Miss Minahan vs Lowe


F

Florence Mason Carr

Guest
Enough already. Let's let this go. Everybody has had their say. And Inger has responded fully. So can me move on?
 

Jay

Member
Mar 18, 1999
5
0
211
+++APPLAUSE+++

WELL PUT INGER!!!!!!

You have answered in a very dignified way when people have just wanted to attack you.

I like how you write and I wish I could write like that to. You always have so many good thoughts and research and you put it so well.

I also think that this should be stopped because the people who wanted to attack Inger have done so and she has answered them.

J.
 
Aug 19, 2000
23
0
211
Although at this point I'm quite certain that my opinion or input is neither needed nor welcome, I do feel compelled to say something here. Just for the record. Having been Inger Sheil's research partner, co-author and friend for over 2 years now, I do feel I'm in a position to say that I know her much better than most of you posting here do.

What your opinions of Harold Lowe are is immaterial to me. Each person is entitled to his or her own, (and the world would be a dull place were we all to agree on everything!) which is why I haven't bothered to enter this 'debate' until now. However, you are no longer debating the merits and/or faults of Lowe. You have now launched a personal attack on Inger, simply because she has exercised the right to defend her opinions- a right which you insist on for yourselves, but seem unwilling to to extend to those who disagree with you.

As we all know, this is a public forum, which means that all are entitled to the same 'rights'. The simple fact that you may disagree with Inger's views do not justify a personal attack. You may not like her writing style. Neither does not merit a personal attack. Again, to each his own. But by engaging in personal attacks, you're only making yourselves look petty, mean-spirited and closed-minded. In 2 years of sometimes grueling schedules, overseas travel and the stress of home/family/job commitments, I have never found her to be ferocious or seen her exhibit a 'nasty temper' to anyone other than to those in her close, personal circle of friends and family. I don't think there's anyone here who can't say the same....

From a researcher's and writer's standpoint, I can assure you that neither Inger nor I dismiss any conduct of Lowe's which appear to be negative, and we would be lax if we did. Our goal is to present a well-rounded picture of the man, which is impossible to do if you categorize him as either a complete hero or a complete villain, as some people here have endeavored to do. And, well, if you feel our finished work will be 'useless', then that is your opinion which may or may not be shared by others.

So Frances, I will attest that Inger is not 'ferocious', and ask you why you accuse Inger of 'jumping' on people. She is defending her opinion, the same as you are defending yours. If she is guilty, then so are you. You have accusesd her of being antagonistic towards you for expressing her opinion. Are you not guilty of the same whenever she expresses hers?

Chris, one thought here... if it only took one person to 'dismantle' the L/F, then I suppose it wasn't a very strong organization, was it?!? In fact, all it took was for Inger and I to remove our material from their site upon parting ways with the L/F in general. Unfortunately, at that time the removal left very little of substance on the site, which is hardly our fault. Inger and I have 'moved on' from the L/F, and I'm glad to see that they have as well, and have continued working on their site.

Don, 'sociological clap-trap'?? My oh my... ah, and in regards to 'puffed-up language', I happen to find the English language stimulating. Why use the same, boring words ad nauseum? I prefer a little variety in my life. But perhaps I should be cautious here... after all, I have just stated my opinion. And I'm not certain that I'm entitled to voice mine. :)

In short, people... if you dislike Inger's writing, fine. If you dislike the fact that she's thorough or verbose, that's fine too. You can even dislike her opinion. But a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Dislike what you will, but refrain from personal attacks simply because of those dislikes- or because she will stand up and voice her opinion and possibly disagree with yours. A right which, it appears, is only extended to a selected few.

Thank You,
Kerri
 
Aug 19, 2000
23
0
211
Although at this point I'm quite certain that my opinion or input is neither needed nor welcome, I do feel compelled to say something here. Just for the record. Having been Inger Sheil's research partner, co-author and friend for over 2 years now, I do feel I'm in a position to say that I know her much better than most of you posting here do.

What your opinions of Harold Lowe are is immaterial to me. Each person is entitled to his or her own, (and the world would be a dull place were we all to agree on everything!) which is why I haven't bothered to enter this 'debate' until now. However, you are no longer debating the merits and/or faults of Lowe. You have now launched a personal attack on Inger, simply because she has exercised the right to defend her opinions- a right which you insist on for yourselves, but seem unwilling to to extend to those who disagree with you.

As we all know, this is a public forum, which means that all are entitled to the same 'rights'. The simple fact that you may disagree with Inger's views do not justify a personal attack. You may not like her writing style. Neither does not merit a personal attack. Again, to each his own. But by engaging in personal attacks, you're only making yourselves look petty, mean-spirited and closed-minded. In 2 years of sometimes grueling schedules, overseas travel and the stress of home/family/job commitments, I have never found her to be ferocious or seen her exhibit a 'nasty temper' to anyone other than to those in her close, personal circle of friends and family. I don't think there's anyone here who can't say the same....

From a researcher's and writer's standpoint, I can assure you that neither Inger nor I dismiss any conduct of Lowe's which appear to be negative, and we would be lax if we did. Our goal is to present a well-rounded picture of the man, which is impossible to do if you categorize him as either a complete hero or a complete villain, as some people here have endeavored to do. And, well, if you feel our finished work will be 'useless', then that is your opinion which may or may not be shared by others.

So Frances, I will attest that Inger is not 'ferocious', and ask you why you accuse Inger of 'jumping' on people. She is defending her opinion, the same as you are defending yours. If she is guilty, then so are you. You have accusesd her of being antagonistic towards you for expressing her opinion. Are you not guilty of the same whenever she expresses hers?

Chris, one thought here... if it only took one person to 'dismantle' the L/F, then I suppose it wasn't a very strong organization, was it?!? In fact, all it took was for Inger and I to remove our material from their site upon parting ways with the L/F in general. Unfortunately, at that time the removal left very little of substance on the site, which is hardly our fault. Inger and I have 'moved on' from the L/F, and I'm glad to see that they have as well, and have continued working on their site.

Don, 'sociological clap-trap'?? My oh my... ah, and in regards to 'puffed-up language', I happen to find the English language stimulating. Why use the same, boring words ad nauseum? I prefer a little variety in my life. But perhaps I should be cautious here... after all, I have just stated my opinion. And I'm not certain that I'm entitled to voice mine. :)

In short, people... if you dislike Inger's writing, fine. If you dislike the fact that she's thorough or verbose, that's fine too. You can even dislike her opinion. But a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Dislike what you will, but refrain from personal attacks simply because of those dislikes- or because she will stand up and voice her opinion and possibly disagree with yours. A right which, it appears, is only extended to a selected few.

Thank You,
Kerri
 
F

Florence Mason Carr

Guest
All right so this is not going to stop. Well, fine. Let's keep arguing, then ok? If Miss Sheil and Kerri will notice in Frances Adler's original posts all she expressed was an opinion. It might have been forceful & argumentative but no more so than Sheil has been in the past. Adler did not characterize Lowe in one way only. She said he had a mean streak (an opinion)but she also said he was a hero (another opinion). That Sheil got called "ferocious" isn't surprising when one checks over all the previous posts when she was in heated debate w/ Behe & others. You ladies need to stop taking things to heart so much if you understand, as you say you do, that this is a public forum and that therefore people are going to say what they think of Lowe - & for that matter what they think of Sheil who has made herself so conspicuous in this matter of late that she can't be ignored. So people, do read over the above posts if you care to & you'll see that the person who appears to be on the attack is Sheil who just won't let this thing lie. I don't think the things other people have said mean they are against her & her work per se but they are tired (as I am) of the retoric and the constant contention that we're all just not seeing the light. Also, Adler made some very positive comments in one of her later posts declaring her support of Sheil's project despite her disagreement with Sheil. Sheil hasn't acknowledged this - I suppose because that doesn't require an argument.
 
L

Lili

Guest
Inger responded:

Shiel needs to remember the old line from Desiderata:

"Speak your truth clearly and quietly and listen to others."

I do indeed seek the opinion of others — this is one reason why I engage in debates in this forum
and in others.

----

Inger you are illustrating my point better than I ever could have. My point in the Desiderata quote was "listen"--seeking opinions of others and engaging in debates are not synonymous with listening. I think everyone recognizes that you have good information and insight to share but, if I may quote one other source, the artist Georgia O'keefe said one time, after reading a pile of mail from her admirers, "Oh God but they do go on so."

I think that is what people are trying to say to you. It isn't so much the content of your information regardless of differing opinions, but the fact that "you do go on so" that grates.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,639
801
563
Easley South Carolina
If I may, what's the problem with Inger "Going on so?" If her responses are long, it's because she makes her arguements on point and backs it up with the evidence she's found in her research. As Inger pointed out, she does listen. There's no way she could frame her responses as she has otherwise. Enough is enough already. This strand was supposed to be about Minahan vs Lowe. Shall we get back to that? Please?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
L

Lili

Guest
What's wrong with "going on so" is that it grates on people who want the good information that is being provided but they have to wade through so much to get it. That is a real problem to many people.
 
D

Don Bolling

Guest
And if I may, Inger Sheil has had time-a-plenty to express her opinion & she has done so and done so and done so and done so. I don't think she's sharing so much info - she's just got her own twist to the story. I mean guys this is about differing views. She can quote all the sources she wants to and it doesn't matter: different people reading them will come up with their own take on it. So please let's just let it go!
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
All right so this is not going to stop. Well, fine. Let's keep arguing, then ok?

Free translation: Let’s keep up the personal attacks ;-)

It might have been forceful & argumentative but no more so than Sheil has been in the past.

And yet these were the very qualities identified as characteristics of my writing - although it wasn't phrased as 'tactfully'.

If you’ll notice, I have never felt the need to denigrate either the writing or personality of anyone else in my responses. I also phrase my arguments carefully — I will say ‘I disagree’ and state why, rather than ‘You are wrong’ or ‘It is obvious…’

That Sheil got called "ferocious" isn't surprising when one checks over all the previous posts when she was in heated debate w/ Behe & others.

I note that you are resorting to generalities. Cite a specific instance where I have been ‘ferocious’.

You ladies need to stop taking things to heart so much if you understand, as you say you do, that this is a public forum and that therefore people are going to say what they think of Lowe - & for that matter what they think of Sheil who has made herself so conspicuous in this matter of late that she can't be ignored.

Interesting take on matters — the fact that I have chosen to actively pariticpate in debates means, therefore, that you believe others should absolutely free to make personal comments directed at me? I have my own views on the writing styles and personalities of others in this debate, but — as they’re irrelevant to the topic at hand — I keep them to myself.

So people, do read over the above posts if you care to & you'll see that the person who appears to be on the attack is Sheil who just won't let this thing lie.

In every instance, I have only replied to the posts that others have generated. I have responded specifically to points that have been raised. If you believe that I should be denied a right of reply to exchanges that others have initiated, by all means say so ;-)

I don't think the things other people have said mean they are against her & her work per se but they are tired (as I am) of the rhetoric and the constant contention that we're all just not seeing the light.

No, I’m simply addressing an entrenched interpretation of Harold Lowe in the Titanic canon. I will continue to respond to points raised — and note, once again, that respond is all that I have done.

Also, Adler made some very positive comments in one of her later posts declaring her support of Sheil's project despite her disagreement with Sheil. Sheil hasn't acknowledged this - I suppose because that doesn't require an argument.

That’s because Sheil did write a response, which unfortunately didn’t get posted when she thought it had ;-) I’ll go back and rewrite it now, as you’re so keenly interested.

Inger you are illustrating my point better than I ever could have. My point in the Desiderata quote was "listen"--seeking opinions of others and engaging in debates are not synonymous with listening.

You’ve missed the point entirely. One reason I engage in debates is not to convert — as I’ve mentioned in a recent exchange elsewhere, I appreciate an exchange because the interaction enables me to develop and modify my idea and concepts. My interpretation is not static — indeed, I started with the same simplistic conceptions of Lowe as many others. It was in response to the material Kerri and I uncovered in our research that we modified our initial views.

I’m willing to concede my initial ideas about the man, fostered by the extant Titanic literature, were off the mark — and I learned that by listening to people we interviewed and by reviewing new material.

I think everyone recognizes that you have good information and insight to share

And others apparently have no problem with my way of presenting it, because they appreciate that what I am doing is addressing points as fully as possible. If I were to trawl through all the material on this board and point out each writer I had objections to on the basis of style, there would be an entire swathe of posts on every thread.


I think that is what people are trying to say to you. It isn't so much the content of your information regardless of differing opinions, but the fact that "you do go on so" that grates.

Reread the posts and you’ll find that’s not the case — the comments have been far more personal than that, and couched in terms both aggressive and derogatory. Of course, there are also those who have no problem at all with my posts…

Inger
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
If I may, what's the problem with Inger "Going on so?" If her responses are long, it's because she makes her arguements on point and backs it up with the evidence she's found in her research. As Inger pointed out, she does listen. There's no way she could frame her responses as she has otherwise.

:) Thanks Michael — you’ve hit it on the head exactly. If you go back over my posts, you will note that I’m actually quite specific — I quote the section of the post I’m referring to in each point, and I respond to it.

Regards,

Inger
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
What's wrong with "going on so" is that it grates on people who want the good information that is being provided but they have to wade through so much to get it. That is a real problem to many people.

Sorry, but I’m not going to modify my style of response to suit you. If you don’t like it, feel free to scroll past anything I’ve written. I respond fully and specifically to each point I wish to agree or contend with, because the discourse of debate in popular history is far too often diminished to the glib and superficial. But you’re under no obligation to read or respond to me ;-)

Inger
 
L

Lili

Guest
And so I rest my case:

In the last few posts, she continues to "go on so" and she will continue to do it. She states it very plainly. And my original point was that she doesn't listen. She will do what she wants to in the way she wants to and that is that. The end. Finito.

Cheerio!
Lili
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
My belated response to this from Adler, as I’ve just realised my previous response was not sent:

As an editor I do not want to leave Ms. Sheil, obviously an inspired researcher who has admirably faced a daunting task of assembling facts on the life of a controversial figure, thinking that her efforts are not appreciated. An artist must at all costs be encouraged. Nothing is worse than feeling unappreciated.

Don’t worry too much about me feeling the need for encouragement or fear of feeling ‘unappreciated’ ;-) My editor has a few decades experience in the field, and I can turn to him with regards to either.

The story of Lowe is one that merits attention and I believe a book dealing honestly with his role in the Titanic disaster will be of inestimable value. She has I am sure the support of all those interested in Titanic and I urge for the benefit of history and the sake of scholarly research that writers and general enthusiasts alike will offer their services when and if needed so that Ms. Sheil can have the most and best evidence from which to base her findings.

Kerri and I have been fortunate enough to benefit not only from the support of families who had relatives involved in the disasters, but also historians, writers and researchers active in the field, and for that we feel deeply appreciative — most particularly to the author who wants to take our work to his own publishers. Of course, there are also the non-Titanic historians who have been kind enough to act as consultants in areas as diverse as the RNR, the allied intervention in the Russian civil war, mercantile marine history in the first few decades of the century, Welsh maritime history etc. Any study of Lowe’s life touches on a wide-ranging variety of subjects, and we have sought to consult with as many experts in as many fields as possible. We’ve sought material from individuals and archives around the world, so have a pretty broad base from which to draw data.

Ms. Sheil has my complete support in her continuing investigation and I repeat that I wish her the best of luck

Taking that in the spirit with which it was intended, I thank you for your support ;-)

Inger
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
And so I rest my case:

In the last few posts, she continues to "go on so" and she will continue to do it. She states it very plainly. And my original point was that she doesn't listen. She will do what she wants to in the way she wants to and that is that. The end. Finito.


Hmmm…you accuse me of ‘not listening’ (i.e. I don’t concur with your view of the style and intent of my posts, ergo I’m ‘not listening’), but not only do you not listen to my responses, you don’t address any of the points I have raised — preferring, once again, to resort to generalities. I respond specifically to specific points, and all you can muster is an accusation of ‘going on’. And yes, I will continue to participate in this debate and write and respond as I consider appropriate — after all, style is a matter of opinon too ;-)

Inger
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
And if I may, Inger Sheil has had time-a- lenty to express her opinion & she has done so and done so and done so and done so. I don't think she's sharing so much info - she's just got her own twist to the story. I mean guys this is about differing views. She can quote all the sources she wants to and it doesn't matter: different people reading them will come up with their own take on it. So please let's just let it go!

Lolol! Don, you’re going to have to forgive me for getting a bit of a chuckle out of this one. You state that I haven’t ‘shared so much info’ in your opinion... and yet your sole contribution to this debate has been to attack me. I might not have ‘shared so much info’, but you’ve shared none at all!

Oh...and not all the sources I've shared have been in the public domain.

All the best,
Inger
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
29
323
Dear Inger,

Re: Lowe/Duff Gordon

Have you read my questions on the above?

I apologize for posting these publicly - especially in the midst of messages of such a different kind - but there was no e-mail address posted in your messages that I could find. You may certainly personally e-mail me your reply if you wish this to be private. I realize you've been busy answering the others.

Good luck in your work and if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully,

Randy
 

Don

Member
Feb 20, 1998
6
0
211
I don't have to share info, Inger. I'm not the one writing a "book." But I can read and share what I think and I'm satisfied that you just like to hear yourself blab. But that's ok; it's your right. Blab on baby!

PS)It's ok your getting a chuckle - I think your a riot too.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
Sorry, Randy -

I'll draft up a response to you immediately and send it privately, so it doesn't get swamped :)

Regards,

Inger
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
I don't have to share info, Inger. I'm not the one writing a "book." But I can read and share what I think and I'm satisfied that you just like to hear yourself blab. But that's ok; it's your right. Blab on baby!

:) Absolutely — everyone can read and share what they think, and they certainly don’t need to back up their opinions with material…of course, if they don’t do so, then they can’t really be taken too seriously. And, as you’ve offered nothing to support your vague opinions and generalities, you’ll have to fogive me for questioning just what insight you’ve brought into the discussion regarding Harold Lowe. As Cook pointed out above — sniping at people furthers nothing in this debate, and that’s all you’ve done.

PS)It's ok your getting a chuckle - I think your a riot too.

While I can’t say it matters too much to me whether you find it okay for me to have a chuckle at your expense, as I’ll have one regardless, I’m delighted that we’re affording one another mutual amusement ;-)

Inger
 

Similar threads

Similar threads