us himself.

Stephen is not Caroline who has secret squirrels investigations, since he has never boasted he has, unlike her side kick Keith Skinner.

I think that Stephen meant... what Keith Skinner has not revealed to us about the Battlecrease evidence.

John, read the top part and bottom part of Stephenīs post. It is all about the Feldmanīs Battlecrease " evidence"

-Maria