Linda Brown, I did not have access to this part of the forum for a day or so, and I have taken the time to read the ‘due diligence’. To quote you from earlier in this forum thread (#150) you said –
“When someone questions your own credibility I think that it is only right to know who they are and why they are doing that. Don't you?”
Where in the due diligence was your credibility questioned?
In the same post in response to my question about vouching for Morgan and O'Reily, you stated –
“Absolutely and still do! Wholeheartedly”
You were the research assistant and vouched for these two individuals to the author, and yet in a post (#176) you said -
“Mikado says.....somehow....Twigsnapper and Morgan supplied Paul with inaccurate information.
My only response to that is...." Too bad! Paul should have done a proper job.... He should have done the rewrite. He should have been the professional writer that he presented to me before I signed that contract.”
You imply with the phrase ‘too bad’ that you accept the information was inaccurate – information provided by two individuals you vouched for.
You have also said that the author was not intended to include the 'story' of these two individuals in the book - why then was he provided the information?
I am looking at this cold and do not understand your objection to people researching the information contained within the authorized biography of your father. Any information that can be verified by facts and corrects previously incorrect information has to be of benefit for researchers that are to come.