Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-12 > 1040177564

From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial ...
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:12:44 GMT
References: <>

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:50:38 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

[much snipping]

>I apologized publicly for leaving out a footnote that was originally placed
>upfront giving Mr. Baldwin credit for the material that introduced an article
>by another scholar -- an idea that fascinated me about the transmission of
>knowledge through the lost books of Tacitus. One apology seems to be not
>enough, as the subject has to be brought up again and again. Mr. Baldwin
>_was_ credited and acknowledged as the originator of the material later in
>the article and I agreed wholeheartedly that the missing footnote should have
>been placed at the very beginning of the article.

Utterly false, as will be obvious to anyone who reads the article. I
was mentioned later in the article (in connection with unauthorized
material of mine that was quoted at a later point), but nowhere was it
mentioned that I wrote the earlier material on which the introduction
was based.

>... The problem arose when Mr.
>Baldwin refused permission to reprint the entire post and in order to use the
>later material, I had to rewrite the beginning paragraphs. It was a clumsy
>and botched attempt, I admitted, but there was no criminal intent and no one
>was harmed by my personal editorial blunder -- which was the only one of its
>kind in ten years of publication!
>It is not my intention to repeat any such error. The error was directly
>caused by Paul Reed's trying to intimidate me into agreeing not to quote of
>paraphrase anything that he of Stewart Baldwin wrote on the forum.

As a point in fact (also easily checked), the incident involving the
article in question (from the April 1999 issue of TPC) was BEFORE the
agreement made between you and Paul in early 2000 (and then reneged on
by you two years later when you concocted the slander that Paul had
intimidated you into the agreement). Thus, there is no possibility
that an agreement that had not yet happened could have affected your
handling of a situation several months earlier.

Endless lies, repeated vicious slander against respected members of
this forum, ridiculous phony excuses for past bad behavior that are so
lacking in cleverness that they even transpose the actual order of
past events, using things that had not happened yet as excuses for
earlier misdeeds. Is it any wonder that it has been suggested that
you call it quits?

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: