Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lord Orsam's Blog

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    As I said, I think the criteria have to be (1) whether someone has a genuine interest in the case and (2) how much research they have contributed.
    No, the criterion is are they doggedly making personal attacks on others. Not just the occasional sarky remark, but structuring the entire article as put downs of other researchers. Look at the titles, for his sake!

    How many of his articles do not slag off/belittle others?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    He obviously is though.

    As I said, I think the criteria have to be (1) whether someone has a genuine interest in the case and (2) how much research they have contributed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    To my mind a troll is someone primarily motivated by the desire to annoy other people and disrupt online discussions.

    David obviously isn't that. Clearly he has a genuine interest in this case - and has researched a number of other aspects of it as well as the Diary - and in other cases (such as the two he's written books about).

    I just wish the personal stuff could be left out on both sides. Because there is personal stuff on both sides.
    He obviously is though. If he was not, then the amount of text devoted to whatever his non-troll points are would not outweigh his trolling text.

    He literally spends more time and energy in trolling than he does on making his points, whatever they are.

    One can logically conclude....unless he suffers from some mental condition....that that which he expends most time and effort on is what drives him.

    And he demonstrably spends most time and effort on trolling.

    If he spent less time on it....he might actually come up with something new as opposed to semantic arguments that only serve to facilitate his tedious obsession with Caroline Brown.

    Like he did with Spandau Ballet.

    Ground breaking. Paradigm shifting. World changing.

    A tome of unparalelled significance and import.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    Trevor, why do you feel the onus is on those being personally insulted to challenge their attacker? That?s feeding the troll.

    Gary
    To my mind a troll is someone primarily motivated by the desire to annoy other people and disrupt online discussions.

    David obviously isn't that. Clearly he has a genuine interest in this case - and has researched a number of other aspects of it as well as the Diary - and in other cases (such as the two he's written books about).

    I just wish the personal stuff could be left out on both sides. Because there is personal stuff on both sides.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Well it hasn't been discussed for a while on the message boards, Chris, and I for one am in no great hurry to go back - unless of course I read of any evidence that finally identifies the hoaxer or hoaxers. That is all that really interests me these days, and I think it's a pity if others don't share that interest, but prefer to put their energies into attacking certain diary authors and researchers at every opportunity, which only serves to make it more difficult for people to sift through the dirt for any genuine nuggets of fresh insight or material. I can't see how that helps anyone's cause, unless it's chiefly to cause trouble.



    As I said, I'd only want to read about his contributions if he was going to identify the hoaxer or hoaxers. I'm not sufficiently interested in his musings about the diary itself, or its content, if it involves wading through all the nastiness to find them. There's enough of that in the world already right now.


    Well that's very noble of you, Chris, and you must be made of sterner stuff. But my need for new diary information coming from that particular source would have to be great indeed for me to put myself through it. He can criticise me, ridicule me, and drag me through the dirt to his little heart's content, while I'm not there to watch.

    If others, like Trev, find it entertaining, they can fill their boots. But I'm really not that important.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "if he was going to id the hoaxers".
    he constantly ids the hoaxer/s , and proves its not written by maybrick, nor an old hoax. With stellar research, evidence and analysis.

    and re the insults and personal attacks. he was a perfect gentleman until people started attacking him instead of debating the substance of his arguments, and backstabbing him, and personally insulting him. but i guess some people dont like when theyre mistakes are pointed out to them or lose the debate. he gives what he gets, and hes gotten alot since he jumped into the fray.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    From what I remember...he has a soft spot for Trev as Trev had a go at Caroline at some point.

    Thats enoogh to get in Orsams good books.

    Or maybe he is in awe of Trev as he was the only one (apparently) who had the gunption to stand up to him and point out his problematical research?

    or maybe Trev is a die hard Spandau Ballet fan?

    Who knows!!!

    P
    Lord Orsam goes after Trevor too. hes an equal opportunity destroyer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    Trevor, why do you feel the onus is on those being personally insulted to challenge their attacker? That?s feeding the troll.

    Gary

    Its putting the record straight that's how life is. If someone accuses you of something and you are innocent, do you not rebut that accusation and prove your innocence, not throw abuse back at your accuser?


    The insults are secondary to what is being alleged



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Nice of you to clarify your position perhaps others will follow


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Trevor, why do you feel the onus is on those being personally insulted to challenge their attacker? That’s feeding the troll.

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Hi Trev,

    I try to follow the 'never complain, never explain' rule when it comes to David's outpourings.

    Easier to do when you don't visit his man shed to read any specific insinuations, and rather difficult to challenge them directly in that case.

    But in September I was sent, unsolicited, some of his updated writings, which showed me that he has a habit of misreading my message board posts, taking him down a rabbit hole of false assumptions, leading to invalid arguments and thousands of wasted words. Anyone who simply takes whatever he writes as gospel, without bothering to check his sources - me being the source in this particular case - would similarly be led astray. But I don't suppose more than one or two avid fans bother to read every word he spouts on the diary, much less check it for accuracy against the source he claims to be using. When he attacks stuff that was never written or claimed by me, or by anyone else, I have to wonder why. But that's for him to worry about. I'm going to assume it's a case of accidentally misreading his source material, rather than deliberately misleading anyone about it, in which case I can only put it down to his bias causing his competency to slip.

    I have found several discrepancies, misunderstandings and factual errors in what little I have actually read of his diary rants, and unsurprisingly they all favour his own creation theories and negative opinions about the investigation, while they remain uncorrected.

    I am not about to correct a single one of them. If he believes in careful reading and accuracy in his own work, over and above his personal crusade against the work of others, he can do it himself.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Nice of you to clarify your position perhaps others will follow


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I personally have not seen any direct challenges to his specific insinuations. But I don't have horse in the diary race and most of his work seems to relate to the diary, and to put your record straight underhanded and misleding is the term i used to describe what Orsam is suggesting in his writings
    Hi Trev,

    I try to follow the 'never complain, never explain' rule when it comes to David's outpourings.

    Easier to do when you don't visit his man shed to read any specific insinuations, and rather difficult to challenge them directly in that case.

    But in September I was sent, unsolicited, some of his updated writings, which showed me that he has a habit of misreading my message board posts, taking him down a rabbit hole of false assumptions, leading to invalid arguments and thousands of wasted words. Anyone who simply takes whatever he writes as gospel, without bothering to check his sources - me being the source in this particular case - would similarly be led astray. But I don't suppose more than one or two avid fans bother to read every word he spouts on the diary, much less check it for accuracy against the source he claims to be using. When he attacks stuff that was never written or claimed by me, or by anyone else, I have to wonder why. But that's for him to worry about. I'm going to assume it's a case of accidentally misreading his source material, rather than deliberately misleading anyone about it, in which case I can only put it down to his bias causing his competency to slip.

    I have found several discrepancies, misunderstandings and factual errors in what little I have actually read of his diary rants, and unsurprisingly they all favour his own creation theories and negative opinions about the investigation, while they remain uncorrected.

    I am not about to correct a single one of them. If he believes in careful reading and accuracy in his own work, over and above his personal crusade against the work of others, he can do it himself.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    The bricklaying theme runs through the McCarthy story. His father was a bricklayer’s labourer and that is why, I believe, Jack was born in Dieppe. In 1846 the great Victorian railway builder Thomas Brassey was constructing the Dieppe/Le Havre Railway. In 1849/50 Brassey built the magnificent Digswell railway viaduct in Hertfordshire using an army of Irish navvies who camped in the fields nearby and were known locally as the ‘tray bong boys’ (tres bon?). McCarthy’s younger brother, Dennis, was born in 1850 in a field in Digswell. Coincidence?

    Also, before joining the army Thomas Bowyer was a bricklayer. He’s always seemed an odd choice as one of McCarthy’s ‘shopmen’. They tended to be young Irish Cockney types. Perhaps the bricklaying background is what got him the job.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Gary,

    Fine with me.

    I've got a text version, which would be easier to edit.

    Send me your email address and I'll whizz it across to you.

    Stay safe.

    Simon
    Thanks, Simon, there’s some interesting stuff there that I wasn’t aware of.

    I’ve PM’d you my email address.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Gary,

    Fine with me.

    I've got a text version, which would be easier to edit.

    Send me your email address and I'll whizz it across to you.

    Stay safe.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Thanks Gary,

    I've added the marriage into the timeline.

    Stay safe.

    Simon
    I?ve taken a copy of it, Simon, hope that?s OK. It?s spurred me to put together a Crossingham/Sullivan/McCarthy/Maher timeline.

    Perhaps another one listing McCarthy?s good deeds might be of interest to Scott.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Thanks Gary,

    I've added the marriage into the timeline.

    Stay safe.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X