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

Re: "Feeble" is just a word, Robert

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    Thank you Paul. You wrote: If I understand correctly - and I am quite ready to accept correction if I am wrong on this point - it is the attribution of the
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Paul. You wrote:

      "If I understand correctly - and I am quite ready to accept correction
      if I am wrong on this point - it is the attribution of the letter that
      is the point Robert is concerned about. 

      I do not believe that Robert cares if the letter is called 'feeble' so
      long as the true author is identified.

      I would also wonder why CSRQ felt the need to write a "feeble" letter
      instead of allowing Robert to provide his own words."

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

      My comments:

      If there is going to be any discussion about that letter, the true
      source should be appropriately identified. Bert's false reports warrant
      a correction and his admission that he has learned the truth of the
      matter; just for starters.

      Personally, I don't think Bert would have dared to publish a report
      calling the letter a "feeble attempt" except he was able to put my name
      to it. Had he properly credited Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. as the source
      (though we may never know who actually wrote it), who can believe he
      would have called it a "feeble effort".

      I wasn't interested in a letter to the editor. That was something
      Chaffin came up with as his way of handling the problem.

      The main reason indicated as to why they weren't about to publish
      anything I would write (besides me being a nobody with little skills in
      such things) is because I would be writing a more lenghty statement and
      putting the article in question in the context of the cover up Bert
      Thompson, Ph.D. was engaged in and how the Major article was was small
      part of that effort.

      The CRSQ cared nothing for dealing with what they had gotten themselves
      into with that.

      It does make you wonder how they connived to get the CRSQ to let Major
      publish that article in the first place. Another story that may never
      be popularly known. Another is how the CRSQ may have connived to get
      Bert's/Trevor's response to publish along with that letter I didn't
      write. And another is . . .

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