21-12-2009, 09:04 PM
>When I said "we had several exchanges", I meant that there were several exchanges between Eaglesham, Jack and me. They are included in the post. I didn't think this was debatable.<
-- The fact is, I have had no exchanges on this subject with Dr. Fetzer outside of this forum. If his email communication had been civil, there would have been an exchange, as between Jack White and me.
>Where does Eaglesham even discount the "plaque"? His doing so now may be a sign of a guilty conscience, but I have not noticed his having done so. On the contrary, he cites it here:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/ <
-- I "discounted" the plaque immediately after Mr. Caplett clarified that there was no plaque, that it was a framed collection of clippings. The word "plaque" was removed from the website in November.
>There is no indication that he regards it as fakery; indeed, anyone would infer that he thinks it is authentic, in spite of having the wrong day and the wrong date<
-- The fact that it has the wrong day and date is denial of fakery. If someone were faking this, they would have inserted the correct day and date.
>This appears to me to be too little, too late.<
-- Too little, too late for what?
>I have held him in esteem in the past, but his performance here has shaken my confidence. Others will have to judge this for themselves.<
-- Exactly as others will judge you, Professor, and your performance on this forum.
-- The fact is, I have had no exchanges on this subject with Dr. Fetzer outside of this forum. If his email communication had been civil, there would have been an exchange, as between Jack White and me.
>Where does Eaglesham even discount the "plaque"? His doing so now may be a sign of a guilty conscience, but I have not noticed his having done so. On the contrary, he cites it here:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/ <
-- I "discounted" the plaque immediately after Mr. Caplett clarified that there was no plaque, that it was a framed collection of clippings. The word "plaque" was removed from the website in November.
>There is no indication that he regards it as fakery; indeed, anyone would infer that he thinks it is authentic, in spite of having the wrong day and the wrong date<
-- The fact that it has the wrong day and date is denial of fakery. If someone were faking this, they would have inserted the correct day and date.
>This appears to me to be too little, too late.<
-- Too little, too late for what?
>I have held him in esteem in the past, but his performance here has shaken my confidence. Others will have to judge this for themselves.<
-- Exactly as others will judge you, Professor, and your performance on this forum.

