Re: "Feeble" is just a word, Robert
- 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."
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 . . .