Private sale

[Ally]

The first line in your post, Ally, was:

No what I am saying is the very idea is freaking stupid.

I already said that I claimed an idea was stupid. Still not an insult.

Zero point to you.

The last was:

Do you think?

Ah and here is where selective editing comes into play. The last line was a statement Whatever can that mean? Do you think?

It was not Hey fisherman are you capable of thinking, I asked you what do you think that means. "Whatever does that mean, do you think" is a way of asking what someone thinks something could possibly mean. I will admit my punctuation made that confusing, but I was using a southern colliquialism that I use in speaking and did not think how it would translate on the written page. Another way of saying it is:

Whatever do you think that means? But many/most turn it around to Whatever does that mean do you think. And the way it's spoken turns it into two sentences.

So that was not actually an insult, that was improper use of verbal colliquialism in an improper setting where it doesn't translate to writing well and where meaning was not clear.

Inbetween those two niceties, you managed to cram in, for example, No ****, Parkinson's handwriting and normal handwriting aren't the same?

I already pointed out I said "no ****" as a statment of the obviousness of the sentence. It's still not an insult.

We all know how you work, Ally. I got away fairly easily, compared to what youīve poured over Edward.

Because so far, you haven't deserved it like Edward. That could change though.

As for me not addressing anything of substance, that too is an unjust insult. As for claiming that I outright lie, that too is an unjust insult.

Oh okay, you didn't lie. You just selectively cherry picked facts to present something how you wanted it to be viewed.

Now, can we leave this subject?

Probably not.

The best,
Fisherman

Right back atcha.

[Fisherman]

No what's hard to understand is how, after posting 30 pages of research on studies that show that Parkinson's handwriting characteristics are defined by micrographia and looking at Swanson's handwriting which shows absolutely no sign of it, you can still attempt to claim that Davis was making any sort of claim about Swanson actually having it and not just generally making a non-medical statement about the handwriting being shaky.

All the statements Davies makes are non-medical, Ally. He is not a medico. Therefore, he cannot make any medical statements.

He CAN, however, make statements relating to his area of expertise. And that area of expertise encompasses the knowledge that different diseases have different typical traits.

Micrographia is one such trait - that is why I mentioned it. To show that anybody who claims that different diseases do NOT contain traits that are typically recognizable in handwriting is dead wrong. Totally, utterly and ridiculously so.

But by all means, letīs leave micrographia aside! Letīs instead concentrate on the tremor part, as you suggest. In that respect, it has been known for more than a century that PD patients have problems making upward strokes with the pencil, whereas they manage the downward strokes a lot better. So there is one possible explanation to why Davies said that the tremor was of a kind that is related to tremor revealed in PD patients handwriting, rather than just saying that there was a tremor that could be related to any form of disease.

He SPECIFICALLY targetted PD when trying to explain what the handwriting reminded him of. And that must be regarded as significant.

Swanson, though, did NOT have Parkinsons disease, by the looks of things. Fly-tying, elderly gentlemen do not.

This provides us with a riddle to solve - or an item to sweep under the carpet. Itīs anybodyīs choice. But I have no broom.

How about you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I already said that I claimed an idea was stupid. Still not an insult.

Zero point to you.

Iīll read no further than this. Follow me, Ally: People with stupid ideas are ... yes, ... come on now, you can do it! People with stupid ideas are ...?

Saying that my ideas are stupid is an insult, Ally. Thinking that I would not know that is the next insult.

Once again, letīs leave this. It is not threadrelated, and it is not worthy of any discussion outside Kindergarten.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

See this is where the written record is important.

You asked ME if I was arguing a specific idea.

I responded that I thought the very idea was stupid.

How then did I insult YOUR idea? You hadn't claimed it. You hadn't stated it as being YOUR idea.
So there is no way shape or form that you claim that when I wrote that I was insulting YOUR idea.
As far as I know you still haven't argued THAT specific idea.

You asked me if I was claiming an idea and I said no I thought the idea was stupid.

See, once again, selectively cherry picking and misrepresenting what was actually claimed.

[Monty]

However, one thing I am going to post, for the benefit of everybody, is the end part of the 1923 letter in which DSS writes "I am sorry that my hand begins to shake so that I have had to stop."

Certain people seem to think DSS went around with his hands shaking permanently, like some gospel minister from the deep south.

Different colour

Monty

[Fisherman]

See this is where the written record is important.

You asked ME if I was arguing a specific idea.

I responded that I thought the very idea was stupid.

How then did I insult YOUR idea? You hadn't claimed it. You hadn't stated it as being YOUR idea.
So there is no way shape or form that you claim that when I wrote that I was insulting YOUR idea.
As far as I know you still haven't argued THAT specific idea.

You asked me if I was claiming an idea and I said no I thought the idea was stupid.

See, once again, selectively cherry picking and misrepresenting what was actually claimed.

Well, whaddoyouknow - you are correct! You only managed to point out that I suggested a stupid idea.

So letīs try again: People who suggest stupid ideas are ... yes ...?

Come on, Ally - we can go on for years about this, and I find it hard to believe that the outcome will be that all posters will say that you are the nicest and friendliest poster that have ever written on Casebook. Itīs just not going to happen.

Now, if we - finally - leave the Kindergarten playground and concentrate on the specifics of PD tremor, as regards handwriting instead ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

You were ASKING ME if I was claiming a stupid idea, Fisherman.

So when you are asking me if I am claiming an idea that's obviously stupid, what does that say about what you are claiming about me?

And yes, we can go on about this for the next ten years because you will continue to refuse to admit you were wrong and characterized my posting as wrong.

YOU were claiming *I* was arguing a stupid idea. Not the other way around. Or was this descriptive sentence about my so-called argument - "and after ascribing to this almighty faith in Davies capability you still claim" -- meant to suggest that I was basing my argument on reason and not on stupidity? You were characterizing my argument (that I didn't actually make) as irrational.

So what does that say about you?

[Fisherman]

You were ASKING ME if I was claiming a stupid idea, Fisherman.

So when you are asking me if I am claiming an idea that's obviously stupid, what does that say about what you are claiming about me?

And yes, we can go on about this for the next ten years because you will continue to refuse to admit you were wrong and characterized my posting as wrong.

YOU were claiming *I* was arguing a stupid idea. Not the other way around. Or was this descriptive sentence about my so-called argument - "and after ascribing to this almighty faith in Davies capability you still claim" -- meant to suggest that I was basing my argument on reason and not on stupidity? You were characterizing my argument (that I didn't actually make) as faith-based and implying it was irrational.

So what does that say about you?

It donīt know what it says about me. But I DO know that "stupid idea" could relate to either the idea as such or the idea that you believed in it.

And there you are, just like the construction "Do you think", we end up with alternative suggestions, one of them painting you in an innocent light, the other one making you look rather a scornful character, full of insults and such things.

One has to wonder why I constantly go for the more sinister choice. Empirical studies, perchance?

Once again - letīs leave Kindergarten.

And when we do so, how about you addressing the point about specifically tremor-related PD traits in handwriting?

Or maybe you think it is more important to try and prove to all and sundry what a goodnatured and goldhearted poster you are? If so, weīll be here all day. All week, even. All life, in fact.

So, Ally - shall we? Before we bore holes in the heads of our fellow posters?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

And voila people. There you have it.

When I make a mistake and phrase something poorly, I admit my mistakes. There are at least two examples of this on this very thread.

When other people make mistakes, they continue to blame the other person for their own mistakes. There is no other view to this.

You misunderstood the argument I was making, and wrote a dismissive post basically claiming my idea (that I wasn't really arguing) was irrational. YOU were WRONG.

I wrote back and said I was not arguing that and that I thought that argument was completely stupid.

You then claimed I said YOUR idea was stupid. YOU were WRONG.

You then claimed I was characterizing your argument as stupid. YOU were WRONG.

In every instance you have made a mistake and been wrong and you want to turn this around as me trying to put myself in an "innocent" light simply because I refuse to accept people making up crap about me?

Get real.

I have no need to cast myself in an angelic and innocent light, Fisherman. I am no angel and have no desire to be.

But you screwed up, and rather than just admit it, you continue to cast aspersions on me apparently because you are incapable of simply admitting YOU were WRONG.

You insulted me from start to finish, gleefully and you can't just admit you were wrong in every instance and case.

So no. We can't just go back to arguing the handwriting. You have lied about me, mis-characterized everything I've stated and refuse to simply admit you were wrong.

So why should I even attempt to have a rational discussion with you anymore?

[Fisherman]

Ally:

YOU were WRONG.

Actually, I think I was right - and still am. And most people would, I think, agree that I have a very good point in claiming that you constantly insult people in your posts.

So we are just going to have to disagree - that is, if you donīt think that you DO insult people...?

So why should I even attempt to have a rational discussion with you anymore?

To try something new? And perhaps to acknowledge the fact that I have presented the very thing you seem to say is non-existant: disease-specific traits of PD relating to handwriting.

But thatīs only if you are interested in anything else than throwing manure.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Ally:

YOU were WRONG.

[B]Actually, I think I was right - and still am. And most people would, I think, agree that I have a very good point in claiming that you constantly insult people in your posts.

And once again you completely misrepresent the argument that I made. I have asked you repeatedly to point out where in my post I insulted you. Nowhere. That's where. I stated SPECIFIC things you were wrong about and you come up with some off the wall argument about general insults in my posts and fail to address the specifics in which you were actually wrong.

Instead you pull out my sentence and add in another argument that I did not claim. Misrepresentation, sleight of hand, and base trickery.

Whether I insult people in 99.9 percent of my posts is in fact completely irrelevant. I did not insult in you in the post under discussion.

But again, let's put on a show throw out some red herrings and ignore the actual facts under discussion.

So why should I even attempt to have a rational discussion with you anymore?

To try something new? And perhaps to acknowledge the fact that I have presented the very thing you seem to say is non-existant: disease-specific traits of PD relating to handwriting.

But thatīs only if you are interested in anything else than throwing manure.

The best,
Fisherman

Yes, because you have proven yourself up to the task of having an actual logical conversation. Every single thing I have written you have misunderstood, misrepresented, taken out of context and out and out lied about, and yet, I should actually waste my time attempting to have a reasoned conversation with you?

Right. Not a chance. You have proven you are not interested in an actual discussion, just in throwing manure of your own, so I will stay at your level until you provide a reason to do otherwise.

[Stewart P Evans]

Dear Wicked...

Jim Swanson had been shopping it around for money. He can be distressed a bit to have questions asked about it. You can rightly be criticized for not bringing up the questions when we had some hope of getting direct answers and I have criticized you for this in the past and no doubt will again. And I also include Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner in my criticisms, as I have in the past and will in the future, for chucking the Marginalia in and "authenticating" it without having ever even seen it.
And as for protecting someone from internet ravings, (though I disagree there was any of that going on in 2000) there's a very simple way to do that - don't have them read the boards. If he was as old and frail as you say, I sincerely doubt he'd be checking the updates every two minutes.
But nobody did anything about it until it was too late and so now, no matter what evidence presents itself, Jim Swanson is going to be forever viewed as a forger by a group of people. And there is no evidence, no reason and no logic that is ever going to sway them from their belief that Jim Swanson was a forger.
If it ever comes to me, no matter how old and frail I am, don't wait til I am dead to make accusations. I like the chance to defend myself while I am still alive.

Dear W.W.o.t.W.,

Fair points, mea culpa. I'm used to being criticized and I dare say this won't be the last time.

In no sense an excuse, I should just say that Keith and I were in the home of Jim Swanson and his equally elderly wife, at our request, in order to photograph the material for our book. I did not feel it my place to start to query the material in a way that might cause him to think he was being challenged on a long-held belief. Thinking of it now perhaps I should have done. I did mention the fact of the discrepancies as I examined the 'marginalia' but received no response. I would also add that what I saw caught me totally by surprise.

I do not suggest that Jim would have been checking the Internet 'for updates every two minutes' but he would certainly have been approached when suspicions were aroused and would have become embroiled in the ongoing debate which inevitably would have involved, at the least, suggestions that he may have 'doctored' or even faked the annotations. And, as we see, no matter how firmly he protested his innocence and reinforced the provenance of the annotations these accusations would not have been laid to rest in his lifetime and he didn't need to endure that.

No 'internet ravings' going on around 2000? You and I must have been reading different boards then.

Your comment that 'Jim Swanson is going to be forever viewed as a forger by a group of people. And there is no evidence, no reason and no logic that is ever going to sway them from their belief that Jim Swanson was a forger' actually reinforces the point I am making. It would have made no difference if Jim were alive and addressed the queries. His answers would be no more accepted than those that have been made here, nor any more than the examination and report of the handwriting by a document examiner has been accepted by all.

Jim didn't need all that controversy and he would have passed away in the knowledge that it was being publicly suggested that he was a 'forger', rather than passing in peace with the 'marginalia' being accepted for what it was, and had been accepted as, for the years since its publication.

Anyway, bring along your sackcloth and ashes for me to wear and I'll see you in November.

Stewart

[Ally]

Dear W.W.o.t.W.,

Anyway, bring along your sackcloth and ashes for me to wear and I'll see you in November.

Stewart

I have tried to convince Ricky it should be a fancy dress party. So far, no go. Can't wait to see you and Rosie!

[Fisherman]

Ally:

Whether I insult people in 99.9 percent of my posts is in fact completely irrelevant.

Not everybody will agree, Iīm afraid.

Not a chance.

Well, thatīs what so often happens when people cannot come up with an answer - they duck out, under the pretence of being morally and/or intellectually superior. Not long ago, another poster claimed that he ducked out because he felt I was only trying to provoke others by posting.

In the end, it matters little. What stands is that you fail to answer the question pertinent to the thread, whereas you spend dozens of posts raving on about Kindergarten stuff, unrelated to the topic.

It speaks volumes.

For your information, I have had it suggested to me that those who wish to see as little discussion as possible about the marginalia are prepared to try and disrupt the threads by throwing out wild accusations about non-topic matters, starting brawls and giving the administrators ample reason to close the thread down.

To think that such an idea has been formed, Ally!

Myself, I donīt wish that outcome. So I urge you to think things over and come back whenever you feel ready to discuss the topic of the thread instead of taking disagreements over childstuff as a very legitimate reason to bow out.

Just saying,

Fisherman

[Ally]

[B]Well, thatīs what so often happens when people cannot come up with an answer - they duck out, under the pretence of being morally and/or intellectually superior.

You mean exactly like you are doing when you avoid apologizing and instead try to cast yourself in the morally superior role and place all the blame on me?

In the end, it matters little. What stands is that you fail to answer the question pertinent to the thread, whereas you spend dozens of posts raving on about Kindergarten stuff, unrelated to the topic.

I believe you have written the exact same number of posts on this "kindergarten topic" as I have, and I have in fact posted several more on-topic posts than you have.

So about 95 percent of my postings up to this point have been on topic, while about ...what 55 percent of your postings have been on topic??

It speaks volumes.

Yes it does, doesn't it.

For your information, I have had it suggested to me that those who wish to see as little discussion as possible about the marginalia are prepared to try and disrupt the threads by throwing out wild accusations about non-topic matters, starting brawls and giving the administrators ample reason to close the thread down.

For your information I could care less about what a bunch of cowards in dark corners muttering to themselves have to say. And yes, 900 plus posts... we are really trying to keep this topic from being discussed.

And let's be really clear here. I can close the thread down at any time and at any point I want to. I don't NEED a reason or an excuse. If I want it closed, it's closed. I don't have to justify it. I don't have to make an excuse or even have a reason. So once again, these weaselly innuendos and insinuations are base and lacking in facts.

If I wanted the thread closed, I'd close it. And there would be no justification required.


The fact of the matter is I believe in free speech more than anyone else on this board does, and I have not banned or closed a single thread since I took over. In fact, I actually unbanned certain posters including Trevor Marriott and Jeff Leahy.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.