Gardiner Is At It Again

Oh oh oh oh... If that's what it takes I'll rise above into the Titanic's hall of fame too! Yippieh! Must ask Geoff if there's still room for a lecture at the Con in Soton this year. So I can all teach you about the truth! Namely the Titanic was completely made of milk chocolate. And it wouldn't have sunken had it been made of solid nut chocolate. A major flaw that H&W together with the WSL desperately tried to hide by bribing ALL the surviving passengers and crew with lifelong delivery of free almond paste candy. My book can be bought for just 40$, the first 100 buyers get a free chocolate bar.
 
Free almond paste candy??!!
grin.gif
 
*lolol* Uh oh, Randy, I cannot post this, I cannot post this... *stertorouslyrotfl*...

Jeremy, yes. Just Ismay grabbed a complete buttercream layer cake, claiming he had made sure that there were no woman or children nearby whom had wanted it.
 
Graham, thanks for the information. That's exactly why I was hoping someone would have local or other direct knowledge of Mediaworld's work.
Cheers,
F

ps Mike S - count Gardiner's books to date, then see again how many are mentioned in the press release. Hence my query re possible disowning. (It was a joke, Joyce.
happy.gif
)
 
>>How many will put their mouths where their micky taking was six years ago?<<

We already have, and starting right here. The conspiracy theory was nonsense six years ago and it's still nonsense now. Just because somebody has built a website about it to hawk a book doesn't make it valid.
 
>>Thank you for your considered opinion. Have you written a book?<<

Does that matter if someone have written a book or not?
Many people did and what they write is sometime nonsense.

I have both of his first books about the switch theory, they are nice fiction but nothing more.
 
>>Have you written a book?<<

Your question is irrelevant. What's at issue is what Gardiner wrote. His premise was nonsense when it was contrived and it's nonsense now. You don't need fancy conspiracies to pull off insurance fraud. All it takes is the constructive total loss of the ship and that's easy enough to arrange without ever leaving port.

That's the fatal flaw of the ship-switch premise: It's excessively complex.
 
If we count up the sum total of words written by Mike in this forum alone about every aspect of the Titanic story, then there's enough to fill several books. But I place as much value in his fair-minded objectivity and his personal and professional experience of ships and the sea. Altogether, I'd say Mike is very well qualified to offer an informed (and disinterested) opinion of Robin Gardiner's works. Can you offer the same level of experience, William? And (key question) the same level of objectivity?
 
Mr Standart, you note I do not dismiss him by derogatory surname address as he does Mr Gardiner, is obviously disinterested and clairvoyant, for he passes opinion on a book which he has not read, and in view of his vast self professed knowledge does not seem to need to. How does he know it all?
The offer is there to challenge and question Mr Gardiner, not here, but on his own web site. It seems Mr S and others have a problem with that. Might they hear something that offends their take on the moral high ground?
For Mr S's reference Mr Gardiner is not "hawking" a book. It has been commissioned and published by a leading UK publisher. Show a little respect in your imperiousness please.
 
>>The offer is there to challenge and question Mr Gardiner, not here, but on his own web site. It seems Mr S and others have a problem with that. Might they hear something that offends their take on the moral high ground?<<

For that case I need to buy his new book (as there seemed to be new claims) which has no priority for me as it is still fiction. Also the gallery on the web side is speaking for itself about the so called proofs that Olympic was Titanic.
http://www.greattitanicconspiracy.co.uk/titanic-gallery
I still love the part with the "vertical joint in the hull plating just forward of the portside hawsehole."
 
What's derogatory about making reference to a writer/director/composer or whatever by use of his or her surname without title? Is that not the norm? We've surely moved on from the Victorian formality of making conversational remarks about Mr Shakespeare, Mr Dickens, Mr Shaw or Mr Kipling (except in reference to exceedingly good cakes).
 

Similar threads

M
Robin Gardiner has died
Replies
8
Views
3K
Ioannis Georgiou
I
W
The Great Titanic Conspiracy by Robin Gardiner
Replies
7
Views
5K
Anneliese Dixon
A
O
Why is he shunned
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oliver Parsons
O
M
Robin Gardiner's New Book A Kinder and Gentler Approach
2
Replies
15
Views
4K
Mark Chirnside
Mark Chirnside
M
Titanic in Picture Postcards
Replies
8
Views
2K
Inger Sheil
Inger Sheil
Back
Top