> It's OK Audrey my E mail is on here and I don't
> have a linked in.
> My E mail addy is an old one..
> Jon (me) Snap (photography) hobby, Art I did a
> couple of art degrees. BA and MA.
> The idiot has been stalking around and screwed it
> all up ..
> How sad can he get . I can't stop laughing.
> It's kinda like being on a bus and realising
> you've been talking to a nut case for the last
> half hour.
> Good old Warty Stower..
> Anyway yes, the major challenge is ..
> Make paint drips,,
> It's straight out of Monty Python. Lol
This took two edits? Remarkable.
You don’t give the impression of someone who’s laughing, Jon.
I had the impression I’d replied to this already, but no sign of it now.
So let’s try again.
Having posted my address on the board (which I see has since disappeared), you’re in no position to complain about stalking—and complaining to Audrey about it is a sick joke at best.
It was you put a question mark over the Ellison in the first place, by linking to a Flickr site in the name Jon Smith. You seem to be putting into practice some notion you’ve picked up about the arbitrariness of the sign—but no matter.
What’s put this on the agenda now is Creighton’s citing a certain “John Snape”—identified as an “independent researcher and art expert”—in support of a claim regarding the very cartouche we’ve been discussing, a claim which matches quite closely things which you’ve said recently on this board.
Are you denying that you are the person so identified?
We have a legitimate reason for asking, as Creighton asks us to believe something on the strength of this person’s expertise and I dare say readers would like some assurance of his bona fides.
As for the Jon Snape who also used the “jonsnapart” monicker—we can leave that for now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Jun-16 02:28 by Martin Stower.