Senan is a professional writer, but - knowing both the man and his work very well - I can assure Paul that Senan is not trying to 'raise hackles' or be patronising. I read his tone very differently. Having debated Californian issues at length with him, in an often very animated manner, I have found him very passionate about the subject but also willing to acknowledge the validity of my position on the subject.
I've asked Senan point blank in the past as to whether he believes that the Californian did see the Titanic rockets that night. He has told me that he believes this is the case, and his response to how the Californian's officers and Captain responded, why they responded as they did and how is one of the more interesting aspects of Senan's theories and interpretations on the subject.
I don't believe that 'arguing that Titanic didn't see Californian is specious, facile and irrelevant' (and that particular string of adjectives isn't conducive to conducting a constructive discussion in this oft-volatile controversy). While I disagree with Senan on many of his ideas on the Californian, he has raised some interesting points regarding this and forced me to reconsider some of my own formerly very strongly held views on whether the mystery ship seen from the Titanic was the Californian. While I don't believe that the theoretical presance of another ship means that the Californian's officers were any less culpable for failing to either recognise or respond appropriately to the unfolding situation, I believe our focus on the Californian should not cause us to ignore the potential culpabilityof others.
As I've stated before, the vehemance of the rhetoric on this subject - the ad hominems, denigration of the protagonists (both historical and those still fighting the battle), and the tactics used by both sides - have caused me to steer clear of the subject. Senan in particular has fallen victim to some serious sledging. But, although he and I have very different views on the issue, I can offer an example of how he has approached the Californian debate.
Recently, while Senan was reviewing the draft MS for my own work, he came across a specific statement I attributed to Harold Lowe regarding the vessel seen from the Titanic. He challenged my attribution of this viewpoint to Lowe, and pointed out that the statement appeared no where in Lowe's testimony at either inquiry. Unfortunately Senan didn't have the chapter notes in front of him in which my source was referenced: an unpublished affidavit from Lowe that elaborated on the Fifth Officer's observations of the other vessel. I transcribed and sent all the relative material to Senan, who acknowledged that I was correct in my statement of what Lowe said that he had seen.
Some of this material was helpful to Lord's case, some of it was unhelpful. Senan suggested to me that I publish the statement in its entirety as an appendix, as he thought it an important contribution to the debate, regardless of whether it was helpful or harmful to the Californian's defenders.
I don't know if you've ever had the opportunity to meet Senan, Paul, but if you do I think you would very much enjoy discussing the Californian controversy with him, even if you find yourselves in disagreement on every point. I've hashed it out with him in pubs, living rooms, over his family dining table and during the small a.m. hours of Titanic conventions, and have never failed to enjoy it, even when we utterly differed.
Richard, Senan doesn't frequent this forum. You may need to address any queries or comments you have to make to him off-board.
