> "It's messy enough already, but it looks set to become much, much worse"
>
> Do I sense a note of glee?
>
> Dominic
A note less of glee than vindication, I hope, Dom, given that I began
hammering on about the Walsh/Anonymous Dossier connection on Monday, and
it's now Friday.
I was beginning to think that I was becoming paranoid ...
But no glee if the story shifts to, "Did Padel Know About The Anonymous
Dossier?", since I think that's a (relatively) minor issue.
I'm interested in the backstory of the Walcott Sexual Harassment Narrative,
and this time around, the dynamics can (bless the Web) be documented.
But when I woke up this morning, I wouldn't have *believed it if someone had
told me that the woman who accused Walcott in 1996 would come out with an
account that totally contradicts the version generally credited, and
elsewhere on the same day, James Fenton would publish a
presumably-libel-vetted piece in the Standard saying what he does.
You couldn't make it up ...
So less glee than sheer incredulity -- I thought it might end up going this
way, but not so far or as fast.
I'd still like someone to direct me to the issues of the Harvard Crimson
that the authors of _The Lecherous Professor_ say they reproduce. I can
show that they get certain things wrong, misinterpreting their own published
material, but I can't for the life of me find their sources in the
electronic archives of the Crimson.
But that might be my ineptitude ...
Robin
(Hey, unintended consequences -- one result of all this brouhaha is that
Nicole Niemi has finally broken her silence. Only she doesn't seem to be
saying what the Walcott Detractors would have expected her to say. Odd
that, but.
R.)
|