The Ship That Never Sank

[Jamie Bryant]

Right, most of the things that i have written are the words of Gardiner, not me, so don't attack me over views i do not support. The purpose of this thread was to inform you of Gardiner's revelations in hope of prevoking a debate. What i didn't anticipate, however was a group of middle-aged people slating this young teenager as if he was Gardiner himself. Not once did i say that i supported the switch in general. Titanic is a faith for me, along with Christianity, i find Gardiner just as annoying as most of you do. At the same time that Titanic makes me proud to be British, Gardiner makes me ashamed.

Further more the whole "homework" and "ask Gardiner" were metaphores, irony. Not in any way meant literally, this applying to Christine in particular, who contributed into making me feel about an inch high.

I'm sorry if i was misunderstood, but in future i shall not use such expressions, if this is the outcome it will result in.

Thank you to those who DID understand, sorry to those who didn't. I'm not looking for confrontations, and if this is the way i get treated for mentioning Gardiner, then i'd hate to be old Robin right now.

Kindest Regards to you all, and i ask that this case is closed, for the time being anyway.

Jamie Bryant

 

[Parks Stephenson]

This middle-aged man is at a loss for words.

Parks

 

[Tarn Stephanos]

My head hurts.....



Tarn

 

[Adam Leet]

"The purpose of this thread was to inform you of Gardiner's revelations in hope of prevoking a debate."

If I may ask, why did you wish to "provoke" this debate? It's been done before. Many times before. At one point you argued that Gardiner had many points that could not be easily dismissed. If you do not agree with him, why did you bring them up?

The horse isn't just dead. It's encased in rock strata and has fully fossilized.


Adam

 

[Inger Sheil]

"Middle-aged"? Didya hear that, Christine? The benchmark is being set lower and lower for us fogies...

Now you've said you don't believe Gardiner, Jamie, but you commenced this thread with the following remarks:

quote:

there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.

While you now say "Right, most of the things that i have written are the words of Gardiner, not me, so don't attack me over views i do not support", you kicked things off in quite a different tenor:

quote:

the man makes valid points which fit into place better than what we all currently believe happened on that night 92 years ago.

That represents a bit of a volte-face!

You also say that your use of 'homework' and 'ask Gardiner' were 'metaphores, irony'. This is not how they came across at all, particularly given the tone of your earlier endorsement of the man's work.

You presented Gardiner's arguments as 'valid points', without caveats - they are not, and in addition to arguing why they are not I challenge you to argue why you think they are by providing supporting evidence.

I'm not going to rehash what has already been debated at length elsewhere in this board's history - Parks and others have already well addressed these points. I wouldn't take Gardiner as a source on anything, given his shoddy record with data and his habit of twisting and distorting sources. One matter does stand out, however - that of the rockets. It is not uncommon for people under stress to give unreliable eyewitness testimony, however the consensus that has been reached is that the rockets fired were white. I recommend you review these threads for more on the issue of rockets and their colours:

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5666/54467.html?1055699139

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5666/34887.html?1033720520

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5666/1320.html?1005408056

No one here is questioning your devotion to the subject of the Titanic, however there are a couple of factors you need to consider in order to understand how people have responded to your post as they did. You came in very strong in your initial post, admonishing us that it was 'foolish' to dismiss Gardiner (as the vast majority of us have), and claiming he made 'valid points'. You also chucked in an instruction for us to do some homework...a poor choice of phraseaology, even if you did not mean to cause offence by its use. If you were familiar with the board, you would be aware that this topic has been done to death and ample - indeed, overwhelming - evidence has been marshalled against this theory. That's why many people responded strongly to your post.​

 

[Inger Sheil]

quote:

What are you (or Gardiner) suggesting with this, or is it just an unusual fact, without explanation, that is thrown out to help establish a sense of conspiracy?

Parks, you've hit upon an important point here, and one that I think highlights an important element in Gardiner's academic dishonesty. His work is rife in supposed 'anomolies' that are not tied into his theory in any coherant way, but left dangling to foster a general impression of cover-up and accounts that don't fit in with other eyewitness testimony. This is a rather transparent authorial slight of hand - Gardiner tosses them out there, not as part of a logically constructed case, but to muddy the waters.​

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Right, most of the things that i have written are the words of Gardiner, not me, so don't attack me over views i do not support. The purpose of this thread was to inform you of Gardiner's revelations in hope of prevoking a debate.<<

Jamie, with all due respect, just about every historian and rivet-counter, professional and amature alike, are well aware of Gardiner's claims. They have been mooted here many times befor, and by True Believers no less. There is little sense in trying to "Provoke a debate" on something that has been debated to death on many occassions.

>>What i didn't anticipate, however was a group of middle-aged people slating this young teenager as if he was Gardiner himself.<<

MmmmmmmHmmmmm...right....where did anybody say that?

>>Not once did i say that i supported the switch in general. Titanic is a faith for me, along with Christianity, i find Gardiner just as annoying as most of you do. At the same time that Titanic makes me proud to be British, Gardiner makes me ashamed.<<

Then why did you start by saying "but there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish." as well as "When I first purchased Gardiner's follow up book from Riddle of the Titanic, i too was quick to laugh off the idea, but then i read it, and the man makes valid points which fit into place better than what we all currently believe happened on that night 92 years ago." only to follow it up by assertions and claims which have been refuted time after time after time after time ad nauseum?

>>Thank you to those who DID understand, sorry to those who didn't. I'm not looking for confrontations, and if this is the way i get treated for mentioning Gardiner, then i'd hate to be old Robin right now. <<

I don't know about that. If I were Mr. Gardiner right now, I'd be reveling in it and hoping for more. This sort of thing appeals most strongly to the "If the 'Establishment' hates it, it must be good!" mentality which makes for more and better sales.

As to what you chose to do, that's you're call. A wise chap once said "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's a poor time to remember that the first thing you should have done is drain the swamp!" Pushing this thing is only making for a bigger, better, and meaner swamp. Maybe you should consider draining it by letting this go.

But as I said, your call.

 

[monica e. hall]

Now here, you see, we could have used the voting / ratings system that Phil hastily removed on Friday. One person could have kindly directed Jamie to previous threads, and everyone else could have just voted 1. Saving thousands of words, and temper. Incidentally, I don't think Gardner's pension fund is that enviable - I saw the book remaindered a couple of years ago, and I don't think it ever got into paperback, so the sales don't sound that brilliant.

 

[Mike Bull]

Middle aged!

I'm only 31!

*Sob*!!!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Monica, I guess that all depends on where you are. I've seen this book on my side of the ocean in paperback/softcover many times...usually at Barnes & Noble, and Gardiner doesn't seem to have much of a problem getting published. His recent book on Titanic postcards is an example. Some of his older dereck is either still in print or is about the be reprinted in some new guise or another. He may not be snacking on caviar or drinking vintage Krug champagne like soda pop, but he seems to be muddling along.

 

[Jamie Bryant]

The "foolish" comment was from Gardiner at the beginning of his book, not from me.
Although Gardiner makes several points that are utter rubbish, he does however make valid ones too. Just because i say this, doesn't mean that i believe it. For example, Gardiner says that it's odd that little damage was done to the wing bridge and the overhanging lifeboat, while it makes sense, i can say the iceberg was most probably at an angle where such damage was not sustained, contradicting Gardiner. I hope i have cleared this up for you.

There may have been debates on this topic prior to this thread, but no matter how annoying they are, they always seem to bring the passion we all share for that ship out of ourselves, even to the extent of a few flying sparks.

Just to cement my position in this topic, i believe that Gardiner makes good points, although he rarely gives evidence or sources as Inger will stress, but that doesn't mean to say i believe them, but i do argue them on his behalf, after all this site is designed for discussion, even if you need some role play.

JB

 

[Christine Geyer]

*LOL*! Ing you bring the crutches, I'll bring the wooden kidney warmers. Geoff, can we get a senior discount at the Hilton? OMG I just hope my incontinence pampers won't emerge under my dress at the Gala Diner...

Regards to all my fellow fossils!!
Auntie Christine

 

[Jamie Bryant]

Your words not mine !

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>but i do argue them on his behalf, after all this site is designed for discussion, even if you need some role play. <<

Mmmmmmmm....yeah...only that's not what you said in your initial post. And while this site is designed for discussion, that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to turn it into a battleground over a position long refuted by the evidence. Gardiner can hardly be said to be raising valid points either, especially when those so-called valid points are little more then irrelevancy and misdirection.

 

[monica e. hall]

Just checked him out on Amazon UK, Michael, and you are right about new books - postcards, and a history of the White Star Line. We don't seem to be very good buyers here, though - his books are on promotion - buy one, get one free etc. I've not seen anything of his for a few years in the bookshops.