Paul S. wrote:Great post, Victoria...
Yes, I see that, although some realizations I do arrive at kicking and screaming.Victoria Steele wrote:And you Paul. Don't you see? It not about the book either! I know that its been your responsibility to pound on the doors of those that have information and apparently you have done a damned good job. But above all of that, do you realize? Ulitmately this whole situation HAS NOT BEEN ABOUT THE BOOK. BUT ABOUT YOU.
However, while that ultimately may be "the point" to all this, I still feel it is important to keep that more or less in the background (the "Notes from the Rabbit Hole") and let Dr. Brown's story take front and center... at least, until we get in to the later chapters.
Paraphrasing:Anybody else out there understand what the heck I am talking about? Its not about the horse, its not about the book .... its about US.
"It's not about the horse, it's about the rider;
It's not about the book, it's about the reader."
I can see how valuable Lisa's contribution has been.
--PS
Chapter 37 - Missing Fingers and Reliable Sources
Re: not about the horse
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
-
Victoria Steele
- Mysterious Redhead
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am
us getting our eyes open
I don't know what you meant to do with that last post Paul. Were you just reminding us of things that we had already considered, or did you mean to add something to that thread and then just got distracted.
But its an important thought. That your book ultimately is about all of us and what WE finally start seeing.
So what do you think about what I just wrote. Should I just shut up and sit down or do you think that I am onto something. Obviously you are way ahead of all of us but in following your story, this isn't off track, is it? Mr. Twigsnapper (sorry, O'Riley) and Townsend Brown were in Germany just before or just after the end of the war. Mr. Twigsnapper has already said that Dr. Brown was considered so important that he was under orders to shoot him to death if it looked like they would fall into the wrong hands. And he also said that Dr. Brown knew about that standing order and went anyway. Now that is an indication right there of how important this operation was. So Paul, what were they after? Can you say? Victoria
But its an important thought. That your book ultimately is about all of us and what WE finally start seeing.
So what do you think about what I just wrote. Should I just shut up and sit down or do you think that I am onto something. Obviously you are way ahead of all of us but in following your story, this isn't off track, is it? Mr. Twigsnapper (sorry, O'Riley) and Townsend Brown were in Germany just before or just after the end of the war. Mr. Twigsnapper has already said that Dr. Brown was considered so important that he was under orders to shoot him to death if it looked like they would fall into the wrong hands. And he also said that Dr. Brown knew about that standing order and went anyway. Now that is an indication right there of how important this operation was. So Paul, what were they after? Can you say? Victoria
Re: us getting our eyes open
Let me put it this way: if you "sit down," I will personally track you down and put tacks in your chair. On to something? Yes. We all are. What? Will hopefully be revealed in due course...Victoria Steele wrote:...its an important thought. That your book ultimately is about all of us and what WE finally start seeing.
So what do you think about what I just wrote. Should I just shut up and sit down or do you think that I am onto something.
Obviously you are way ahead of all of us but in following your story, this isn't off track, is it?
Which reminds me of the definition of an expert: "An 'expert' is somebody who knows just slightly more than you do...."
The "official" mission was looking for equipment and personnel that the Germans were using to decrypt Russian codes; Dr. Brown, I'm told, had his own "laundry list." What, precisely, was on that list, is still subject to... speculation.So Paul, what were they after? Can you say?
--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
no need to track
Speaking only for myself but I feel that Victoria will agree. You won't have to worry about losing us with this story. No way am I ready to walk away from this.
So, if it had to do with codebreaking (Russian) on one side, that might have alot to do with why he and Mr. Twigsnapper were in Paris in 1956. I have been doing a little reading of history myself and I understand that Europe was sort of "wide open" for intrigue and intelligence gathering and Russia was extremely active in that department.
So, may I ask? What was the "cover story" for Dr. Brown being with Mr. Twigsnapper in Paris at that time?
I mean, can you tell us who invited Dr. Brown to Paris? Or did he just go to "drum up business" for his theories?
I think it was Valone who said that he went hoping to get something started with an aircraft firm there but was ultimately disappointed. But now I understand that all was probably just a cover for what was really happening.
This is just great Paul. Just great!
Next chapter this week? I hope! grinder
So, if it had to do with codebreaking (Russian) on one side, that might have alot to do with why he and Mr. Twigsnapper were in Paris in 1956. I have been doing a little reading of history myself and I understand that Europe was sort of "wide open" for intrigue and intelligence gathering and Russia was extremely active in that department.
So, may I ask? What was the "cover story" for Dr. Brown being with Mr. Twigsnapper in Paris at that time?
I mean, can you tell us who invited Dr. Brown to Paris? Or did he just go to "drum up business" for his theories?
I think it was Valone who said that he went hoping to get something started with an aircraft firm there but was ultimately disappointed. But now I understand that all was probably just a cover for what was really happening.
This is just great Paul. Just great!
Next chapter this week? I hope! grinder
-
Mark Culpepper
- The Dean
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:02 am
reviewing subjects
Its the teacher in me.
Can't help reviewing the topics covered before I go on to the next chapter.
I sense that Paul will (I hope) be launching off into the further exploits of Townsend and Josephine Brown in the early forties? or maybe Morgan and Lindas romance in the mid sixties, so before all that happens I just wanted to bring this post group up so that others who have recently joined us can get up to speed on what has been said here.
Thinking of you ,of course Mikado, because I really have appreciated your thoughts and input and I wanted to make sure that you hadn't missed this end of the discussion.
You can see how strongly I reacted in regards to Pauls response to "credible sources" and I wanted to add a little bit to that line.
In a way, now that the flash of protectiveness has passed, I can see where Paul was coming from. He is worried about his credibility as a writer and he sensed, perhaps, a hole that he might fall into. After all, though he trusted his first source, if he hadn't met him/her how could he trust his second source, once removed?
Well, I guess the anwer to that is ...... that you have to decide if you trust your first sources judgement regarding the second.
And think about this just a little Paul. Isn't that where we ALL are regarding what you have told us so far about Linda Brown herself? We don't know her. We haven't met her really, yet you tell us she exists and she has special knowledge and has been the source of so much of your material.
But ultimately, aren't we in the same place you were? If I asked you to relate to me something that she had said to you in confidence, wouldn't your response to me be ..... "I can't tell you?"
So ultimately you see we all have to make choices here. You might have to choose to trust your first source regarding the second, and we might have to choose to trust you.
So, have the things Linda has told you in confidence checked out? And the material from Morgan and Mr. Twigsnapper. You know already my feelings about that gentlemans ability to pierce through clouded information.
Are the things you have been telling us being verified though other avenues? How much of it has been taken on pure faith. I suspect that you have made that leap but still might not be wanting to admit to it.
But the information that she has given you must be checking out, otherwise I am sure there are many out there who would be immediately responding "WAIT, WAIT, WAIT ... YOU ARE INCORRECT!" Has that happened? You know, we always have Victoria.
Mark C.
Can't help reviewing the topics covered before I go on to the next chapter.
I sense that Paul will (I hope) be launching off into the further exploits of Townsend and Josephine Brown in the early forties? or maybe Morgan and Lindas romance in the mid sixties, so before all that happens I just wanted to bring this post group up so that others who have recently joined us can get up to speed on what has been said here.
Thinking of you ,of course Mikado, because I really have appreciated your thoughts and input and I wanted to make sure that you hadn't missed this end of the discussion.
You can see how strongly I reacted in regards to Pauls response to "credible sources" and I wanted to add a little bit to that line.
In a way, now that the flash of protectiveness has passed, I can see where Paul was coming from. He is worried about his credibility as a writer and he sensed, perhaps, a hole that he might fall into. After all, though he trusted his first source, if he hadn't met him/her how could he trust his second source, once removed?
Well, I guess the anwer to that is ...... that you have to decide if you trust your first sources judgement regarding the second.
And think about this just a little Paul. Isn't that where we ALL are regarding what you have told us so far about Linda Brown herself? We don't know her. We haven't met her really, yet you tell us she exists and she has special knowledge and has been the source of so much of your material.
But ultimately, aren't we in the same place you were? If I asked you to relate to me something that she had said to you in confidence, wouldn't your response to me be ..... "I can't tell you?"
So ultimately you see we all have to make choices here. You might have to choose to trust your first source regarding the second, and we might have to choose to trust you.
So, have the things Linda has told you in confidence checked out? And the material from Morgan and Mr. Twigsnapper. You know already my feelings about that gentlemans ability to pierce through clouded information.
Are the things you have been telling us being verified though other avenues? How much of it has been taken on pure faith. I suspect that you have made that leap but still might not be wanting to admit to it.
But the information that she has given you must be checking out, otherwise I am sure there are many out there who would be immediately responding "WAIT, WAIT, WAIT ... YOU ARE INCORRECT!" Has that happened? You know, we always have Victoria.
Mark C.
primary sources
Mark,
Following what you said here. How do we know what Paul is saying is correct or not regarding Townsend Brown?
Who else out there even knew the man? I suspect that there are precious few and I think most of them have already shown up here on this site. Wish that I had met the man. And it would be sure nice someday to be able to talk with his daughter.
Its obvious that Paul has had much inside information, and much of it has to have come from her.
I mean, just look at the simple fact about all of those times the family packed up and moved. Who else has even mentioned all of those moves? Most other biographers (and I include Cook) can't even get his death date straight. And the fact that he was moving so constantly never even occurred to them. But that just comes from one source. From Linda, right? How valuable and insightful is that information? But, is it true?
And when I reread what Paul had written about credible sources/ verses not credible I was hit with the impression that he was counting all his negatives out loud. And why would he do that unless he was worried about her credibility? and trying to distance himself maybe . So he could say later , "well, my sources were flawed." exit, stage right.
I wondered if Linda was upset over the way he hauled his concern out for everyone to see? Thats like really putting it out there when you post something like that on the Internet. Not exactly like expressing your concerns to your closest friend. So I wondered. Why the public concern?
So what I am saying here Paul is, if you don't have any faith in the information coming to you from Linda or whoever you considered your primary source here. What do you really have? I am figuring that "primary source" was Linda, who else would it have been?
No matter, if there is doubt coming from you, maybe we should look harder too? Can Linda prove everything she may have told you? Are there sources that will back her versions up? If not, then what?
After all, daughters are notorious for giving a slanted viewpoint on their Daddys. I have one and I hope that she does the same for me if she is ever given the chance. But how do WE know that what Linda has told you is true, if you have doubts about her yourself, maybe we should have them too?
Just adding some salt to the brew.
grinder
Following what you said here. How do we know what Paul is saying is correct or not regarding Townsend Brown?
Who else out there even knew the man? I suspect that there are precious few and I think most of them have already shown up here on this site. Wish that I had met the man. And it would be sure nice someday to be able to talk with his daughter.
Its obvious that Paul has had much inside information, and much of it has to have come from her.
I mean, just look at the simple fact about all of those times the family packed up and moved. Who else has even mentioned all of those moves? Most other biographers (and I include Cook) can't even get his death date straight. And the fact that he was moving so constantly never even occurred to them. But that just comes from one source. From Linda, right? How valuable and insightful is that information? But, is it true?
And when I reread what Paul had written about credible sources/ verses not credible I was hit with the impression that he was counting all his negatives out loud. And why would he do that unless he was worried about her credibility? and trying to distance himself maybe . So he could say later , "well, my sources were flawed." exit, stage right.
I wondered if Linda was upset over the way he hauled his concern out for everyone to see? Thats like really putting it out there when you post something like that on the Internet. Not exactly like expressing your concerns to your closest friend. So I wondered. Why the public concern?
So what I am saying here Paul is, if you don't have any faith in the information coming to you from Linda or whoever you considered your primary source here. What do you really have? I am figuring that "primary source" was Linda, who else would it have been?
No matter, if there is doubt coming from you, maybe we should look harder too? Can Linda prove everything she may have told you? Are there sources that will back her versions up? If not, then what?
After all, daughters are notorious for giving a slanted viewpoint on their Daddys. I have one and I hope that she does the same for me if she is ever given the chance. But how do WE know that what Linda has told you is true, if you have doubts about her yourself, maybe we should have them too?
Just adding some salt to the brew.
grinder
-
Chris Knight
- Keeper of the Flame
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
Just to throw in a few more comments.
Just about everything Paul has put out is verifiable through public and other accessible records - that was one of the primary issues from the beginning. The tricky part is connecting the vastly separated and hidden dots.
Brown's daughter, Linda, has primarily provided Brown's whereabouts over the years, which is also mostly verifiable through other documentation - military records, company associations (checks, letters, letterhead, etc.), although the more personal aspects may not be so verifiable - such as his nature and conversations she was privy to as his assistant. However, I'm not sure if that is much of an issue. While she does tend to lead a relatively ordinary, if isolated, life, I've know her for awhile - she's a fairly straight-forward person, and I'll vouch for her integrity.
In any case, Paul sometimes leads himself to believe that if he doesn't have all of the information, then he can not make a connection. However, he tends to sell himself and his efforts short, and sometimes falls into the trap of giving "I guess so.." answers to questions.
A dedicated researcher, focusing on his or her subject should be able to at least get the date of death correct. I was even able to get a copy of his original death certificate through the normal channels fifteen years ago. Also, up to this point, no one but Paul has had the resources regarding Brown available to them.
I think we'll all be pleased with Paul's reference section.
Andrew
Just about everything Paul has put out is verifiable through public and other accessible records - that was one of the primary issues from the beginning. The tricky part is connecting the vastly separated and hidden dots.
Brown's daughter, Linda, has primarily provided Brown's whereabouts over the years, which is also mostly verifiable through other documentation - military records, company associations (checks, letters, letterhead, etc.), although the more personal aspects may not be so verifiable - such as his nature and conversations she was privy to as his assistant. However, I'm not sure if that is much of an issue. While she does tend to lead a relatively ordinary, if isolated, life, I've know her for awhile - she's a fairly straight-forward person, and I'll vouch for her integrity.
In any case, Paul sometimes leads himself to believe that if he doesn't have all of the information, then he can not make a connection. However, he tends to sell himself and his efforts short, and sometimes falls into the trap of giving "I guess so.." answers to questions.
A dedicated researcher, focusing on his or her subject should be able to at least get the date of death correct. I was even able to get a copy of his original death certificate through the normal channels fifteen years ago. Also, up to this point, no one but Paul has had the resources regarding Brown available to them.
I think we'll all be pleased with Paul's reference section.
Andrew
-
Victoria Steele
- Mysterious Redhead
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am
I heard my name!
OK, since somebody mentioned my name, I take that as an invitation.
You know what I think happened with this chapter on how "Brown lost his finger"?
You tell me Paul, if I am right.
Your "source" Mr. Twigsnapper, (I presume) told you about a "certain scientist" who was captured and lost his finger . You ASSUMED that the story was about Dr. Brown because, after all, who else could he have been talking about? But did Mr. Twigsnapper actually ever say that it was Dr. Brown that lost his finger in that way and in that place?
I'll betcha if you look through your notes really hard you will discover that you were the one who set yourself up for your own disappointment. That YOU were the one that said it was Dr. Brown, not your "reliable source."
And then suddenly because of your assumption Mr. Twigsnapper turned sluddenly into a "less than reliable source" . I can see how that happened. I also remember someone telling me that to " ASSUME" something is to make an ASS out of U and ME. (Sorry. Couldn't resist that little bit of trivia.)
Now I have no reason why he would have told you that story. Its a real puzzle. Maybe you needed some of that background information. Maybe it was worth the chance of you misunderstanding the identitiy of that "certain scientist".
But maybe Mr. Twigsnapper knew all along that the alternate version of the "lost finger incident" would come up and that you would deal with it then. So isn't that what really happened thanks to the lady in Zanesville?
And it might just be me, but following the stream of conversation on the forum after that posting I am not entirely sure THAT report of him losing his finger in an "industrial accident" was true either! It seems to me that Mr. Twigsnapper went to some pains to be sure that we all understood that what is printed in a local paper is not always the truth. reread all that and see if you see what I see happening.
So what wastrue, I wonder? I just have a hunch that this is just another situation where the truth just hasn't had time to bubble to the surface yet. I can hardly wait!
So Paul. Thursday? or the next Thursday? I have been so good! Haven't bugged you at all! Do I get a gold star? Victoria
You know what I think happened with this chapter on how "Brown lost his finger"?
You tell me Paul, if I am right.
Your "source" Mr. Twigsnapper, (I presume) told you about a "certain scientist" who was captured and lost his finger . You ASSUMED that the story was about Dr. Brown because, after all, who else could he have been talking about? But did Mr. Twigsnapper actually ever say that it was Dr. Brown that lost his finger in that way and in that place?
I'll betcha if you look through your notes really hard you will discover that you were the one who set yourself up for your own disappointment. That YOU were the one that said it was Dr. Brown, not your "reliable source."
And then suddenly because of your assumption Mr. Twigsnapper turned sluddenly into a "less than reliable source" . I can see how that happened. I also remember someone telling me that to " ASSUME" something is to make an ASS out of U and ME. (Sorry. Couldn't resist that little bit of trivia.)
Now I have no reason why he would have told you that story. Its a real puzzle. Maybe you needed some of that background information. Maybe it was worth the chance of you misunderstanding the identitiy of that "certain scientist".
But maybe Mr. Twigsnapper knew all along that the alternate version of the "lost finger incident" would come up and that you would deal with it then. So isn't that what really happened thanks to the lady in Zanesville?
And it might just be me, but following the stream of conversation on the forum after that posting I am not entirely sure THAT report of him losing his finger in an "industrial accident" was true either! It seems to me that Mr. Twigsnapper went to some pains to be sure that we all understood that what is printed in a local paper is not always the truth. reread all that and see if you see what I see happening.
So what wastrue, I wonder? I just have a hunch that this is just another situation where the truth just hasn't had time to bubble to the surface yet. I can hardly wait!
So Paul. Thursday? or the next Thursday? I have been so good! Haven't bugged you at all! Do I get a gold star? Victoria
Re: I heard my name!
Then I'm sure you won't mind my pointing out that your assumption that "Mr. Twignsapper" was the source of the original "missing finger" scenario... is wrong.Victoria Steele wrote:I also remember someone telling me that to " ASSUME" something is to make an ASS out of U and ME. (Sorry. Couldn't resist that little bit of trivia.)
What does that do to the rest of your assumptions and/or conclusions ?
--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
-
Victoria Steele
- Mysterious Redhead
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am
double edged sword!
What would I say to the fact that I was MISTAKEN when I ASSUMED that it was Mr. Twigsnapper who gave you that information? I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CAREFUL. SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?
So that narrows the field a little bit, huh?
In my defense, (if I have one) Mr. Twigsnapper was the most logical choice since he himself has admitted to being with Dr. Brown in Germany during that turbulent time (though I don't think he EXACTLY mentioned the date. His story about the little girl in the mud I ASSUMED was Germany just after the war, or thereabouts.) So, alot like a computer I just connected the closest dots. My mistake. Sorryeverybody.
I suppose that what has happened here is a classic example of how this sort of thing can happen and how it can lead to incorrect conclusions.
Thats why the saying goes both ways. So .... can I nudge a little bit and ask who was it then? I don't suppose thats going to be answered but anything short of hearing from you is going to be one of those nasty ASSUMPTIONS!
Hey, welcome home. Victoria
So that narrows the field a little bit, huh?
In my defense, (if I have one) Mr. Twigsnapper was the most logical choice since he himself has admitted to being with Dr. Brown in Germany during that turbulent time (though I don't think he EXACTLY mentioned the date. His story about the little girl in the mud I ASSUMED was Germany just after the war, or thereabouts.) So, alot like a computer I just connected the closest dots. My mistake. Sorryeverybody.
I suppose that what has happened here is a classic example of how this sort of thing can happen and how it can lead to incorrect conclusions.
Thats why the saying goes both ways. So .... can I nudge a little bit and ask who was it then? I don't suppose thats going to be answered but anything short of hearing from you is going to be one of those nasty ASSUMPTIONS!
Hey, welcome home. Victoria
Re: double edged sword!
Geez, to have seen you as a little girl a week before Christmas.....I bet you shook you fair share of presents.Victoria Steele wrote:
Thats why the saying goes both ways. So .... can I nudge a little bit and ask who was it then? I don't suppose thats going to be answered but anything short of hearing from you is going to be one of those nasty ASSUMPTIONS!
Hey, welcome home. Victoria
Don't take me seriously.
-
Victoria Steele
- Mysterious Redhead
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am
shaking things
Mikado,
Ah! You know me so well already! I admit! I shook things ..... sniffed things! If I had had one of those airport Xray machines I would have run the boxes through those too! And whats worse .... it doesn't have to be Christmas!
I have enjoyed reading your posts!I suspect that you are grinning at me because we both were like that . You just recognize yourself in me, thats all!
I would have asked more questions about Morgan because you surely know by now that I consider him one of the most fascinating individuals in this story. I like mysteries. go figure.
I still haven't gotten any answers from Paul about what Morgan is doing now, where his career with this "intelligence network" led him. And maybe the best question yet. Why did he come back? Or did he ever really leave Lindas life? By 1967 Paul mentions Linda and her family living in Santa Monica.( No mention of what Morgan is doing.) In his episodes that mention Dr. Browns Catalina lifestyle in 1984 or so ...... again no mention of Morgan......... except when Dr. Brown leaves without telling Linda where he is going. And just across the channel, who meets his plane? Morgan. So, what the heck was going on?
Morgan has apparently has been helping Paul with all of this difficult -to -find information on Dr. Brown. And Paul is saying NOTHING about him currently.
Now you have to admit, for a girl like me, with more than a passing interest in this Morgan fella, thats almost too much to resist.
You are good at figuring things and you said you read most of the chapters. So Mikado, what do you think that Morgan is doing now? and a good one! WHY? WHY? Victoria
Ah! You know me so well already! I admit! I shook things ..... sniffed things! If I had had one of those airport Xray machines I would have run the boxes through those too! And whats worse .... it doesn't have to be Christmas!
I have enjoyed reading your posts!I suspect that you are grinning at me because we both were like that . You just recognize yourself in me, thats all!
I would have asked more questions about Morgan because you surely know by now that I consider him one of the most fascinating individuals in this story. I like mysteries. go figure.
I still haven't gotten any answers from Paul about what Morgan is doing now, where his career with this "intelligence network" led him. And maybe the best question yet. Why did he come back? Or did he ever really leave Lindas life? By 1967 Paul mentions Linda and her family living in Santa Monica.( No mention of what Morgan is doing.) In his episodes that mention Dr. Browns Catalina lifestyle in 1984 or so ...... again no mention of Morgan......... except when Dr. Brown leaves without telling Linda where he is going. And just across the channel, who meets his plane? Morgan. So, what the heck was going on?
Morgan has apparently has been helping Paul with all of this difficult -to -find information on Dr. Brown. And Paul is saying NOTHING about him currently.
Now you have to admit, for a girl like me, with more than a passing interest in this Morgan fella, thats almost too much to resist.
You are good at figuring things and you said you read most of the chapters. So Mikado, what do you think that Morgan is doing now? and a good one! WHY? WHY? Victoria
Re: shaking things
Victoria Steele wrote:Mikado,
You are good at figuring things and you said you read most of the chapters. So Mikado, what do you think that Morgan is doing now? and a good one! WHY? WHY? Victoria
Hmmmmmm. Shake, Rattle and Roll.....every present under the tree, whether mine or not and I would hit them pretty good. I was never allowed to go near presents until it was time to open.....
Oh well, takes one to know one.
As to Morgan....I shall meditate tonight and answer in the morning.
Peace
Re: double edged sword!
The point is now you, too, see how easy it is to be led astray by this game, how nothing can be taken at face value, and how absolutely nothing can be taken for granted. Or on "faith."Victoria Steele wrote:I suppose that what has happened here is a classic example of how this sort of thing can happen and how it can lead to incorrect conclusions.
The original "missing finger" story came from Morgan.So .... can I nudge a little bit and ask who was it then?
Or, at least, somebody I believe was Morgan.
Surprise!I don't suppose thats going to be answered
Thanks. Like the song says, "Gee but it's great to be back home.... home is where I wanna be-ee-ee..."Hey, welcome home. Victoria
--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
-
twigsnapper
- Revered Elder
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
- Location: mobile
picking up sticks
An old English game. Five, six, pick up sticks.
Perhaps you, like Victoria , have missed your calling! Twigsnapper
Perhaps you, like Victoria , have missed your calling! Twigsnapper