21-02-2016, 04:44 AM
So there is no misunderstanding here, Mr. Scully, let's be clear about a couple of things: first, I'm not suggesting you waive or forfeit anything you are entitled to, nor am I lecturing you or anyone else for that matter.
Now, the issue as I see it is between you and Mr. Hargrove. As I said, I have seen a number of posts here, where he exercises good faith in simply asking you to weigh in on your assertions. Why you choose to ignore those ample opportunities is none of my business. To date, I haven't been privy to any response from you to his repeated good faith overtures, where he actually offers you every opportunity to address your concerns/grievances. Your choice to abstain, in spite of his good faith efforts in reaching out to you, is yours to make. I have come to respect you both as diligent researchers, and, quite frankly, it's something you and he will have to work out or not.
Now, that said, I still stand behind my initial sentiments in praising Mr. Hargrove for alerting the research community to the less than honest editing of their genuine statements/contributions in the context they made them. The integrity of those statements/contributions shouldn't be tampered with in any way, shape or form. In a sense, though I'm late to the party so to speak with only a mere year & a half to this undertaking, the contributions of the more experienced researchers are vital for the public record, so an informed populace can make up their own minds about this five decades old mystery. To tamper with the statements/contributions of other researchers is akin to a gutless sucker punch.
IF the wrongfully accused is indeed guilty, there is no need to doctor the proceedings...it's that simple really.
Now, the issue as I see it is between you and Mr. Hargrove. As I said, I have seen a number of posts here, where he exercises good faith in simply asking you to weigh in on your assertions. Why you choose to ignore those ample opportunities is none of my business. To date, I haven't been privy to any response from you to his repeated good faith overtures, where he actually offers you every opportunity to address your concerns/grievances. Your choice to abstain, in spite of his good faith efforts in reaching out to you, is yours to make. I have come to respect you both as diligent researchers, and, quite frankly, it's something you and he will have to work out or not.
Now, that said, I still stand behind my initial sentiments in praising Mr. Hargrove for alerting the research community to the less than honest editing of their genuine statements/contributions in the context they made them. The integrity of those statements/contributions shouldn't be tampered with in any way, shape or form. In a sense, though I'm late to the party so to speak with only a mere year & a half to this undertaking, the contributions of the more experienced researchers are vital for the public record, so an informed populace can make up their own minds about this five decades old mystery. To tamper with the statements/contributions of other researchers is akin to a gutless sucker punch.
IF the wrongfully accused is indeed guilty, there is no need to doctor the proceedings...it's that simple really.