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

43609Re: Gunshots they claim killed Bill Anderson.

Expand Messages
  • Jay Longley
    May 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Carl. Thank you for explaining this to me. Your suggestion to
      watch out for "slings and arrouws" is well taken. During this past
      year, I have indeed been the receiver of more slander and liable that
      I ever would have thought possible for simply stating the results of
      our work to the public. I sincerely apologize to you, Carl, for
      being defensive in regard to your message. It has become a habit, I
      am afraid after receiving countless personal attacks, for me to be on
      pins and needles waiting for the next knife blade to sink in. :)
      Thanks again,
      ~Jay~




      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I 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 civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Longley" <jay_longley@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > 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".
      > > ~Jay~
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > 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
      > > Huddleston
      > > > noticed this]. There is a scolding banner at Wikipedia that
      heads
      > > the
      > > > section "Anderson's death" which seems to be suggesting some
      writers
      > > > dial up the quality of the submissions. The words "Please
      improve
      > > it"
      > > > in that banner would have me concerned if I was involved.
      > > >
      > > > The words "One of the most disturbing aspects about the way the
      > > Bloody
      > > > Bill Anderson story has been presented" definitely sound a bit
      > > > familiar. I suspect, for instance, the ombudsmen-types
      [whatever
      > > they
      > > > 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
      > > or
      > > > thine indeed?
      > > >
      > > > I might have to sign up at Wikipedia, something that I have
      avoided
      > > up
      > > > 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
      > > wounds.
      > > > > My original message dealt only with this specific part, the
      > > gunshots,
      > > > > of the traditionalist stories about the ambush and its
      > > aftermath. I
      > > > > have read most of the books you mention and the researchers
      > > helping
      > > > > me have gone over all of these other points fully and
      thoroughly
      > > and
      > > > > are still actively working on them. Since my time is very
      > > limited,
      > > > > by my investigation into Bloody Bill Anderson, I am of course
      > > unable
      > > > > to present every detail of our findings on other boards but I
      > > assure
      > > > > you we have conducted the most thorough investigation into
      the
      > > life
      > > > > 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