Hello Captain Jack,

Quote:

You accuse me of misrepresenting your post. I don’t believe I’ve misrepresented your post. If anything, you’re misrepresenting what I have said. You did indeed present the number ‘G618’ as a fact, and what I said in reply was that it was not an undisputed fact – backing this up by drawing your attention to the ‘G608’ photos. I did not say that you had said it was ‘undisputed.’ I didn’t say that ‘G618’ was definitely the number, nor did I say that ‘G608’ was definitely the number. There is evidence for both.

I’ve seen photos of the Titanic with the name ‘enhanced’ on the photo. Steve Hall shared a number of photos last year. And I have not commented on those photos, nor said that the ‘enhanced’ names shown were unaltered, as you seem to imply.

You say I know ‘very well those are in dispute about G608 to date’ – as if I’d said that this wasn’t the case, which I hadn’t. You might not have authenticated the photo, but you’re wrong to say that it ‘has not been authenticate [sic] as of this date.’

And yes, I am well aware that ‘G618’ is still generally recognised as the correct number – again, it does not make it correct.

Quote:

I couldn’t provide the scan at the moment in any case, as I am away from my sources and it's not on my University computer. But if you don’t mind I would rather seek another person’s opinion.

As I feel you falsely accused me of doing, in my personal opinion you really did ‘nit pick’ by quoting only a single paragraph from my last post, and in the process accusing me of misrepresenting what you were saying. When you wrote: ‘You know very well those are in dispute about G608 to date,’ you clearly implied that I had denied such a thing when I hadn’t. In fact, my post was in error in part when I said: ‘it’s not an undisputed fact that the ship’s assigned number was “G608,”’ since I meant to indicate ‘G618,’ but it might fairly be said about both numbers.

In your post you didn’t deny the personal animosity I felt you were showing towards me, nor the apparent antagonism; you didn’t explain your criticism as to my supposed ‘sniping’ even after I had put forth my own opinion; you didn’t say why you had made that rude comment to Edward9139, nor did you deny its rudeness when I asked if I was misreading your tone (and offered my apologies if I was misunderstanding you); you didn’t explain why you had voiced the desire for an ‘in depth discussion’ and then fail to participate when other posters (such as myself) have tried to engage you in one; and so forth.

It is these facts that make me suspicious of your motives: for instance, when you levelled your accusations against me about ‘sniping,’ and I replied that I was doing you the courtesy and justice of quoting the appropriate points from your arguments and replying, you didn’t dispute what I had said (as might have been expected if you still thought I was ‘sniping’), nor apologise for misreading me and explain why you thought what you had thought (as might have been expected if you no longer thought I was ‘sniping’) – you simply ignored the point, as you’ve done with so many others. Now, I don’t know what I have done to offend you, if I have done anything – although if I have ever offended you then you have my apologies and my word that any such offence was strictly unintentional. In light of your post, and the fact that you didn’t take the chance to further explain your viewpoints on a number of the issues, I can’t help thinking that you are just posting for the sake of stirring up arguments with me rather than a genuine debate. Again, maybe I am misreading you, but if that was the case it begs the question as to why you didn’t bother to explain yourself. I think I’ll take a bit of a break from this thread, at least.

Regards,

Mark.