And around in circles the merry-go-round travels. One would have thought the number of times we've gone round on this we'd all be spewing our guts by now. Nevertheless, once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.....

Quote

MS: So the full chain of hearsay is this:

Humphries Brewer → William Marchant Brewer → Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) → Walter’s mother → Walter M. Allen → Zecharia Sitchin

SC: What? Are you having a giggle here or what? Surely you jest? Surely you understand the difference between a primary source and secondary source? Who first wrote the words "Faint marks were repainted, some were new"? Was it Walter Allen or was it Sitchin? Yes, Stower - it was Walter Allen. Sitchin merely QUOTED Walter Allen. You do understand the difference, Stower, don't you? Of course you do:

Quote

"...By the way, despite the way you've quoted it, I didn't write the article." - Martin Stower

So, you clearly understand the difference between someone who WRITES an original piece (the original source) and someone who subsequently QUOTES that original source. Is it then the case on Planet Stower that anyone who QUOTES someone else is to be held responsible and accountable for the original quote? In short, is the person who delivers the message responsible for the content of the message? Am I responsible for something Hawass wrote simply because I presented his quote in my last book? Of course I am not and by your statement above, I do not believe you really do consider that to be the case either. So do tell us then, Stower, why do you insist that Sitchin is somehow responsible for something written entirely by someone else and which he (Sitchin) was merely the messenger (i.e. Sitchin was merely the person who made public Walter Allen's hitherto private notes)? Explain yourself.

Quote

MS: To complete your analogy:

The person who slips you the note is a known liar.

SC: Irrelevant because the "known liar" did not write the note. See above about primary and secondary sources.

Quote

MS: The known fraudster was never convicted of fraud.

SC: Charges were certainly leveled against him but he certainly wasn't formally convicted. However, he DID fraudulently secure for himself 932 votes in the 1807 election and, as such, he SHOULD have been convicted for it:

Quote

Vyse is known to have paid all but 78 of those who voted for him at the rate of £3 8s. for a plumper and £1 14s. for a split vote. - From your own link.

That's 932 crimes, 932 instances of electoral fraud, 932 fraudulent notes/votes. So, regardless of there not being a formal conviction (did partisan politics prevent Staple's Petition from succeeding as was often the case in those times? Did Tricky Dicky pay Staple to drop his Petition?), the evidence is very clear that Tricky Dicky was a fraudster nonetheless, a view you evidently share, to wit:

Quote

"Not that this lets him [Howard-Vyse] off the hook: it looks like the petition [of Philip Staple] should have succeeded." - Martin Stower

SC: I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment and I am sure many others will too. With the benefit of historical perspective, Tricky Dicky has been found guilty as charged in the court of public opinion.

Quote

MS: The known fraudster was never caught passing dud banknotes.

SC: He certainly secured 932 fraudulent notes/votes - see your link above. With regards to the latest fraud allegations, the jury is still out.

Quote

MS: Experts say the banknotes he did pass are genuine.

SC: And incredulously they came to that conclusion without any forensic tests being done whatsoever. The experts simply accepted the fraudster on his word.

Quote

MS: The fraud of which there is some evidence is one perpetrated also by such well-known moral lepers as William Wilberforce and Lord Cochrane.

SC: Tricky-Dicky perpetrated fraud. See your own quote above, in which you imply such. All that is needed now is further evidence to either convict or exonerate him of the latest fraud allegation.

SC



Post Edited (18-May-13 11:02)