Barbara West


Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
So what your saying is that, if I took my little red pen, I would not find a single error in your magazine??? Rather a bold challenge, isn't it?! I assume you sent the same message to The Guardian, who most likely received the info from the family? I am sure the family would like your correct info.

Yes, fact checking is important. It would save embarrassing gaffes, not just minor mistakes. Sometimes those gaffes have caused pain and suffering to some Titanic families. One that comes to mind is poor Alice Cleaver. It also reminds me of another person who used to give out dates of death that were not even close. Was it poor research or intentional? Hard to say.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Michael,

You are once again becoming a pit yorkie!

We checked our facts. Indeed -- I had (have) source documentation for every date that was used. Nothing was assumed.
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Hello Timothy,

I always enjoy your bauscia-like posts, however, I never said your article was not completely fact checked, I said that if I checked the magazine on a whole, would it be?! Again, I hope you will be forwarding your corrections to the Dainton family and The Guardian.

Pit yorkie, huh? Hmmm... You might want to add that to the special, private website you forwarded.

Re-reading your original post, wouldn't it have been easier to just add the info to her bio and then mention that you updated her bio?
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
17
298
>You might want to add that to the special, private website you forwarded.

Bingo.;

Mike, frankly I do not understand why you bother. it is like trying to remove dog excrement from the sidewalk by using your feet. Sure, it can be done, but the end result is not worth the effort.

What you have on the one hand is a minor mistake in an otherwise excellent piece by Mr.Ticehurst. Who, as you know, is a person of integrity who actually resigned from an organisation with which he had a LTR in order to avoid having his name symbolically linked to a convicted pedophile. On the other hand, what you have is a second article that covers the same ground, and corrects the mistake- which is a good thing.

So, why engage in banter with a person of considerably lower moral standards than Mr. Ticehurst? He, Brian Ticehurst is a good man, he wrote a good article, and as far as I know he has never created a slanderous webpage (about us) in which accusations of homosexuality and photos of lactating breasts are featured. I DID enjoy the section where Mr. Trower called us Nazis, not knowing if either of us is Jewish. A class act to the core. "GOP advisor in Gay Nazi Webpage Slander Scandal." What an election year headline THAT would make, no? In addition, Brian has never forwarded such a thing through the ET message board. So, why bother arguing with someone of low enough standards to do that? You know what he is capable of, as do I. And associating with him, even in this forum, is no credit to you or, indirectly, to Mr. Ticehurst.

So, allow him his petty moment in the sun. L3et him savor his "mine's smaller than yours is" victory. Don't bother trying to move dog excrement with your feet. And let's go check to see if he's updated the website.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Funny thing -- Charlie Haas has the byline on the article in TI, not Brian Ticehurst.
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Funny thing, I did not say Brian wrote it. I was talking about contributers. All I can say, about this Johnny-come-lately, is better late than never.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Jim Kalafus wrote:

"What you have on the one hand is a minor mistake in an otherwise excellent piece by Mr.Ticehurst."
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Oh, I see. You didn't attach a name when you made that comment, since the conversation has been mainly just yourself and myself, it appeared to be directed at me.
 
J

Jeff Kelley

Guest
I am fairly new to ET and have appreciated the opportunity to learn from various people who have obviously dedicated a good portion of their time to researching or honoring the Titanic. I am aware that there are quite a few “personalities” (read “egos”) here, but for the most part things have remained under control. Imagine my surprise when my daily perusal of ET led to this thread, which used to be about Barbara West.

I know nothing of the obviously pre-existing animosity between the combatants here, but it seems that reason has left the debate. Maybe ET should have a Topic entitled “Pissing Contests” so that members looking for a fight can challenge, slander, or otherwise antagonize each other away from the general membership.

While I am not taking sides in this particular skirmish (especially since the rest of us don’t have the benefit of assessing the website mentioned), these comments are what convinced me that nothing logical was going to result from this “discussion” and that the personal animosity had taken over:

“Since we held the issue for the breaking news and made sure readers and Titanic enthusiasts had the most update info on the situation, did require us to take The Guardian at their word that she married Mr. Winder in 1938, instead of the recorded date in 1937. Have you penned a letter to The Guardian to inform them of their faux pas?”

and

“I assume you sent the same message to The Guardian, who most likely received the info from the family? I am sure the family would like your correct info.”

As I understand it, the publication Mr. Poirier is associated with published the erroneous date, and Mr. Trower pointed it out. Why, then, is it Mr. Trower’s responsibility to advise Mr. Poirier’s sources that they had the incorrect date? Mr. Poirier’s publication should make the correction for its readers, and then inform its source — The Guardian — of its error if it so chooses.

As for Mr. Poirier’s suggestion that Mr. Trower also inform Barbara West’s family that they provided incorrect data to The Guardian, isn’t that a bit presumptuous? There is no evidence that the family provided incorrect data, and even if they did, the unenviable task of correcting the family is not the responsibility of Mr. Trower — the family did not provide him with an incorrect date and he did not publish one. (I am not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US, celebrity obituaries are written years in advance and updated periodically. This error could have been made decades ago).

May I suggest a duel with pistols at 20 paces? Then the winner can get on with things
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Hi Jeff,

Yes, it does sound acrimonious, doesn't it?! Most of my comments are more intended to be more facetious, while trying to get a point across.
Although, someone reading at a glance, would think otherwise. I know I would too.

Mike
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>Maybe ET should have a Topic entitled “Pissing Contests”￾ so that members looking for a fight can challenge, slander, or otherwise antagonize each other away from the general membership.<<

And perhaps we shouldn't.

Instead of getting into a hissing contest, games of one upmanship, pistols at 20 paces, or nukes at point blank range, it would be well to consider that any genuine errors pointed out were genuine mistakes and leave it at that.

It does happen you know, even to the very best researchers in the business, and the "combatants" here are among the very best.

If any of the involved parties want to discuss this in a civil manner, you're entirely welcome to do so here. If it's deadly weapons at 20 paces, kindly take it off list.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Michael,

Come on -- you know that nukes at point blank range is my favorite! Besides, there is nothing like the smell of fresh cordite on the air in the early morning ...

------------------

Jeff,

Thanks for the words of support. (Just for the record, I've never run across Jeff's posts before, and he isn't a shill for me.) In the article written for the "Titanic Commutator", Phil Gowan provided the bulk of the supporting documentation that I used in writing the obituary for Barbara West. This type of information -- birth and death records as well as marriage records -- are invaluable sources for the serious researcher. Since journals like the "Titanic Commutator" are meant to be a permanent record of the past, when I write for it I tend to always check facts repeatedly -- whether for a book review or an article about fraud.

The tone of my writing is different than that of the obituary that Charlie Haas wrote for "Voyage". I'll freely admit that after reading his obit I immediately thought of things that could have been written differently, yet combined, the two different obituaries will provide a pretty complete history of not only Barbara but of her family as well. (I've still got the "Commutator" insert that lists Charlie Haas as a new member of the THS ... and his writing has always been informative. That is what made this error all the more puzzling.)

When I write for publication (as opposed to blogging) I tend to over-concentrate on the facts at hand. Something verbal is not enough for me -- I want either original source material, and anything verbal or from a dubious source (read newspaper or magazine, television or movie) will be checked and rechecked for errors or incorrect information.

All good researchers will do this, and only rarely will a problem crop up. Sometimes it is merely a keyboarding error; once in a while a book publisher will provide the wrong caption for a photograph or an editor who doesn't understand the context of a piece will out of ignorance change a sentence or a word, and create an entirely different meaning to the printed word.

But the ultimate responsibility lies with the researcher and writer. He or she will realize that once an item is in print, any retraction may be either buried on page four -- in six point type, no less; or worse yet, an honest mistake may be trotted out time and again in an attempt to satisfy a personal animus -- even after a retraction has been made.

My reason behind posting recently was to suggest that Barbara West's biography be updated with the new information that is available. Since literally all but one recent news articles about her death mentioned that she married once, with the ET biography also making this distinction, it makes sense for one of the premier sources of information for all things Titanic to have the best information available.

Since there are others on this board far more computer literate than I (I've yet to figure out how to italicise and use colours in the text on this board!) changes to a biography are best left to someone better versed with such things.

---------------------

As for the mysterious website alluded to in a couple of recent posts, I am not the author (although I wish I was that creative!) and can't claim credit for it. The creator had valid reasons for making and updating it -- this long before I joined the ET community. (Prior to April 2006 I merely lurked, and as it is, I waste too much time on boards like these. Oh well.)
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Well, I could say many things, but the one that comes to mind is, 'The lady doth protest too much!'
happy.gif


I am glad you were able to use the Voyage article for a template for your own. Your self-important posts aside, I can't wait to read your later version.

...As for the mysterious website alluded to in a couple of recent posts, I am not the author (although I wish I was that creative!) and can't claim credit for it. The creator had valid reasons for making and updating it -- this long before I joined the ET community...

Passing filthy websites around like that through the messaging system of this board, certainly would make your wife, children and pastor blush. Valid??? I think fictional writing would be the creator's forte.

And that is all I have to say on that matter, except maybe a chuckle or two.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
A careful reading of my post makes no such claim. My writing was done and submitted well before I obtained a copy of the "Voyage" article. I retained the email in which my work was sent to the THS, and it shows a date and time of Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:00 PM.

My wife and children have all seen and thoroughly enjoyed the website. Although none of them fell out of the chair laughing (it parodies the three of you quite effectively) I have no qualms about the site. Maybe you protest too much yourself, Michael.

------------------

From my article: "Barbara was married to Stanley Winder on August 6, 1937 when she was 26 and he was 43. Stanley was an accountant by profession and the couple lived at 3 Ringrove Court, Heathside Road, Woking, Surrey, England until Stanley died of a heart attack on November 25, 1950."

Since I have copies of all supporting documentation for the facts presented above, perhaps one of the other ET board members would be so kind as to update Barbara West's information page; of course, listing Phil Gowan and myself as sources.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Perhaps you would like the URL posted so that readers can judge for themselves.

No, that would only create trouble for Phil Hind and the moderators. It's not worth it to me to make trouble for the ones responsible for supplying and maintaining this board.

Better yet, why don't you post some new information here, on this thread, about Barbara West?
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Chuckle, chuckle. chuckle... Everyone's still laughing. Keep them coming!


I think the unborn sister and the Carpathia friends was new would constitute as new info... You?
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
You mean Edwyna Joan West, born on September 14, 1912, no doubt. There is yet another correction that can be made on the ET pages, since Ada West is listed as giving "birth to a son in late 1912."

Mind you, Charlie's obituary has Edwyna's name spelled incorrectly; I suppose a case could be made that the date of September 12 might fit the words "born in late 1912", to also quote the obituary that ran in "Voyage".
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,473
3
233
Rolling on the floor chuckling... We are having a great time... Keep em coming!

See, I knew the Voyage was helpful. It certainly helped you find the daughter! Good for you!
 

Similar threads