Right up until the 5th of March this year, Creighton believed that the Vyse journal was in the British Museum. While he believed it was there, he made no effort to see it, much as he made no effort to view the Hill facsimiles there. It was only when I dropped the heaviest of heavy hints:
“If you’d so much as seen it, you’d get the location right.”
— and prodded him into action with this:
“In answer to what Creighton implies but fails to make explicit, insofar as it can be made out at all, there is nothing in the manuscript which resembles a reference to Humphries Brewer. ”
— that Creighton bothered consulting his friend Google and clicked the few clicks it takes now to locate the journal — and scurried off on an 800-mile round trip to Aylesbury, with the principal object (by strange coincidence) of finding in the journal a reference to Humphries Brewer . . .
This from a man who plays the comedy Scotsman and complains about the expense of going anywhere. Such is his commitment to proving me wrong.
Certainly base ingratitude is what one expects from you, Creighton, but really, I gave you the hint. Did you expect me to do it all for you? I have no obligation to share the results of my research with anyone and certainly not with you. I left this as a standing challenge to those who fancy themselves researchers, knowing that it was really very easy (even in 1998) to find the journal. Consider it a pons asinorum.
Oh, and Creighton, I didn’t put that image on the Web at all. It was Frank Dörnenburg did that. How many times do I have to tell you that I am not Frank? He selected the image, to illustrate his point. I had nothing to do with it. Remember what I said in the preceding paragraph? I have no obligation to share the results of my research with anyone and certainly not with you.
What have you achieved, Creighton? You’ve used the journal purely to give an appearance of verisimilitude to some rancid speculation of your own.
Post Edited (03-Jun-14 23:21)