|
Post by sue75 on Oct 12, 2012 20:15:01 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 13, 2012 11:11:06 GMT -5
Thanks Sue. Nice to see Koehler getting this kind of tribute!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 13:52:36 GMT -5
Sue, Thanks for the heads-up on the new book. I will want to read it. I know how controversial rail 16 is for so many who look into this case. I shall have to check if this can be preordered through Amazon. Like Joe says, it is a nice tribute to Arthur Koehler.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 13, 2012 15:40:45 GMT -5
I had the opportunity to consult with Adam on the book, I hope it accurately represents Koehler. I have to admit, I was a little tough on the ole wood expert.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 25, 2013 19:07:36 GMT -5
The Sixteenth Rail has been out for weeks now.
But where is the credit given to Ronelle Delmont?
Authors have STOLEN information from her board for YEARS, and then don't give her credit!
Real nice!
Her board has a WEALTH of information on it, and authors steal left and right from the site, never giving Ronelle credit.
Real nice!
And I'm tired of this case being a MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETY for the KNOWN authors in this case. Is this case really about you pat my ass, then I'll pat yours?
It's the same old sentimental slop in the Acknowledgments section of each Lindbergh kidnapping case book!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2013 19:52:14 GMT -5
I have the book and wanted to finish it before I weighed in. I am currently on page 56 and have nothing but praise at this point. Sue, I do think you have to be careful in assuming anything was "ripped off" from Ronelle - or anyone else. That's a serious accusation. There is tons of information on her site (I haven't even myself seen everything there), and I recommend it often - but I also recommend books and the NJSP Archives (among others). Certain Authors may see information, use it, then credit the source they've seen instead of the source you may have seen first. For example: Take the NOVA production. They may have seen Ronelle's site, I don't know, but I do know they were at the NJSP Archives because I saw them while I was researching there myself. So, from my own eyewitness observation, absolutely no one could accuse them of stealing from anyone else because they were doing 1st hand primary research directly at the source for all information. That doesn't mean it can't be found anywhere else, but it does mean they cannot be accused of stealing from that other source - because if they were that would be very incorrect.
So as a word of caution, because something exist in one place doesn't mean it does not elsewhere. And if it does, how would we know which place was seen first? Perhaps you do, and have proof of it?
I do know that I have to thank many people for the help they've given me. Ronelle would be on the top of my list, as well as both you and Steve - and many many others. I also, in fact, owe gratitude to each and everyone who has ever posted on this Board and others for the benefit of their perspectives, challenges, ideas, and personal research. But of course I've done 13 years of research now, so if someone asked me a question, and I answered it - it would be impossible to thank the thousands of people who assisted me over the years at the cost of answering the question. I often do refer them to other sources, like I said above, but what they choose to do, or not do - is not up to me.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 26, 2013 12:19:08 GMT -5
When someone puts information on the Internet, it then becomes Public Domain.
Up for the grabbing!
And if you haven't noticed lately, Michael, human nature sucks.
I've experienced that in this case and elsewhere.
I'm sure if you got honest, you would too, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2013 15:51:26 GMT -5
I just have no idea what this is all about.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 26, 2013 17:09:18 GMT -5
You are discounting me by admonishing me to "be careful" or using phrases like "a word of caution."
I never try to diminish someone's experiences.
And I don't say things unless I believe them to be so.
But I will end it here because I think you would refute anything further that I would write.
So why waste my time.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 26, 2013 17:11:37 GMT -5
Just wondering --
Why is the female sign on all my posts?
I never indicated one way or the other.
Why does the gender sign not appear on other posts here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2013 18:25:47 GMT -5
You are discounting me by admonishing me to "be careful" or using phrases like "a word of caution." I never try to diminish someone's experiences. Exactly where have I " diminished your experiences?" I have not. You claimed the Author ripped off Ronelle. What does that have to do with experiences? That isn't an experience. I have no doubt you believe it to be true, but I was searching for something - anything - as proof for it. You asked me to be honest. If you make sense I will say so. But I will also be honest about where I don't think you do. I cannot only be honest in some places (where you happen to like it) but not be when you disagree with it. Just wondering --Why is the female sign on all my posts? I never indicated one way or the other. Why does the gender sign not appear on other posts here? Frankly, I am wondering why you'd ask me that. I could care less what gender, race, ethnicity, or age ANYONE is. I certainly didn't put it there, and absolutely no one is hacking this page. I have changed a few Avatars for some Members but you were not one of them. So my guess is you did unknowingly/accidentally put it there - it's not a difficult thing to do. Anyway, if anyone is interested in the wood angle of this case, when I am finished with this book I will give an honest opinion. So far, in my opinion, its terrific.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 29, 2013 11:58:45 GMT -5
I NEVER indicated that I was a female or male.
Once you verbally speak an idea, (Arcadia is the hint, Michael) it's up for the grabbing.
Pass the idea off to someone else you'd RATHER give the assignment to.
Are you omniscient that you would know whether or not any author ever stole information off the Internet from Ronelle?
The ONLY one who is omniscient is God Almighty.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2013 20:54:27 GMT -5
Okay well I didn't do it, you didn't do it, and Security hasn't logged on since the new version of ProBoards was implemented. Some of the things carried over from the old version too... I changed a few Member Avatars because I do not like how the default makes everyone look the same. That's it. I never touched yours at all - ever. Whatever is going on there has to do with something you did or did not do. IDK but I think this is getting a little silly. As to this other stuff I still do not get it. If I think someone did anything wrong I would say so. Believe me I would. Once you verbally speak an idea, (Arcadia is the hint, Michael) it's up for the grabbing. Pass the idea off to someone else you'd RATHER give the assignment to. (Sue) Anytime you share your thoughts someone else might use them. However, its also a possibility that someone else might have similar ideas without knowing yours, or even perhaps, had them before you did. Are you omniscient that you would know whether or not any author ever stole information off the Internet from Ronelle? The ONLY one who is omniscient is God Almighty. (Sue) This is a great point Sue. But why are you assigning it to me? I am not the one who made an assertion. I merely offered up possible explanations to the one you made. And so I would say this applies to you - not me. Think about it. Are you omniscient that you would know whether or not any author ever stole information off the Internet from Ronelle? By your own argument no - only "God almighty is." So why are you making it and why are you mad at me for offering an alternate view?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 30, 2013 11:18:17 GMT -5
I'll probably get accused of crying sourgrapes, but I can site MANY examples of thievery in this case.
Why was it that when I asked Arcadia if ANYONE was doing a pictorial back in 2011 that they reassured me 3 times that no one was doing it?
Christ, I didn't want to waste my time if someone else was doing it?!
Arcadia has been around since 1993!!! No one was doing ANYTHING on the Lindbergh kidnapping! They selected those other 2 guys because they are ESTABLISHED authors!
That's why.
But the idea originated with me.
So, I'm sick of deferring to people in this case as if they are the be all and end all of the Lindbergh case.
I really DO think the Lindbergh kidnapping case is a good-old-boys network. And if you work for the State of New Jersey, well, of course, you're going to be loyal to the one who signs your paycheck!
I find obscure, interesting stuff relating to this case because I'm not a Lindbergh case researcher frumpfart.
But continue to give the nod to people who have established reputations for being experts in the case.
I wouldn't be writing this, Michael, if I did not have this experience.
And I have documentation as to what transpired.
So please don't insult me by trying to change the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2013 16:08:09 GMT -5
Sue: Don't defer to anyone. Why would you?
As for everything else I completely disagree with it. I know that some of these Publishers publish what comes their way. To suggest that anyone who wrote a book stole YOUR idea just isn't rational. I am trying to be sensitive but I also at the same time don't want to blow smoke either. When I first went through the picture file at the NJSP Headquarters I remember telling everyone at the Archives myself that someone should do a picture book. Had you contacted Arcadia in 2000 or 2001? It's something that isn't unique, wasn't unique, and I would be completely nuts if I thought someone didn't have the idea before I did. This Case has been around since 1932. Anyone who has done any amount of Research, I am quite sure, thought up just about everything that has - or has not - been written.
You cannot swing first then ask questions later.
But if you believe you have documentation that the Publisher pitched YOUR idea to someone else then take them to Court. Don't slam each and everyone who's written a book since because you are upset about what you believe happened to you.
Or do whatever you want, I just can't respond to it anymore.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 31, 2013 20:36:13 GMT -5
Hummm...Did the rain and thunder stop...? What ever that was I want you both to know how important you are to this discussion board. Have you recently read the new information on my thread that may have linked CAL to Red Johnson simply by knowing CAL flew into Hartford Connecticut on March 5th 1932? I have to remind myself that it's not the information that is already out there that will help solve this case, otherwise we would all have the answer by now. It's going to come from the information that we haven't seen yet. Ronelle's website is unbelievably wonderful...and so is this discussion board. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by ronelle on Aug 3, 2013 6:09:11 GMT -5
Sue, While trying to figure out how to use this board last week I came across info regarding how to turn on or off the gender option here. I did not read the info but evidently it can be turned off - I don't blame you for being concerned about gender recognition (mostly men posting here evidently) but you can turn it off although you'd still have to change your name. In other words, it isn't being imposed on you by anyone in particular - (if that's what you meant) but just the way this board is set up. I think it is an awful idea to require gender recognition on any board though. I can't imagine why this one is set up that way.
|
|
|
Post by ronelle on Aug 3, 2013 6:58:39 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying about having THOUGHT about a picture book way back in 2000 but, Michael, you didn't do anything about that thought. No one, evidently, did anything about that thought. Sue DID! Many people must have had the very same idea. It was, and still is, in spite of the publication of that book, a great idea. But, after presenting it to Arcadia they suddenly came out with a book exactly as Sue proposed with authors who, unlike herself, had "name" recognition. Many people I am certain, must have had that same idea but you have to admit that it is "funny" that such a book got published (by the same company) as soon as someone (Sue) started doing something to make it happen. Welcome to the world of publishing, Michael!! You, of all people here, really do know what Sue is talking about, in spite of your arguments against her complaints, because, from what I can tell by visiting here very sporadically, you have not divulged very much of your own theories here. And you are very wise not to!! In spite of your antagonism towards what Sue is saying, I think you probably do understand very well what happened to her. And obviously you must fear the same thing happening to you. It is every author's nightmare. Otherwise you'd have told everyone here all about your ideas and your research and your theory. So far as I can tell you are claiming to have solved the entire case with documentation that will "buckle our knees" yet you have managed not to reveal any of it here. I'm only asking you - Why do you do that if you don't understand Sue? Because, you will become the next "Sue" if you are not careful. So, don't condemn her for her feelings. She acted on her ideas and got hurt by being naive and unfamiliar with the publishing world. Her story ought to scare everyone on this board from ever revealing anything they ever plan to do in publishing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2013 8:47:13 GMT -5
Hi Ronelle.
I think you are missing my point. I may not have acted on it but someone else did. To even hint that either of them pilfered "Sue's idea" is an injustice.
I've had unique material stolen. My solution wasn't to attack people who had nothing to do with it. Additionally, what I've found is in the Archives. So I don't have a leg to stand if someone goes there and finds the same sources I have then uses them. I couldn't then rant and rave about how my ideas were stolen.
Obviously Sue had an idea and she attempted to follow through on that idea. But that same idea has ALWAYS existed, therefore, it is not unique and cannot be her's exclusively. Next, if Sue believes the Publisher told her to start writing, then while doing so, pitched her idea to someone else then told her to stop writing because they gave it to another Author - that issue is with the Publisher. It is NOT with ANYONE else, to include people who come out with new books. Do you agree Sue should be smearing Schrager's new book? It's unjustified and irrational.
I've watched these posts and accusations devolve since and it frightens me. There are plenty of links Sue has posted her that I had visited prior. Am I going to be smeared once my book comes out under the Specter of having stolen her information? I've actually been to some of the Archives, or in communication with the Archivist there that these links are to. Yet, the writing is on the wall here for this to occur.
Part of my problem is that I've attempted to be Diplomatic when I suppose I shouldn't have been. So I'll say for the last time: If the Publisher did something underhanded then I do sympathize, but again, I do not agree with retaliating for this perceived injustice by and through these tactics.
|
|