dorsetandchub
Well-known member
Cliff,
Have you actually read anything I've written? Would it help if I typed it more slowly or in capitals?
I don't have to write anything off as lies, they simply don't prove anything other than, probably, MG was in the UK. Fine, all good. As I've told you on a dozen occasions, disproving Paul Selman, even disproving completely the Canadian case does NOT prove the British case.
Again, as I've said a dozen times, on the balance of probability the fish ARE British but is that established beyond any and all reasonable doubt? Not to my mind and, by extension, clearly not in the minds of a good many others on here.
Again, pointed out multiple times, I appreciate MG was your friend and I didn't know him but he COULD and SHOULD have made all this unnecessary by keeping accurate records of his captures. He didn't do that. Fail.
As for a "Met Office corroborated diary", that is, frankly, laughable. It's as much evidence as I am a Nun. I'm guessing he didn't take his own weather person around every time he went fishing? So, the weather is "passed fit" by the Met Office? Great. Could have been written anywhere with a weather description gleaned from (showing my age in the pre internet age) the World Service or a quick phone call home. No matter, again it doesn't prove anything.
Diaries say only what the writer wants them to say. I can remember the National press queueing up to purchase the Jack The Ripper and Adolf Hitler diaries. It's possible MG wrote those because, as history records, Jack and Ze Fuhrer never did!!
IF the following occurrence took place and, note, I say IF, and I raise this because others have done so prior to this point. His 50lb fish was claimed at 48lb to make it more believable, more sellable. To remove weight from a fish is as inaccurate and wrong as adding weight. If we are to keep records for a complete history of carp fishing then those records MUST be as accurate as possible otherwise why do it?
Last year, I was very fortunate to catch a 9lb 7oz barbel, my best. I could have added a few ounces and called it my first double but I would never, ever dream of doing that. I wanted to share it with the other guys on here and I will not share a lie.
You're the editor of what is, in effect, an angling magazine. If one of your reporters massaged the facts like that to make a story more believable, I would expect disciplinary action to be taken.
So, we're back to the question of the level of proof. As I've said previously, many times, the level of proof I personally require is that of the Crown Court, "beyond all reasonable doubt", yours would would appear to be "balance of probability" - simply not enough for me, sorry.
There are enough "well known" anglers who have shown characteristics unbecoming of men fortunate enough to have been afforded a living, often a good living, through this fantastic sport. I'm not placing MG in that category but I AM saying that that is why I demand the level of proof I do to establish the veracity of a claimed fish.
Some more interesting phrases you've used, "us in this camp" and "intellectual wall" or something similar. I'd have thought, as an editor, you'd be interested in established facts, verifying and researching. I have raised a great many points and questions that both you and Eddie have ignored, I would guess, because you can't answer them. It's not a personal thing, I happen to think, as I've said, that Eddie is a good guy and that you are too but you MUST, you are duty bound to explore ALL aspects of this story which you haven't done. You make huge capital of Paul Selman's testimony and how wrong the Carp Society were in their treatment of MG but you make NO mention of the fact that he had a huge beef with them, with modern carp fishing per se and that there was every possibility his behaviour was affected by that disagreement.
You brush away people's concerns when, on multiple occasions, evidence is requested but cannot be produced, often with poor excuses for such. That would not persuade me to have printed this story, far from it.
Finally, intellectual wall or whatever? I'm guessing you're questioning my intellect? Disagreeing with you must mean my intellect is insufficient? Do two Bachelor's, a Master's and a Doctorate of Letters with twenty years of examining medieval and post medieval documents belong to an idiot? I'm a Liverpool lad and idiots get drowned in buckets back there. Ma never raised any eejits.
If you're so certain of your evidence, let's agree the fish was over the then British record weight. Put your evidence in front of Mr Phil Smith and the BRFC. If they acknowledge the fish as a new "record", based on what they read, I'll do your washing up for a week.
That said, by your own admission, you'll never prove the authenticity of MG's claims, never prove the fish were English so you've shifted the goalposts to attacking Paul Selman. Fine, do that all you like but don't do it thinking or hoping it will pull the wool over my eyes because it won't.
There ARE too many wonky donkeys in this horse race, too many unanswered questions, too much non-produced evidence.
It's largely down to level of proof, our levels simply differ. Have to agree to disagree, I guess.
