Carl Grove
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,849
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
Well, that's quite a serious attack. The only way I could answer this is to say that, yes, we went over these points in obsessive detail and in every case I ended up by stating very clearly what you wanted to put over regarding such and such a point, and that my own speculations were generally negated. After me worrying for the past year that you were seriously ill and asking again and again what you wanted me to do -- to publish the document, to leave it aside, to give up altogether -- any of which I would have willingly done -- you made absolutely no effort to reply. I warned you that I was, after over a year, finally going to present the article on this site, and gave you another couple of weeks to say yes or no, and again no response. Had you said, "no, I don't want this published, it's not what I wanted it to be," then I would have respected that.This is my response to Carl's document on Digital Spy;
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discu...thing-to-have-ever-happened-to-you-part-2/p47
Carl,
This paragraph from your document, along with your claim that I've subjected every word to close scrutiny when in fact this thread is the first time I've seen this paragraph, is an example of precisely the reason I had to just give up on the situation and stop contact;
"17
It seems that she and her friend were situated to the West of Regent Street, near the old Tower
Records store, not far from the area in Glasshouse Street where Doll Feet and P both experienced a
complete loss of traffic noise as they embraced. They also perceived themselves moving in slow
motion inside a kind of bubble. It so happens that Doll Feet told me that her account of the meeting
left out, on purpose, a key detail. She held this information back as a way of checking whether
anyone reporting anything similar was totally genuine. If they failed to mention it, she would have
doubts about their veracity"
We did not experience a loss of noise as we embraced, I clearly state that noise started again as we embraced. The implication in this paragraph is that I claimed we perceived ourselves moving in slow motion which has no basis in fact whatsoever. I did not say that I'd left out a key detail as a way of checking whether anyone reporting anything similar was totally genuine and that if they failed to mention it I'd have doubts about their veracity. This is a total fabrication on your part. What I actually said was that by persistently misquoting me from memory rather than checking what I actually said (or better still cutting and pasting to remove any possibility of misquoting me) you were totally obliterating oblique references that I'd carefully placed for the purpose of referring back to if I decided to elaborate at a later date so that nobody could claim I was adding details because they'd been right there the whole time. The example I gave you, to hammer the point home that misquoting me wasn't acceptable, was that I'd said TWO strange things had happened at the top of the stairs but only actually detailed one - the silence. Your response was to say you didn't think you could say that because it would frustrate the reader, completely missing my point which was NOT let's be enigmatic and frustrate the reader but STOP MISQUOTING ME! At no point did I even hint at what the second thing was and certainly never claimed it was to test anyone's veracity. This is yet another example of you misunderstanding, misremembering and filling in the blanks with wild speculation.
I agreed to a "summary" of my posts which I naively imagined would be you actually checking what I'd said rather than relying on memory, or cutting and pasting with a few comments in between from you. I didn't agree to a massive time consuming editing job on persistent misquotes and misunderstandings or a battle of wills with the facts v what you'd imagined I'd said, embroidered on and allowed to solidify to the extent you were virtually arguing with me! Nor did I agree to an "investigation" which you tried to changed it into part way through despite me telling you early on that nobody was in a position to perform an investigation because only I knew all the details and there was a lot omitted that would put things into a completely different light.
"I'm now starting to think that maybe they (the entities) were trying to stop them meeting..."
This again! As you say, hundreds of messages, the vast majority of them a battle to remove your insistence that the couple were mystical beings who'd tried to protect me from P and prevent me from meeting him, even insisting weeks and countless messages down the line "Well in my mind that couple still have some importance." As I pointed out, the fact that something, presumably whatever set the situation up, showed and told me P was there made absolute nonsense of any speculation that they were mystical beings who'd been sent to protect me from him. Hours and hours stretching into weeks and months absolutely wasted trying to get you to accept that the guy was more than likely just some sleazy would-be punter who had 2 options "How much?" which if he'd badly misread the situation, and he had, might earn him a slap in the face, or the safer option "You two are so beautiful." Nothing slick, film-like or contrived there! Add to that the fact that rather than approach P&I as the girl did he held back at the top of the stairs looking seriously worried when he saw my 6ft 4" boyfriend who might have objected to him taking me for coffee. He certainly wouldn't have been the only guy P punched for mistaking me for a prostitute in that area. All that time squandered on the most trivial aspect of the whole situation because of your absolute refusal to revise your opinion - time that could have been spent discussing the finer points of the paranormal aspects I'd detailed. As I said in my last message to you, I can only assume your total refusal to accept that there was nothing film-like, contrived or slick about a bog standard prostitute pick up line is because it's never been your experience to be a sexually attractive young girl in the vicinity of Soho.
"I've sent her a lot of messages on DS without reply, so she obviously doesn't want to talk about them now. Maybe something else has happened to her to warn her off the topic. I certainly do respect her decision, I'm just relieved that she's still around!"
You most certainly do NOT respect my decision. I tried to make it clear to you in my final message that your evident absence of any trace of empathy or sensitivity, forcing me to spend hours a day for weeks on end focusing on and reliving such a stressful situation because it didn't fit in with what you'd imagined, was intolerable and inappropriate. You confirmed that this was the case by coming back at me with (quoting from memory) "It never even occurred to me there was an emotional aspect to this" and then totally disregarded my point that enough was enough by stating that I must think, not you think, I must think that my boyfriend was a master magician! How on earth you came to that conclusion given that I made it clear in this thread that when he realized he was involved in something he didn't understand he had a screaming, thrashing nervous breakdown and had to go to live with his parents I don't know! No way was I going to spend more exasperating weeks batting that one backwards and forwards.
By your own admission I'm the 3rd person (that I know of) who's "abruptly" stopped communication with you and I can only assume that they also recognised that you weren't the right person to "summarise" their experiences with the necessary degree of accuracy. The appropriate response to that is to have the good grace to let it go. By ploughing on regardless and publicly claiming you have the approved version you've effectively jeopardised your own credibility and put me in the horrible position of having no choice but to publicly address this and distance myself from you so that mine isn't tainted by association.
The only way I could counter what you're saying is by pdf-ing all of the 200+ messages we exchanged and leaving it to everyone else on this forum to decide for themselves. Is that what you want?
I will say that all the emotion, quite understandably, relates to the role and motivations of your boy friend. You comment that I was wrong in thinking that you thought your boy friend was some kind of satanic magician. Well, this was in response to your comment which I will quote here:
The hundreds of messages we've had to exchange over the last weeks, trying to correct misperceptions and avoid directing people to leap to others, has meant that I've spent literally hours a day dwelling on a horrific period in my life; being helpless victim of a demonic force that I'm powerless against and that has since gone on to destroy my life, repeatedly thinking about the only man I've ever loved hating me to such an extent that violence and exploitation wasn't enough and he tried to bargain with my immortal soul....
That last sentence rather shook me when I read it. Only a few weeks before you had mentioned seeing P's brother on Facebook and wondering whether he could help you find out P's memories of the incident.
I can only reiterate my position which I thought I had made clear from day one. I wanted to produce a definitive account of one of the most extraordinary incidents ever reported. Yes, it was hard work. In the process, I found that you had changed your views about the roles of the helpful couple -- you had originally suspected that they were involved to some degree, then that the man was just a lecher who happened to join in, and then you wanted to rule them both out of the equation. I was, and still am, unwilling to assume anything so definite. In my view someone who suggests that you go to a cafe that doesn't exist, and led you there in a way that suggests she knew it well, must be a potential suspect, as it were. I still suspect the lady's role in this. I also stated very clearly that as a researcher my role is to be analytical and to cover all possibilities -- stating exactly what happened to you, as you recall it, and then giving your view on how to interpret it, and then suggesting alternative possibilities. I didn't see my job as just presenting your accounts and not discussing them and trying to make some sense out of them. I maybe should have spelled this out at the start, but I assumed that you knew that this is what researchers try to do.
I suggest that your best option is to do what I know you are quite capable of doing -- writing your own account of your experiences, giving your own opinions on how to interpret them, and presenting it here or on DS. But you will still need to try to explain the aims of whoever is behind all the strange happenings in your life, and what their aim is. How would creating a fake cafe help you to meet P? I think your sudden vision of P in the street above was your own intuition at work -- but that is just my opinion. And neither of us have any real idea what the answers are.
I am very sad that you have taken such a hostile approach. If you really didn't want my report released, all you had to do was say so.