Baldwin cont

After Tewkesbury we are told that " this latest cycle of killings, exile, and victory against the odds..can only have increased Richard's determination to control his own destiny. He knew that he could expect no mercy himself in future, and that there would be times where he would have to strike first and decisively in order to survive".

Clearly again Mr Baldwin thinks he knows how Richard was thinking.

Thought this biography was supposed to be balanced.

Peter Hammond's commendation concerns me too. "Summarising where possible without misleading or adding interesting detail'. What are Richard's supposed thoughts and motives if not added detail?

Couldn't possibly accuse Baldwin of looking back at things from present times could we?
May be time for me to stop reading and look after my blood pressure.

Paul




Richard Liveth Yet!

Ack! Paul, don't let this guy make you "sick."

I'm surprised by Hammond.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 5:03 AM
Subject: Baldwin cont


 

After Tewkesbury we are told that " this latest cycle of killings, exile, and victory against the odds..can only have increased Richard's determination to control his own destiny. He knew that he could expect no mercy himself in future, and that there would be times where he would have to strike first and decisively in order to survive".

Clearly again Mr Baldwin thinks he knows how Richard was thinking.

Thought this biography was supposed to be balanced.

Peter Hammond's commendation concerns me too. "Summarising where possible without misleading or adding interesting detail'. What are Richard's supposed thoughts and motives if not added detail?

Couldn't possibly accuse Baldwin of looking back at things from present times could we?
May be time for me to stop reading and look after my blood pressure.

Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

What Judy said. Maybe Baldwin fancies himself a novelist. Paul, maybe
you should write a review pointing out that Baldwin's speculation is
presented as fact--a real no-no in non-fiction unless preceded by the
author stating that this is his/her speculation based on hindsight
interpretation.

What really frosts me is that because we're the ones called
revisionists, we have to be prepared to show where and how the so-called
traditionalists arguments fail based on extant documentation.
Unfortunately, the traditionalists don't seem compelled to examine
revisionist writings to the same depth. What happened to innocent until
proven guilty?

Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Ack! Paul, don't let this guy make you "sick."
>
> I'm surprised by Hammond.
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 5:03 AM
> Subject: Baldwin cont
>
>
> Â
>
> After Tewkesbury we are told that " this latest cycle of killings,
exile, and victory against the odds..can only have increased Richard's
determination to control his own destiny. He knew that he could expect
no mercy himself in future, and that there would be times where he would
have to strike first and decisively in order to survive".
>
> Clearly again Mr Baldwin thinks he knows how Richard was thinking.
>
> Thought this biography was supposed to be balanced.
>
> Peter Hammond's commendation concerns me too. "Summarising where
possible without misleading or adding interesting detail'. What are
Richard's supposed thoughts and motives if not added detail?
>
> Couldn't possibly accuse Baldwin of looking back at things from
present times could we?
> May be time for me to stop reading and look after my blood pressure.
>
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:01, joanszechtman wrote:

> Maybe Baldwin fancies himself a novelist. Paul, maybe
> you should write a review pointing out that Baldwin's speculation is
> presented as fact--a real no-no in non-fiction unless preceded by the
> author stating that this is his/her speculation based on hindsight
> interpretation.


I agree with what you say Joan, only trouble is, in order to write a review I'd have to read the whole book!!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Well, so long as he's no worse at speculation than Kendall, whose books to
me read like thinly veiled novels. I haven't got Baldwin's Richard yet, but
I'm looking forward to reading it.

Karen Clark

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:35:32 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Baldwin cont







On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:01, joanszechtman wrote:

> Maybe Baldwin fancies himself a novelist. Paul, maybe
> you should write a review pointing out that Baldwin's speculation is
> presented as fact--a real no-no in non-fiction unless preceded by the
> author stating that this is his/her speculation based on hindsight
> interpretation.

I agree with what you say Joan, only trouble is, in order to write a review
I'd have to read the whole book!!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Sorry Karen totally disagree. What Kendall does is write fluidly and with readability, if for some a wee bit purply at times, but his facts are always accurate and he does not make things up to support his cause or read the archives and cherry pick what he wants.
Paul

On 3 Apr 2012, at 13:43, Karen Clark wrote:

> Well, so long as he's no worse at speculation than Kendall, whose books to
> me read like thinly veiled novels. I haven't got Baldwin's Richard yet, but
> I'm looking forward to reading it.
>
> Karen Clark
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:35:32 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Baldwin cont
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:01, joanszechtman wrote:
>
>> Maybe Baldwin fancies himself a novelist. Paul, maybe
>> you should write a review pointing out that Baldwin's speculation is
>> presented as fact--a real no-no in non-fiction unless preceded by the
>> author stating that this is his/her speculation based on hindsight
>> interpretation.
>
> I agree with what you say Joan, only trouble is, in order to write a review
> I'd have to read the whole book!!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Here here Paul, thoroughly agree, I was looking forward to Baldwin's book too but was very disapointed in it, shame.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 3 April 2012, 14:32
Subject: Re: Baldwin cont



 

Sorry Karen totally disagree. What Kendall does is write fluidly and with readability, if for some a wee bit purply at times, but his facts are always accurate and he does not make things up to support his cause or read the archives and cherry pick what he wants.
Paul

On 3 Apr 2012, at 13:43, Karen Clark wrote:

> Well, so long as he's no worse at speculation than Kendall, whose books to
> me read like thinly veiled novels. I haven't got Baldwin's Richard yet, but
> I'm looking forward to reading it.
>
> Karen Clark
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:35:32 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Baldwin cont
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:01, joanszechtman wrote:
>
>> Maybe Baldwin fancies himself a novelist. Paul, maybe
>> you should write a review pointing out that Baldwin's speculation is
>> presented as fact--a real no-no in non-fiction unless preceded by the
>> author stating that this is his/her speculation based on hindsight
>> interpretation.
>
> I agree with what you say Joan, only trouble is, in order to write a review
> I'd have to read the whole book!!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Thank you Paul for saving my blood pressure. I won't buy it. It is funny how traditionalists always insist that we Ricardian revisionists have to have evidence for anything that we might write but they can say anything they like and get away with it.
Loyaulte me Lie.

Mary

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> After Tewkesbury we are told that " this latest cycle of killings, exile, and victory against the odds..can only have increased Richard's determination to control his own destiny. He knew that he could expect no mercy himself in future, and that there would be times where he would have to strike first and decisively in order to survive".
>
> Clearly again Mr Baldwin thinks he knows how Richard was thinking.
>
> Thought this biography was supposed to be balanced.
>
> Peter Hammond's commendation concerns me too. "Summarising where possible without misleading or adding interesting detail'. What are Richard's supposed thoughts and motives if not added detail?
>
> Couldn't possibly accuse Baldwin of looking back at things from present times could we?
> May be time for me to stop reading and look after my blood pressure.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>