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

43595Re: Gunshots they claim killed Bill Anderson.

Expand Messages
  • Jay Longley
    May 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I did post the facts on Wikipedia about the gunshot theories, with
      all of my sources, and also corrected some blatant errors in other
      parts of the article like where the previous "editor" had incorrectly
      stated that Bloody Bill Anderson married Bush Smith in 1862. Anyone
      who knows anything about Bill Anderson knows he married Bush Smith
      during the winter of 1863/1864 although there is a little dispute
      about the exact day of the marriage. If the "police at Wikipedia",
      as you laughably refer to them, are concerned with any part of my
      message then they can easily remove it or edit out the portions which
      are mostly direct quotes attributed to the specific authors. Since
      I don't know if the staff was directing their criticism of my
      information or previous ones who recently filled the page with
      inaccuracies, I am not "concerned" in the least.
      By "we", I am referring to the other 75 or so people who are
      participating in our investigation as well as to the family members
      of Colonel William C. Anderson. Despite how you and our other
      critics want to portray our investigation, it is not a "one-man
      crusade" but rather a concerted effort to learn and share the truth
      about Bloody Bill Anderson.
      Thank you for your "concern".

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
      > Jay, I note you say "we" quite a bit, and indeed, at least some of
      > what has been stated here is echoed at Wikipedia [no doubt
      > noticed this]. There is a scolding banner at Wikipedia that heads
      > section "Anderson's death" which seems to be suggesting some writers
      > dial up the quality of the submissions. The words "Please improve
      > in that banner would have me concerned if I was involved.
      > The words "One of the most disturbing aspects about the way the
      > Bill Anderson story has been presented" definitely sound a bit
      > familiar. I suspect, for instance, the ombudsmen-types [whatever
      > are called] that police at Wikipedia have noted that the facts are
      > presented in the first person for an article that is anonymous. Just
      > some signs that things are not up to snuff. Is this written by thee
      > thine indeed?
      > I might have to sign up at Wikipedia, something that I have avoided
      > till now.
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bill
      > Carl
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Longley" <jay_longley@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Bob. As I stated in my post, I located more than a dozen such
      > > contradictions as to the number and location of the bullet
      > > My original message dealt only with this specific part, the
      > > of the traditionalist stories about the ambush and its
      aftermath. I
      > > have read most of the books you mention and the researchers
      > > me have gone over all of these other points fully and thoroughly
      > > are still actively working on them. Since my time is very
      > > by my investigation into Bloody Bill Anderson, I am of course
      > > to present every detail of our findings on other boards but I
      > > you we have conducted the most thorough investigation into the
      > > and death of Bloody Bill Anderson that has ever been conducted
      and we
      > > are far from finished.
      > > Thank you,
      > > ~Jay~
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic