Private sale

[Lechmere]

Chris - I have no recollection of that, then again experience has told me to skim your posts as they tend to be devoid of anything but humourless quips.

Sally - I dont know how I will be able to contain myself.
You are such a tease.

[Fisherman]

Oh dear.

Sadly, I think he might be even more disappointed by the end of the day.

And once more I agree with you, Sally. They are piling up nicely, our agreements!

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

I have quite a lot to do today, so bear with me - I'll get back to you.

[my emphasis] ... ;-)

[Sally]

Now see what you've done Sally. You've grievously disappointed Lecherman. Oh the shame!

Oh dear.

Sadly, I think he might be even more disappointed by the end of the day.

[Sally]

Sally
You have grievously disappointed me already - I thought you had a ready answer.
My concern is that these documents play an important role in the authentication of the marginalia and they have not been subject to scrutiny. They have effectively no provenance and have internal aspects which can be held to throw extra suspicion on them.

If they were planted it would have been after 1987.

Ok Ed - thanks, that's helpful.

Devastated as I am to be the subject of your grievous disappointment, it's not that.

As I explained, I wanted to ensure I was fully aware of your concerns first, that's all. It helps to put things into context for me.

I have quite a lot to do today, so bear with me - I'll get back to you.

[Chris]

You have grievously disappointed me already - I thought you had a ready answer.

Do you remember when I tried to discuss this before, and you simply said you weren't going to answer the question I had asked you?

I wasn't going to say anything, but that actually made me cry.

[Ally]

Now see what you've done Sally. You've grievously disappointed Lecherman. Oh the shame!

[Lechmere]

Sally
You have grievously disappointed me already - I thought you had a ready answer.
My concern is that these documents play an important role in the authentication of the marginalia and they have not been subject to scrutiny. They have effectively no provenance and have internal aspects which can be held to throw extra suspicion on them.

If they were planted it would have been after 1987.

[Ally]

So does anyone have an answer to my question who doesn't want to waste my time with arguments like "sociopaths are the most ethical people of all"!?

[Sally]

After going through ten pages of mostly nonsense - and the stuff that wasn't nonsense was barely on topic....
Sally you are dying to say and everyone else is ignoring you. So go on tell.
Why are the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items almost certainly genuine?

If this is good you could have cut this thread short by 1000 posts, and prevented the ruination of several potential friendships.

Hi Ed,

Well, I don't know about that - in any respect. I doubt that anything would've cut this thread short: many people obviously have a keen interest and strong views regarding the Marginalia; which are their absolute right to express, given the opportuinity.

From a personal perspective, it would be equally interesting to me if the Marginalia and Crime Museum documents were fakes; because I'd be interested to know how he/she/they did it. I'm qiuite nterested in forgeries.

But anyway, the Crime Museum Documents...

Could you remind me of what your concerns are first? I hope you don't mind - there've been a lot of posts since we last talked about this, and I don't want to miss anything.

As I recall, you question:

Why the memo isn't signed or on headed paper

Why the memo/draft article (can't recall which) uses almost the same phrase as can be seen in one of Jim Swanson's letters

Why the documents were discovered at the back of a filing cabinet - the suggestion being that they may have been planted there.

Just on that last point, could you remind me when you think potential planting of the documents would have taken place? A date range will be sufficient.

If there's anything else, or if I've misconstrued your concerns, let me know.

[lynn cates]

reread

Hello Jenni. Thanks.

Maybe you had better have another go at my post. It was a remark about ethics--not the nonsense of this thread.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

obligation

Hello Ally. Thanks.

"And ethical egoism does not obligate you to commit crimes in pursuit of your own interests."

Actually, it does PROVIDED you don't get caught.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Yes.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

But...were it not for the 'Cross/Lechmere theory' would you, and 'Lechmere', still be here debating at such enormous length something that has been thrashed to death in the past? And what was 'Lechmere's' motive in starting the debate about a private sale of private goods? I guess only he knows that, but his subsequent posts seem to indicate where he was initially headed. As I have pointed out, it can be easily shown that it is in the interest of those with a 'new suspect' of their own to doggedly pursue arguments against established and recognized suspects.

My interest in the Marginalia has nothing to do with the ‘Cross/Lechmere theory’. Hence my involvement here has nothing to do with it. My brain is capable of entertaining more than one ‘interest’.

The enormous length of this thread –in so relatively short space of time –is almost alarming.
Many posts – probably the majority - are no more than short snipes and many others are of the circular-never-give-an-inch variety.
However within the mire, I am not sure that many of the issues discussed here have been done to death previously (even if they have now).

Why did I start the thread?
If I wanted to generate a general purpose discussion on the authenticity of the Marginalia, then I would simply have started a thread for that purpose. It is extremely facile suggesting that I started a thread on the ‘private sale’ as a subterfuge. Why did I need to do that?
It carries with it the implication that discussing the authenticity of the Marginalia is a bit bad and so subterfuge has to be employed to open debate on that topic.
Actually it is quite clear that it is seen to be a ‘bit bad’ to start a thread on the Marginalia’s authenticity, but that wouldn’t have put me off.
I tell a lie, I didn’t actually want to start such a thread as the last time on this forum that I did it ended up in worse acrimony than we have seen here and I was suspended (for a row on another thread that spilt over) and loads of other people were also similarly suspended.

I started the thread because I found out that the Marginalia was being actively offered for sale by people being approached somewhat out of the blue, rather than interested parties taking the initiative to approach the vendors. This seemed to me to be a new development – and despite denials and annoyance at me for bringing the subject up, I think it is a new development.
The sale website invited people to contact them and said they were considering an auction. By approaching people the vendors considered potential buyers, it seemed to me that an actual sale may occur at any time. That again seemed to me to be a development.
Somewhat naively I thought it would be a brief thread on that limited subject.

I certainly did not anticipate getting involved on an all-purpose Marginalia row.
The fact that the owners can do the hell what they like with their private property is of supreme irrelevance. This is an issue of interest for many people in this field of study.
I am interested in this as I believe the Marginalia should be re-tested before sale.
The discussion and the thread was pushed into a full blown argument over all aspects of the Marginalia because at each stage I or another ‘sceptic’ was asked why, then why, then again why and name names etc until we are where we are.

As I have previously pointed out a case can be made that virtually everyone has some sort of vested interest, and they have all doggedly contributed to the length of this thread.
It is in the interest of those protecting an established position to resist intruders at all costs.

I hope this doesn’t lead to another ten pages. Or even one more page.

[Lechmere]

Ally
I understand totally.
It's the same with me and Paddington Bare.
Sorry Jenni and stop misspelling his name.