SC: By placing his hat into the dirty ring, the man knew exactly what he was doing and what he would have to do to get what he wanted.
MS: Another product of your mystical insight?
SC: What – you think Tricky Dicky was some bumbling idiot martinet that hadn’t a clue how to fight dirty? Are you that naive?
MS: What he had to do in fact does not include anything and everything you make up (such as, violence, intimidation and threats of eviction which never happened).
SC: I am not saying Tricky Dicky “had” to employ such methods—just highlighting the fact that these were known and used practices at elections in this period and that such strong-arm tactics were as available to him as they were to every other corrupt politician back in the day. The point is – Tricky Dicky would have understood before entering the ring that if the vote was tight and buying votes was unlikely to swing it for him, then these other strong-arm tactics would most likely have to come into play. He would have been well aware of the full spectrum of tactics (some dirtier than others) that were available before he ever set foot in the dirty ring--and well aware also that he might actually have to resort to using them. And yet such prior awareness did not deter him from entering the squalid race. Of course, he may well have hoped that he would never have to stoop so low by employing such shameful tactics but I venture that if the situation arose where he had to use such strong-arm tactics then he would not have hesitated in doing so--just as the other crooked politicians had. His entering the dirty ring in the first place implies he was ready, able and willing. And ruthless. He wasn't in the race to lose. Why should it be imagined that Tricky Dicky would draw the line at using just one dirty tactic i.e. bribery? He was in for a penny, in for a pound. Tricky Dicky's patron, the Duke of Cumberland, would have made damn sure that he had chosen the right man (a military man like himself) for the very dirty job. A man who would not flinch from doing whatever was necessary; a man not afraid to employ whatever low and shameful tactics it took in order to win. Do not kid yourself otherwise.
MS: Facts not good enough for you?
SC: The fact is that such strong-arm tactics were used in this period, especially when the vote was tight. Do you deny this? The fact is Tricky Dicky would have known this. Do you deny this? The fact is Tricky Dicky, with such fore-knowledge, STILL entered the dirty ring. You cannot deny this.
SC: That you are happy to take the word of Tricky Dicky on 'faith' is entirely your business.
MS: That this is a matter of taking someone’s “word” or taking something on “faith” is your fabrication.
SC: Call it what you like--you take the dubious word of Tricky Dicky over and above any need for scientifically testing the inscriptions you assert that he 'found'; inscriptions that--irrespective of your lame and lamentable protestations--Tricky Dicky COULD have easily forged. (Yes, contrary to what you have always held to be true, there IS a relatively easy way a forgery COULD have been perpetrated by him and his team in these chambers). Do you not yet see how ridiculous and untenable your position has now become? How many decades now have you invested in your charade of protesting Tricky Dicky's innocence?
MS: The case against the forgery fantasia has never depended on imagining that Vyse was a plaster saint.
SC: I certainly never for a single moment imagined Tricky Dicky to be a "plaster saint" but, nevertheless, it's encouraging to see that you are finally moving your opinion of him in the right direction.
MS: It’s far more a matter of recognising the checks and balances inherent in the situation.
SC: Well that is exactly the problem--there are no "checks and balances" here. That is what I have been asking here (and elsewhere) for weeks now--that forensic scientists are permitted into those chambers to CHECK those inscriptions in order to provide us with a more BALANCED view. But at every turn, the skeptics here resist this suggestion, insisting that such is not needed, that the word of Tricky Dicky can be trusted. Are you all listening to yourselves?
Now, you can try and spin it, candy-floss it or sugar-coat it in any way you like—Tricky Dicky cannot be trusted on his word. Plain. Simple. It is far more a matter of obtaining REAL evidence to prove the inscriptions in those chambers are authentic rather than basing their veracity on the dubious word of Tricky Dicky.
What's the problem with doing the science? What is it you are afraid of?
SC: Would I accept the word of a person who can suspend their morality whenever it suits them to do so? I really don’t think so.
MS: That’s entirely your business.
SC: Good--glad you agree.
Post Edited (14-May-13 09:43)