Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The feeble attempt at a response

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
    ... wrote: Not that the letter was feeble, but that your attempt at a response was feeble. So feeble that you could not
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 16, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury
      <sqi7o0hh02@s...>" <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:

      "Not that the letter was feeble, but that your attempt at a response
      was feeble. So feeble that you could not even get your own
      words published but agreed to sign a letter that someone else
      produced!"

      ######################################

      My further comments:

      The above comments probably indicate some further clarification is
      needed.

      My interests were not in getting "my own words published". I had
      thought to get the CRSQ to publish some correction to the Major
      article. I figured it was their responsibility to note the correction
      (s).

      During the course of the conversation, Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D., editor
      of the CRSQ, had suggested a letter to the editor. However, he also
      implied that he was not about to publish anything I would write
      because I would address other aspects of the matter as well as any
      needed corrections.

      After a number of exchanges wherein I was able to establish the
      propriety of my concerns, there was no indication that the CRSQ was
      going to publish any appropriate corrections or other clarifications.

      That letter that was published just appeared as if to say: "The CRSQ
      is too embarassed to have been involved in this matter to take any
      action on its own. However, the CRSQ would be willing to publish
      this letter. It's that or nothing."

      For those interested, you might find it profitable to look up the
      earlier CRSQ article on Maury; the one Major gives acknowledgement to
      in his article. I think it the better of the two, and it gives no
      clue to any "sick-bed, bible-reading" myths or "bible-in-the-hand"
      statue claims. It is more along the lines of the legitimate
      biographies of Matthew Fontaine Maury.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.