I have just received another message from Cassidy’s brother Mike. Against my better judgment, I have decided to reproduce and answer it here.
MC: As for ” I hope this isn’t a repeat”: I thought I had already posted.
Me: Fine. That clears that up.
MC: Ok, Cadet Bones Spurs Two: Like Cadet Bone Spurs One, you are coward, that is why you hide.
In case it is not clear I find people who hide silly twits ( to use your word). I defended Dan’s hiding behind sock puppets? Please show me where I said that?
Me: No, I am not a coward. I let the facts speak for themselves. I post anonymously but if people want to argue with the facts presented, I will give them that right. The problem is, most of them just rant and trot out the same old non-sequiturs they learned from your brother. What do I define as cowardice? Well, how about deciding that a cheap con-man is some kind of guru, finding out that he wasn’t, but being so afraid to appear stupid that you end up bending over backwards to pretend that you weren’t wrong in the first place, as so many of Cassidy’s cronies did?
And I never accused you of defending your brother’s hiding behind sock puppets. I said that I don’t see why I should avoid anonymity if your brother posted anonymously all the time. Unless you think there should be one rule for him and another for the rest of us, eh?
MC: Actually with a little research you can document my sister’s loss of the suit Claire brought.
Me: I didn’t say that I doubted that. I stated quite clearly that I doubted whether that was the only, or even the main reason she came to despise him so much. Try to keep up! Are you drinking?
MC: As for me researching whether Dan lied to New College, why would I? I was not interested. And yes I knew he never graduated; in fact my sister learned from me. As far as I know he wasn’t booted out of Cornell, he left to write. Do more research on New College and you’ll see is isn’t such a stretch to believe he would been awarded the title of Professor.
Me: You weren’t interested in the fact that your brother might have been a criminal? Nice to know. Your brother was removed from Cornell so I presume he didn’t ‘leave to write.’ Anyway, the fact that New College was a shambolic outfit where nothing was done properly doesn’t exonerate him. Their accreditation came from WASC and I can’t see WASC agreeing to them employing a completely unqualified man as a senior lecturer. Also, some of the money for students came directly or indirectly from public funding. So the authorities would expect the staff to be properly qualified. In other words, I still think he lied, even if the authorities at NC looked the other way. This is not a trivial issue and it speaks volumes about the kind of man your brother was.
MC: “It’s very easy to harrumph and huff and bluster and hector and bully and fly into a rage and chew the carpet and complain about the unfairness of it all and accuse me of being anti-Irish and call me names like neo-con”: Gee, I read my post and I don’t believe I said any of that.
Me: No, I wasn’t specifically referring to you (except in the neo-con bit). I was referring to dozens of supporters of your brother’s trash who have come on here with all guns blazing but when challenged to present evidence, they suddenly disappear.
MC: I have actually read some of your posts, and find them interesting. I also find interesting your whining about few readers. You would do better to stop the name calling and just keep doing the examples of his mistakes. if you created a wiki page you would do your crusade wonders.
Me: Well, thank you for that. However, I’m not moaning about the lack of readers. I’ve said repeatedly, I would rather tell the truth to a handful of people than spread the kind of insane lies your brother made up to thousands. As for name-calling, if people deserve to be criticised, I’ll criticise them. The fact is, there will always be nutters like your brother who make up lies. What makes this case different is that your brother managed to charm dozens of high-profile and not so high-profile people who should have known a lot better than to be taken in by a cheap con-man with no qualifications.
MC: Also if you actually read my post you will notice I never defended the book. However you are too busy ranting to actually read what I posted. As for deleting this post fine with me it is your little blog.
Me: Hold your horses, Mike. You came here and effectively accused me of being a liar (Cadet Bone Spurs). I’m not fucking psychic. You said absolutely nothing, negative or positive, about your brother’s bullshit ‘research’, which is the subject of this blog, so it’s quite reasonable to assume that you were criticising me because you thought I was lying about your brother’s work. Learn to express yourself properly in English (it’s probably way too late for you to learn any Irish), then I’ll know what you’re talking about.
However, by the sound of it, you are saying that you accept that your brother took a lecturer’s job without a degree and don’t care and that you think your brother’s book is indefensible. So, we both agree I’m telling the truth but you think I should be a bit nicer about your brother and the rest of the trash who have supported this rubbish. Well, while we’re giving each other advice, Mike, perhaps you should start a charity called “Be nice to con-men!” You could have a flag-day (without registering it as a charity), then just pocket the money and go on holiday!
Then, shortly after this message, I received another:
BTW if you wish to keep hidden you should delete all the different names Dan called; especially Neocon.
Me: I’m really not sure what this means, except perhaps that the reference to Neocons was included by me because of some comments added to a blog by you here: irishkc.com/american-slang-created-by-irish-and-jazz-too.html
In those comments, you insult a man called Michael Scott (saying that he must be a neocon because of his disregard for the facts! Talk about pots and kettles) for finding fault with your brother’s book before he had read it. What you don’t say is that hundreds of your brother’s fake derivations had already been published on CounterPunch long before then, so it would have been easy for anyone to make a judgment on the imbecility and worthlessness of your brother’s work without buying the book. And while I find your comment unclear and badly-written, I suspect that you think the reference to “call me a Neo-Con” means that I am Michael Scott. Good luck with that! Let me assure everyone reading this blog – I am not called Michael Scott. However, if you wish to spread that name, Mike, please do so. It will help to maintain my anonymity!
And with that, this conversation ends. I really can’t be bothered talking to you anymore. I’m a busy man and I have already given you more of my valuable time than you deserve.