The book Lusitania Saga and Myth by David Ramsay

[Michael H. Standart]

>>if geoff didn't want to help me find the mistakes in "The Lusitania Story" Passanger list than he could have atleast told me so, for not responding at all is worst that giving someone the answer they dont want.<<

Errrrrr....Jesse...what is the assumption being made here? That somebody is in some fashion answerable to you in matters of sharing information? Be assured, nobody is, and slams such as what you posted above aren't very helpful for you either. Remember the old saying that one catches more flies with honey then vinegar??? Why then are you using vinegar?

I've known Geoff On-line for nearly four years now, and had the pleasure of meeting the man in person at one of the dinners that Phil Gowan hosted. The man is generous to a fault and is as kind hearted as they come.

>>and im still of the opinion that Ramsay is very good alternative to Bailey & Ryan, and possibly even better.<<

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you might want to take some time to actually get to know something about the people you're dealing with befor you pan them. The Sauder Brothers are among the top liner historians in the business and are among those on the list of people to interview for documentaries for just that reason, and Geoff Whitfield's research of that passenger list, and his tireless work with the BTS to make the Atlantic Daily Bullitin the highly respected publication that it is (Among other things), IMO, speaks for itself.

I can't stop you from holding a grudge, but don't expect a lot of sympathy from the members on this list as you're not about to get it when you in essence "Cop a attitude" like this.

>>I am doing my own research. i do not consider getting expert's opinion to be childish, but simplying confirming it or discarding it as accurate. i can't say im riding coat tails, im doing my own research, mainly into black funnels and aluminum powder.<<

Okay...how much time are you spending in libraries, newspaper morgues and some dusty archives in the Public Records repositories on both...or even one...side of the ocean? How many passneger lists and port records have you gone through to sort out fact from fiction? How many survivors and reletives of survivors have you interviewed and how many photos have you been able to obtain from some really obscure sources?

If that strikes you as being a lot of hard work, then all I can say is "Damned right it is!" Eric and Geoff have done that. I wish you the best in your own research, but you'll do well not to burn your bridges with an in-your-face sort of approach such as what you've used above. The people you honk off now may well be the friends you need later on. If you don't believe me, check out the acknowladgements section of any really well researched book on any historical subject. The list of names and offices is a long one.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

I hope Jesse takes the advice he's given and doesn't go off thinking we here are just being bullies because that isn't the intention of any of the remarks that have been made above. I am sure that we all can remember what it was like to be in our early 20s, an age at which we believed we had a grasp on all there was to learn (I know I thought I did!).

Networking in this community can be a very gratifying and rewarding thing, Jesse - not just for the fruits of research that can be gleaned but for the friendships that can be had. The way to win trust is to give it.

Perhaps, to show good faith, you can share a little nugget of information with a fellow researcher. It will show him - or her - that you are sincere and serious in your work and "standing on your own," as it were. That researcher, if he or she is "above board," will remember you and will likely reciprocate.

I believe in helping others in their work and have done so throughout the years of my involvement in this genre of study. In return, I have been aided by a great many people - among them Geoff Whitfield, to whom I am indebted not just for his help but his friendship.

So, remember you can really make invaluable allies of those in this community. But beware - the way is slippery for, since it is a small community, you can also make unshakable enemies.

My advice is to start now to smooth the seas so that your path will not be impeded.

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Michael & Randy

I apologise for what i said about Geoff. I Admit it was wrong. Unfortunately though, time machines have not yet been invented, so i can't change the past.

As for riding Coat Tails. well in my opinion all historians ride coat tails to some degree. to what degree is something only that person can control.

As for advice, yes I'll keep it in mind and try to follw it.

And for proving independent research. well that might take a year or two, maybe more or less, depends on how it takes me to finish my paper on the subject of black funnels, if you look in the thread started by me on the subject, you'll see who inspired me to do the research and also who suggested it.

 

[Colleen Collier]

>>>I apologise for what i said about Geoff.<<< Only 1/2 an apology???
You said some insulting comments to Eric, that many of us don't take lightly. In this close knit community, I am of the opinion that an apology is equally due to him, but it's your choice.
Either way, those that have done many serious years of research, a little research, dabbled into the events to seek greater understanding, descendants of those on board, and even those that have only lurked on this message board and do not wish to get into a debate here, will still be around if/when you make your debut on your findings.
Good luck on your endevore(s).

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

colleen

while i support that the idea that all historians are coat tail riders, i still find it offensive to call someone that, i therefore think me and eric are even in my opinion.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>As for riding Coat Tails. well in my opinion all historians ride coat tails to some degree.<<

If you mean by that, that they build up on the works of others, you would to a certain extant, be right. I've never heard anyone say otherwise. Still, this isn't the issue. The issue is one of doing the research for yourself rather they rely (or demand/pressure) somebody to just hand over the fruits of their research to others. Both Eric and Geoff have done the legwork at a considerable expence in time, effort, and money, and they went to a lot of trouble to check the facts to make sure they really are facts.

This is far from simply riding on somebody's coat tails.

I had a taste of some of this myself when I got together with Tracy Smith and Erik Wood to put together an article on the Californian mess that was published on ET research. We weren't really trying to break any new ground or change anyone's opinions on Captain Lord per se. What we were interested in doing was injecting a little bit of unpleasant reality on the matter of whether or not Lord and Co. could have actually effected a "Saved many if not all" sort of rescue. Putting this article together involved four months of research through primary and secondary source material, a number of revisions, and some behind the scenes critiquing by a couple of chums to make sure we had something worth publishing that was reasonably...though not completely...free from errors in fact. (Inevitably, a few creep in and some matters of opinion will forever remain controversial.)

Now try to imagine what it is to try and do this to get a entire book together that'll be a serious, accurate, and worthy addition to the historical record and which will better enable readers to understand the events in question. It's a tough road to travel, which Eric and Geoff have gone over.

You'll be traveling that same highway if your research is going to bear any fruit. When you do, you will, I hope, better understand why your comments got more then just a few people riled up.

'Nuff said.

 

[Eric Sauder]

Jesse:

I don’t plan to spend much time on this because it’s simply not worth it. I have better things to do. What I said was: ”You can’t always ride the coattails of those who have come before you.” The operative word in that sentence was “always.” And I completely stand by my statement.

Yes, I agree that all historians build on the work of those who came before — just as I did when I started about twenty-five years ago. The problem is that most people on the internet have an attitude of “you need to give me what you have” and never do their own research. I wish I could count the number of times that information and opinions that I posted were taken and used by someone else — without even changing the wording — and passed off as their own work.

As far as I knew, until your post of 18 February at 1:05 am, you were not doing your own research and actually were riding the coattails of Geoff, etc. You asked a lot of questions and didn’t offer anything in return. A sure sign of a coattail rider. You have now told us that you're doing your own research, and I have to believe that what you say is true.

And by “research” I mean not simply reading a book or asking someone more knowledgeable a question or browsing an internet discussion list and regurgitating the information. I mean, as Michael Standart very rightly pointed out, going to archives here and overseas, digging through dusty old ledger books and newspaper morgues, and spending hundreds of hours and entire “vacations” to find some previously unknown information or source. Not to mention spending a fair bit of cash in doing so. If you’re doing this type of research, I’m very glad to hear it and I look forward to your published papers.

You also wrote: “i do not consider getting expert's opinion to be childish….”

Nor do I. There are many people better qualified than I to whom I frequently go for their advice and counsel and to ask questions. No one person can do it all. But reread what I wrote:

“For you to hold a grudge against him for not giving you what you want is simply childish.”

It was not asking his opinion that I found childish, it was your holding a grudge because he didn’t give you what you wanted within whatever time frame you had set. As for Geoff not writing back, I can’t say one way or the other, but what I can say is that perhaps you didn’t give him enough time. Or perhaps his life got in the way, which happens once in a while. There are many reasons that he may not have answered. Do you know for a fact that he even got the e-mail?

Something that one shouldn’t do, though, is bite the hand that gives information.

To close this post (which once again turned out to be longer than expected), I’d like to thank those who have posted to this thread on my behalf and in my defense. I’ll be writing to each of you as soon as I can.

Eric Sauder

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Jesse,

No apology is needed for myself or Michael. The apology that ought to be forthcoming is one to be given to Geoff Whitfield and to Eric Sauder. By the way, it should be noted that Eric mainly posted to this thread to defend Geoff, which shows the capacity for friendship, fairness and unselfishness to which I was referring when I mentioned the high calibre level of researchers in this field.

Randy

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Hello. sorry if this is coming late. but ive been out of town for a little bit, i was up in the NYC Area. for a number of reasons, a double wedding, visit some relatives here and there, some libraries, and other institutions where i know people, who can give any researcher an advantage, this is not to say they did the research for me, but they picked out the documents and articles i would need for it. besides that i talked to uncle (who is a chemist) about Ramsay's claim on aluminum powder, according to him while the claims are true, they are over stated to a large degree. of course i can't reveal the names of anyone, for obvious reasons. but anyway, enough of that, and now to the point.

Sorry Eric and Geoff. What I said was wrong. I suppose I wasn't thinking at the time.