I am putting this here due to the fact that this involves denialism of facts obtained.
http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 851#p30851Linda Leach wrote:More information, shoddily presented ... with an agenda which is oozing around the edges. Lets look at this for example.... with my comments in red.
ttownsendbrown.com
"The information of Brown not graduating High School comes from an alumni information card, from 1938, that "he" filled out in his own handwriting that indicated that he "did not" finish High School. ( Essentially correct as my Dad would be quick to say. But there is no mention of WHY he did not finish at Hill School. So there is a hole in the HUTS precious "due diligence" that you can drive a truck through.) This is "hard" evidence, this is considered "factual" evidence when someone is researching information where a biography of a person is being performed. ( Absolutely correct. But you have to have ALL of the evidence before you form any conclusions)This was done as due-diligence of facts reported in the book "Defying Gravity" by Paul Schatzkin.( Absolutely and he was correct and so far Paul Schatzkins Biography of my Dad is the best Biography of him so far presented. Even unedited it is better than most out there and well worth the reading. I would suggest that those on the HUT who haven't read Paul Schatzkins book... avail themselves of a copy. It would help with their research.)
Secondly, a letter written by Lewis Brown, Townsend's Father, in the late summer early fall of 1921, indicates that due to "issues" with his son from the previous year at School, he would not be returning. ( Absolutely. My Grandfather had spent alot of money for the education experience that his son got at HILL. He was disappointed in the school being closed and the students sent home. He thought that Doane Academy was closer...those were the only "issues" he was addressing.")
Interesting how when reporting what he likes to call " Facts" the writer at the HUT overides his own need for Due Diligence in his agenda driven attempt to paint his own picture of the events when he doesn't even know what was actually happening. The reader might get the impression that there was some sort of " problem" with Townsend Browns performance or attitude at Hill school? Thats the innuendo left behind by this slipshod and agenda driven piece of information from the HUT. It won't stand.
Linda
Let's do this one at a time:
1.
Essentially correct as my Dad would be quick to say. But there is no mention of WHY he did not finish at Hill School. So there is a hole in the HUTS precious "due diligence" that you can drive a truck through.The reason is fairly well spelled out in the letter written by Lewis Brown...Townsend was a bad boy. What it is he did was not spelled out specifically but in reading the letter, it is apparent that the scrivener and the reader knew exactly what the "incident" was. If it were due to an outbreak, why wouldn't he have mentioned such instead of referring to it in an oblique manner? If a truck can be driven through then it would be a Matchbox truck.
2.
Absolutely correct. But you have to have ALL of the evidence before you form any conclusionsThis comment is preposterous in that it implies that a quantifiable amount of information is available. When a person performs an investigation, they acquire information. Results are formulated based upon the information found. So far, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that he did not finish High School and that "something" happened at the Hill School. IF you have more evidence then present it otherwise your inaction implies that you are hiding something. It is so easy to criticize the evidence that others find out but what you should do is provide evidence that contradicts the evidence or reinforces your position, otherwise, your comments are....like a bag of empty shells.....you castigate but offer nothing substantial other than your criticisms. When more "hard" evidence comes forth then this position will be corrected as it would be for any information in the Due-Diligence section. You criticize facts so much but offer nothing to counter, the conclusion is that you are either hot air or a bag of empty shells...or both.
3.
Absolutely and he was correct and so far Paul Schatzkins Biography of my Dad is the best Biography of him so far presented. Even unedited it is better than most out there and well worth the reading. I would suggest that those on the HUT who haven't read Paul Schatzkins book... avail themselves of a copy. It would help with their research.And I would recommend to anyone who reads the book and when finished, read the Due-Diligence done here and see there are inaccuracies that were provided to Paul by anonymous individuals and by Elizabeth Helen Drake. And when done, ask yourself how many other "things" are there that a preponderance of evidence can be applied to counter facts presented? There are several....quite a few in fact.
4.
Absolutely. My Grandfather had spent alot of money for the education experience that his son got at HILL. He was disappointed in the school being closed and the students sent home. He thought that Doane Academy was closer...those were the only "issues" he was addressingLet's look at it from your point of view. Lewis Brown spent a lot of money and then the school was closed due to chickenpox. Even back then, the school would have been obligated to reimburse the parents for the funds spent for they surely would have been taken to court. Your argument is another bag of empty shells. Lewis Brown's disappoint was in his own son as evidenced by the letter.
Now this is very important, from what information I was able to find, IF there was an outbreak at the Hill School of chickenpox then it would have been quarantined. However, in 1920, there was an outbreak of measles and mumps in Pottstown.
5.
Interesting how when reporting what he likes to call " Facts" the writer at the HUT overides his own need for Due Diligence in his agenda driven attempt to paint his own picture of the events when he doesn't even know what was actually happening. The reader might get the impression that there was some sort of " problem" with Townsend Browns performance or attitude at Hill school? Thats the innuendo left behind by this slipshod and agenda driven piece of information from the HUT. It won't standIt does stand. It is hard evidence which is something that has not been provided from your end. All you ever provide are words from your mouth and they disappear like breath on a cold morning. The only agenda is to prove what was written. What are you so afraid of? But let's look at what you said..."Townsend Browns performance or attitude at Hill School". So, your Daddy was a poor student? He had an attitude? What kind or type of attitude? P)erhaps you can't accept the fact that your Daddy got in trouble with some other boys and Lewis Brown wanted to eliminate that atmosphere and bring his little boy home where he could keep a better eye on him.
http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 854#p30854Linda Leach wrote:"When Paul is ready...if ever and the report of hell freezing over has occurred, I would be more than willing to give him any and all "hard" facts I have acquired. Hell, even if he doesn't finish the book and wants the info...it's his."
I don't think Paul has demonstrated any interest at all in these "hard facts" and I doubt that he has any interest in communicating with the person who has written the above.
Actually... It might be better for Paul to do exactly what he is doing... maintaining a very low profile on all of this. Perhaps he has already fulfilled his role. Perhaps nothing more can be expected of him.
You think? How would you know anything since you have not talked with Paul in what...6 years? I would wager that if between the two of us Paul had a choice of one to talk with...it wouldn't be you. Also, if "perhaps" were candy and presents you would have Christmas all year...
Mikado