43596Re: Gunshots they claim killed Bill Anderson.
- May 9, 2007I was making some effort not to make any criticism 'not personal' and
apologize if it came off that way. But if I were you, I would get
ready for slings and arrows... chinks in your armor, well, they might
as well point be pointed out. That doesnt mean you can't be right.
--- In email@example.com, "Jay Longley" <jay_longley@...>
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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 email@example.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~
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>