Hello Captain Jack,

Thanks for your reply. You criticise me for sniping – as it happens, I have intended no unpleasantness in my replies. The way I see it, we’re all here because we share a common interest in the Titanic and related topics, and we’re here to discuss them – each of us providing our own opinions, learning others’ views, and so forth. From your comments, where you accuse me of ‘chastising everyone with your snip, copy and pasting,’ I get the impression that you think I’m sniping -- simply because I use the board’s quote formatting function. As it happens, in my view it’s a matter of simple courtesy to address the points that others have put forth in the debate, and reply with opposing views or comments of agreement – depending on your own viewpoint. So yes, I do use the quote formatting function to re-state your arguments, followed up by my replies. That way it’s easier to follow what everyone is saying. It is also why the function is included in the design of the forum, I would assume.

Quote:

First of all, I’m not ‘all fired’ – I’ve not heard that exact expression before but I am assuming it’s an American term for being angry and a variation on the theme of being ‘fired up.’ I’m certainly not angry with someone for having an opposing point of view. I enjoy a good-natured, rigorous debate, and have tried to participate in one, although in your accusations of ‘sniping’ I can’t help detect an element of personal animosity towards me on your part. Yes, I disagree with your original premise about the profitability of third class; but in my view if you’re advancing an argument then it’s your duty to provide some references or evidence in favour of it. That way, it does both you and your argument justice and makes people more inclined to listen. As you’ll know, it’s pretty standard in historical debates. You’ve said, for instance, that ‘over the years you see Olympic regularly ran a 5 to 1 of 3rd class ratio according to manifests.,’ but this doesn’t fit with the passenger figures recorded for the Olympic by the Atlantic conference. You’ve also cited manifests when you were saying that Olympic’s third class carryings were increasing by 25 percent over the years – which also doesn’t fit with the conference figures. When I’ve asked for figures to support your statements (indeed, there’s no reason that a well-argued viewpoint might make me change my own opinion), you have not done so. I don’t understand how you seem to see it as my duty to prove the viewpoint you are putting forward, when I disagree with it.

Quote:

As I’ve said before, I don’t see my replies as sniping. I’ve not asked you to do any research for me, let alone all of it – merely back up what you’re saying. If you don’t want to, then that’s fine by me and I can’t force you to. But I don’t see that anyone can sincerely expect others to take their arguments seriously if you don’t back them up.

Since you asked, I’ll quote one set of figures for Olympic, from 1924, and quote part of my previous posting. In my post I quoted you when you said: ‘And over the years you see Olympic regularly ran a 5 to 1 of 3rd class ratio according to manifests.’ I replied by asking: ‘Please cite some examples. Taking 1924 as a year at random (and because I have the figures to hand), Olympic carried twice as many first class passengers as she did third class passengers. And, this before a full year's immigration restrictions had kicked in.’ The figures for 1924 are that Olympic carried 12,141 first class passengers; 6,683 second class passengers; and 6,128 third class passengers. This was after the 1921 immigration restrictions had ‘kicked in,’ but as I understand it the 1924 regulations did not come into force until 1925. And you can see that Olympic’s third class carryings were lower than either second or first class; and that her first class carryings were nearly double those of third class.

Quote:

Stand by it, as you will. However, if you’re not going to provide any facts to support your argument (such as any revenue figures, or a breakdown of the White Star Line’s pre-war income) then I can’t see that you will change anyone’s opinion.

Quote:

I’ve never considered this forum’s average age, and nor would I use such a shallow criterion [sic?] to judge people’s arguments. I’m far more interested in what people are saying, and the arguments that they are advancing. I think it’s pretty derogatory to use the term ‘teenagers’ in the sense that you seem to be, especially since I have only just turned twenty myself this year. And I certainly haven’t intentionally set out to chastise. Indeed, you yourself have made many rude or patronising comments to various posters – at least, they can easily be interpreted that way. Maybe I am misreading your tone – if so, my apologies. For instance, when you told Edward9139 that ‘it would be nice if you posted facts or questioned opinions or even started a indepth discussion, but what you posted was pure childish. Sorry but I can't tolerate much childs play today.’ If anything it seems to be you judging people on their age. Since you mentioned your desire then for an ‘in depth discussion,’ I find it hard to see why you state that I am ‘sniping’ when I try to engage in one by quoting your points, and offering some of my own opinions. I also find it hard to see why, when I reply to your comments in the Olympic thread for instance, as part of engaging in a discussion, you see fit to ignore them. You’ve voiced your desire for in depth discussions, and whenever one is offered you don’t seem to be in the habit to reply.

Quote:

At present, I am away from most of my sources. Splitting my time between my home town and University town, I leave the vast amount of my notes and documents at home in termtime. Since I spend so much time at University, for most of the time I am away from my sources. However, as it happens I have written a number of research articles published online and in various journals. I hope to do more in the future, time permitting, but it’s important to do a subject justice. Still, I’ve posted some 1924 figures.

Quote:

I’m not out to ‘castigate’ you and I am not going to judge you on how old you are – rather, I judge people on what they post.

Quote:

I don’t see how ‘wartime economics’ and the decline of first class travel during the war has much to do with the previous discussion about the profitability of third class prior to the war? And as it happens, no, I wouldn’t care to explain your premise.

Quote:

I’m always willing to learn about the Olympic, even in the briefest summaries it is possible to learn ‘new information.’ Since I don’t want to spend much more time on this post, as I have a lot to do later tonight, I won’t go into the entirety of your listing individually. However, I will say that there are errors in it, and that all of your ‘facts’ are not undisputed facts. I’ll just take a few examples, and trust that you won’t assume that I am ‘sniping.’ For instance:

Quote:

Leaving aside the debate as to the brightness of Olympic’s ‘dazzle’ paint scheme, she wasn’t ‘dazzle’ painted in 1915. Indeed, photos of her in 1916 show her with a black hull and grey superstructure; it was later in the war that she was dazzle painted, not in September 1915 as you seem to imply. See The McCluskie [sic?], Marriott and Sharpe book ‘Titanic and her Sisters,’ as well as Simon Mills’ Olympic book, and my own, and the photos are available.

Quote:

Captain Marshall was not Olympic’s next captain after Bertram Hayes (not ‘Hays’). See Simon Mills’ book on the Olympic, or mine, and you’ll see that they are in agreement. For the spelling of Hayes’ name, a google search should reveal his 1925 book.

Quote:

A photo exists of the number ‘G608’ on Britannic’s bridge front. This can be seen on the back of my Olympic class ships book, where the photo was first published, and in J. Kent Layton’s new book ‘Atlantic Liners’ (which is a great new work). Captain Bartlett also referred to the ship as ‘G608’ in his report, which for ease you can find reproduced in Simon Mills’ 2002 book, ‘Hostage to Fortune.’ So, it’s not an undisputed fact that the ship’s assigned number was ‘G608.’

Best wishes,

Mark.