Crook! | Eskimo's version | Congress | Fiennes | McNair-Avery | Herbert myths | Email | Forum | Books | Home
The Official Polar-Moron Mail Site™
Email your brilliant, racist, pro-cook, anti-Peary, anti-establishment comments which will then become property of Polar-Moron Mail™. This is a unique and fitting forum for individuals suffering permanent brain damage from the "perversions of history" inflicted by Fred Crook and the Vetters Vendetta trust fund propaganda machine (AKA Cookites, Cookies, & Crookies).

Send email to Polar Moron MailTM
All email becomes the property of this website and you agree to allow public posting in this forum for others to enjoy. Thank you.
OUR FAVORITE QUOTES FROM YOU
"By the way, I absolutely love your website, and I support Robert Peary"
 
"With your gifts of persuasion and diplomacy your views are bound to become accepted the world over"
 
"Please feel free to reply with the last word and abuse me some more"
 
More Moron Mail! Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:06:12 -0800
From: "Daniel Clarke" <daniel.clarke@bbc.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BBC interview request

Dear Sir,

I'm a producer at BBC Radio 4's Today Programme - the main morning current affairs radio programme in the UK.

I'm writing to see if I can talk to you about something I'm working on connected to a new book about Peary and Cook.

If you email me your number I'll give you a ring - or I'm on +44 (0) 20 8624 9650

Many thanks - and I look forward to hearing from you.

All best, Dan

Dan Clarke
TODAY, BBC Radio 4
+44 (0) 208 624 9650
Dear Dan,

Been thinking about your Peary & Cook inquiry. You know, maybe you could interview me about my book. I'm writing one about Sir Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson and other British homosexual cross dressers. You do know that recent evidence (secret diaries) has been uncovered in Iraq by Bush's armed forced? Yes, apparently both British men had "sexual identity problems" and had Muslim lovers--young boys in fact. Lord Nelson spoke about every man doing his duty; apparently this meant that his officers had to sleep with him.

Churchill, the alcoholic fatty often wore a bra to support his fleshy tits and was unable to reach his penis due to belly size. He employed a Turkish boy to stroke it for him. Churchill's constant cigar in mouth is viewed by psychologists as a penis substitute that he could suck in public.

As to your Peary & Cook project; yes, I would love to know more about how your citizens on the tiny island empire have connected the arctic legend Peary with a con artist whose stock frauds left enough money for his vindictive daughter to create her vile anti-Peary institution with a cool US $1,000,000 at her death.

Such highly intelligent citizens, not to mention well educated and well bred, could not possibly be taken in by the Vetters Vendetta. Therefore I assume your interview would be about the great exploration achievements of Peary--the man who made Robert Scott look like an utter ass when Amundsen used Peary's methods to make reaching the South Pole look like a stroll in Piccadilly Circus (is that what you blokes say?).

In fact, Peary had planned to nail the South Pole as well as the North until the nasty Cook fraud threw everything into a tizzy. Have you read Peary's diary notes about the plans? Would have been an easy accomplishment for Henson & Peay since that Pole is on dry land! Not the challenge the North Pole was at all, eh?

So please send me your written proposal of the interview; what questions you'd like to ask me, etc.

Sincerely yours,

Verne Robinson
-----------------------------------------------------

PREVIOUSLY:

Peary and who?
How about Queen Elizabeth and Jack the Ripper?
Or Churchill and Hitler?

In other words; what does a great historical figure have to do with a common criminal?
Please send me a sample chapter of this book so I might fathom your real intentions.

Verne
Ah, Dieu svp, svp, m'a svp mis sur votre liste polaire de Débiles ! Votre esprit est acéré et piquant, et I tellement longtemps pour être la victime de votre langue malveillante!

D'abord, concernant Shackleton, je voudrais préciser que vous minimisez la signification de son (et le cuisinier) sens de showmanship ! Ils (ou n'a pas fait) il avec un tel modèle ! L'histoire de Shackleton est si bien connu dans la culture nonchalente du jeu vidéo de l'état uni (le jeu vidéo dégage mon correcteur orthographique en tant qu'un mot - a obtenu d'aimer l'anglais, au moins), dû à la paresse et à l'indolence mêmes que vous dépleurez en répondant aux goûts de moi. Je veux dire, Shackleton ai filmé son désastre qu'impressionnant, type !

Dennoch ist Englisch erstaunliche Leute. Außer für einem Engländer konnten Sie Messwert und Reaktion (I Hoffnung) auf dieses email auf französisch sein! Sie sind größter nationaler Held konnten ein kurzes cuckold sein, das durch eine außerordentlich heftige Richtung von Self-aggrandizement betrübt wird. Außer für einem Engländer konnten Sie Messwert und Reaktion (wieder, hoffe ich), auf dieses email auf Deutsch sein! Sie sind größter nationaler Held konnten ein maniacal coprophagocyte mit einem Hang für Genozid und einem sterilen Auge für Architektur sein.

Tatsächlich wird Ihre gesamte Web site auf englisch geschrieben. Ich weiß, behaupten Sie, daß das beste Teil Englisch mit den Kolonisten verließ, aber Waterloo, Trafalgar, die Schlacht von Großbritannien und andere fanden nach (viele von) den Kolonien waren verloren statt. Schließlich unterstreiche ich, daß Peary nur folgte, wohin ein Engländer gehen würde. Daß er zuerst folgte, ist eine Laune der Geschichte (wenn tatsächlich er zuerst folgte). Wie jeder möglicher Frömmler kennzeichnet die Giftigkeit Ihrer Arbeit nur Ihre Vorspannung und Unwissenheit.

Dort! Ich ließ den Spellchecker auf alles laufen, und ich denke, daß ich einen Anspruch in eine Position anband, die von Ihrer Verachtung angemessen ist! OH- und könnte Sie die Vollendungen eines Zubehör zusammenfassenpearys in 500 Wörtern oder in kleiner übrigens bitte zurückbringen (und alle copyrightfotographien in einer einzelnen Zip Datei bitte mit einschließen). I ein majjor Buch für ein nationales audence schreibend und ich ziehen möchten falsch zitiert werden an.

Stephen Ärger Bewunderer von Houston, Texas Ps - Genossen Sie das Wort ' coprophagocyte '? Es ist eine sehr angenehme Weise des Sagens ' des Scheiße-Essers ', nicht Sie zustimmen?
Vos lieux sont défectueux : "néanmoins, les anglais sont des peuples merveilleux." Toutes les personnes sont merveilleuses ; Chinois, Pymies, Texans égaux.

Mais Scott et Shackelton étaient simplement des exemples de la planification faible. Peuplez qui seulement l'élasticité une merde au sujet des perdants tout en jetant la merde sur les gagnants sont elles-mêmes, bien, merde. Les abrutis aiment Hitler, cuisinier, et Ben Laden distraient toujours des débiles de ces membres de nos espèces qui font réellement les avancements qui rendent la vie moins difficile pendant d'autres.

Quand tout est dit et fait le Q.I. moyen est 100. Seulement 2% de la population sont enought lumineux pour traîner la race humaine hors de l'obscurité.

Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Hi, i just came across this site and am not surprised at the negative comments made about British Explorers and Brits in general. To call Scott a bungler is the obvious truth. Being the first man to the South Pole was the primary objective of Scott's expedition--he was a fool to ignore the work of Robert Peary. But Scot wasn't trying to carry out important scientific work. Its obvious, from the success of Amundsen, that they should have taken dogs. The main cause of death was because they were short on intelligence, lacked skill, lacked proper clothing, lacked dogs, and ran out of fuel. They suffered far more severe weather then was expected on the return journey because they were so naive about the Antarctic. The return weather from the pole limited their progress. Secondly, the terrible conditions those explorers had to face only goes to show their idiocy and not really endurance and bravery. Full credit to Amundsen for getting their first. However, his ease of the trip does make Scott look stupid. A lot of the negative remarks about Brits seem to stem from the arrogance of an entire country in decline, and comments from that beer company slurs about Henson. No Brit has earned the right to speak about Henson. But  its really the view of the entire country. What do you think the rest of the world would think if they took every word coming out of our Queen's mouth as that of every Brit? As for the negative comments about Brits and British Explorers, they deserve it after the negativity they have expressed for the polar winners. Otherwise, i feel sorry for Scot, Shackelton, Fiennes, et al - having a site exposes to public scrutiny their failed deeds or ignorant remarks. Jack the Ripper, London, England.

Jack,

Well said! You are not a "Polar moron". Are there more sane people like yourself in England?

Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Rebuttal
From: "Tom Avery" <tom@tomavery.net>
Subject: RE: In the footsteps of Peary and Henson
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004

Hi Verne,

Paul told me you were a unique character but that was not the response I was expecting! You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about the English – what can I say, we live on an obscure island, we drink tea all day, have some pretty disastrous polar expeditions in our history and are rubbish at all the sports we invented. So maybe you have a point.

I am surprised at the aggression of your email. I have as little belief in Wally’s book as you do. Like you, I am trying to show what a great man Peary was and restore some of the damage done by Herbert’s and other books over the years.

Our goal is simple – to try to reach the Pole in 38 days with Eskimo dogs and “Peary” sleds. Our expedition isn’t concerned about Peary’s notebook, clothing, communications and navigation. All we are concerned about is the speed – and if we can match the 38 days then it will show that Peary COULD have reached the Pole in the time he claimed. Paul (who I believe you have a lot of respect for) helped put the logistics of this trip together and is of the firm opinion that until someone tries to match Peary’s time, questions will still be asked of his travel speeds. You even go so far as to say on one of your websites that his 42-day trip to the Pole in 2000 “resolves a popular criticism by "arm-chair" experts who disputed Peary's achievement by citing "impossibly fast" sledging speeds”. All we are trying to do is go one step further. Wearing polar bear furs or sleeping in igloos will have no effect on the speed. Give me a break, Verne!

You can say all you like about our expedition Verne, but you’re in no position to judge my character. I am not for one moment trying to compare my experience, equipment, leadership qualities, dog driving abilities with Peary and Henson. They were truly remarkable men and if they were on our expedition, they would kick our ass. I have said this in all my interviews with the press. But we all have some useful experience and are determined to see this through. Besides, if polar travel is so easy these days Verne, then why don’t you head up to the Pole and give it a crack yourself!

Peary’s expedition is “disputed” because there a millions of people all over the world who dispute whether or not he actually got to the Pole at all. We are hoping to show them what really happened. If we fall into the water on day one and go crying back to our Mummies when we get cold, then you’ll be the first to know. I would still believe Peary even if we fail hopelessly.

I’m quite enjoying this now – I hope we get to speak one of these days!

Tom
-------------------------------
Tom Avery
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7630 0958
Mob: +44 (0) 774 775 0157
www.barcapultimatenorth.com
www.tomavery.net
Return of the North Pole!
By the Kingdom that brought you Lord of the Rings
Sponsored by--
And by--
Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
First email: Rebuttal is above
From: "Tom Avery" <tom@tomavery.net>
Subject: In the footsteps of Peary and Henson
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004

Dear Verne

My name is Tom Avery, I am a 28-year old Englishman and I have been given your name by Paul Landry. Paul and I skied to the South Pole together in 2002 and this coming spring I am setting off to the North Pole with 4 companions (including his ex-wife Matty McNair) and 16 husky dogs. Paul was hoping to come with us but sadly has had to pull out.

You may have read about our expedition in the press. If not, then I think you may be interested! We are setting off in early March with the aim of recreating Peary’s journey to the Pole. Peary got there in just 38 days – a time which has not been beaten to this day (Paul and Paul managed 42) – and is the main source of the controversy. Unlike Wally Herbert and most people in the UK, we are very much of the opinion that Peary was the first man at the North Pole and we intend to prove it! We spent 3 weeks in Baffin Island in February training and we are making final preparations at the moment.

We're basically recreating Peary's disputed expedition to the North Pole, same route (Cape Columbia), small teams of Canadian Inuit dogs, sleds built on exactly the same design as Peary's, and 4 food and fuel caches placed at exactly the same point as Peary's support parties turned back (Goodsell/MacMillan Camp at 84.29N, Borup Camp at 85.23N, Marvin Camp at 86.38N and Bartlet Camp at 87.47N). One of the big question marks over Peary's journey to the Pole was the 5 days it took him to reach the Pole from Bartlett Camp - a journey of 133 miles. If we get favourable ice and weather conditions, we will try to match Peary's sprint for the Pole. Peary will be the star and the main focus of the expedition – not us. You can read more about me and the trip at the 2 websites below.

It would be great to have a more in-depth conversation with you about the great man – Paul has told me you are one of the world’s experts on the subject. Do you have a telephone I can contact you on?

I look forward to hearing from you Verne

Cheers for now

Tom
-------------------------------
Tom Avery
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7630 0958
Mob: +44 (0) 774 775 0157
www.barcapultimatenorth.com
www.tomavery.net
Crazy Brits stole Pole!
Even crazier Brit now wants to prove it wasn't theirs to steal!
"We're basically recreating Peary's disputed expedition to the North Pole, "
Robert Falcon Scott is a perfect example of the British refusal to use dogs ("man's best friend") as Henson & Peary did. They all died from exhaustion where dog sledge teams succeeded.
Disputed expedition?
The only morons who assert that are the polar failure English who historically never used dogs, or frauds like Crook and his nut case British counterpart Hayes. Disputed? Disputed?!!
"...the Royal Geographical Society of Great Britain accorded Peary the highest honor within their power...on May 4, 1910...In conferring upon Peary at that time the special gold medal of the society, President Darwin, son of the great scientist, Charles Darwin, extended to him, in the presence of its members, the fullest assurance of their conviction that he was "the first and only human being who has ever led a party of his fellow creatures to a pole of the earth," for it will be remembered that at that time the South Pole had not as yet been reached. He said:
"I stand here to-night as the representative of the Royal Geographical Society, and, armed with the full authority of its council to welcome you, Commander Peary, as the first and only human being who has ever led a party of his fellow creatures to a pole of the earth."

Britain's dismal history of killing polar explorers (Franklin, Scott, etc.), sinking ships (Shackelton) contributed nothing but misery to history. The last UK polar attempt by Fiennes led him to cut his necrotic finger tips off with a fret saw. That is 150 years of polar idiots from the UK. Enough! Oh, not enough?

My web published evidence that Wally Herbert was a friend of Cook's daughter, and his outright lies concerning Peary's diary in his money-making 1986 book leave England in absolute shame.

England awarded Peary the gold medal in 1910; then 3 generations later your queen knighted Herbert for concocting a self-serving pack of lies to usurp Peary! Herbert claimed this made him the first to reach the North Pole and a "Pole starved country of polar disgraced Brits bought it." The English! Thank God you snotty lunatics are confined to an obscure island.

Tom, do not disappoint me for I expect your expedition to prove again that the UK can't reach the Pole without airplanes everywhere. Oh, and with a website, press coverage, donations, etc. Book and TV special...yeah, yeah. We both know all you will do is get air rescued.

Disputed! Ha!
If you and your entire crew were to have your experience, equipment, and leadership put on a balance scale against Peary & Henson you would be revealed as a joke. It is hubris and shear arrogance that you can even qualify for the task you propose. What an ego you must have running your body.

You know nothing about Peary & Henson and the secrets of their success. But please, by all means, email me again after you fail and have made a fool of yourself. I'd love to publish the photos and pathetic story for the benefit of those who continue to dispute the Peary polar achievement. Give me photos of your team members being rescued from the water, frostbite pictures, eating your dogs, and any final scenes of death. A few deaths would boost web traffic.

Since you plan to "recreate Peary's disputed expedition" that must mean that you are NOT going to take any form of radio equipment, cell phones, satellite phones, etc. Correct? You have no plans to have any air rescue standing by, eh? You are not going to take any GPS equipment, will you? And we must all wait for you to return from the complete round trip in order to learn if anyone survived, right?

What a brave, brilliant man you must be!
And you will have no proof that you reached the Pole other than your notebook, correct? Damn! I admire your courage to "recreate Peary's disputed expedition to the Pole..."

193.128.128.29
Friday, January 23, 2004

For good reasons you don't think much of the British in polar exploration, and neither do I! Your very appropriate quote "Just because a beer company prints a book that declares recent British polar adventurers the "Greatest in the world" does not mean anything outside of their tiny island." is hilariously true! You call the UK a "tiny island", and it really is--in mentality as well. British explorer nonsense like the "rescuer" Shackleton is an example. He never explored, he just fought for survival and yet the Brits have used him to over shadow the truly great Polar Explorer Roald Amundsen! Shackelton may have not achieved his aim, his 1914-1916 expedition was only a success in that he managed not to kill his men, which is no mean feat in the history of polar exploration for British now is it! Scott killed all of his!  You site Scott as a "bungler", yet that was something historians did--so I appreciate that you are mearly amplifying what was said for decades. Scott is an important lesson in ego, stupidity and failure to learn from those more experienced. If Scott had spent a month with Matthew Henson and Peary in the Arctic he could have saved not only his own dumb ass but that of his pathetic team who followed him to an agonizing, horrible death. Obviously this is what Peary & Henson avoided in all of their expedition. Bravo! Keep up the great website!

Regards, Simon Nattrass, Britain

About time we had a visitor who was not a moron.

Thank you for restoring my faith in British intelligence.

"...It is the Peary camp that has turned his mother's supposed fondness for dressing the little Peary in dresses INTO a "criticism"...
From: mycatsapunk@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003

A fanatic is someone who, losing sight of his goal, redoubles their effort. And speaking of absurd criticisms, you need to do better than Cook came back from a hunt with no meat and accidentally discharged a gun. There isn't a hunter alive who is successful on every hunt and with gunplay, "careless" discharges are not uncommon. Of course you are not so stupid as to not know better (tho perhaps that simple). You may be just a political stooge and have lost sight of your goal like the fanatic.
In any case and as always, it is fun to watch you flail away, zealously trying to convince yourself of the Peary integrity. It is the Peary camp that has turned his mother's supposed fondness for dressing the little Peary in dresses INTO a "criticism". I suspect you and the rest of the Peary fanatics have a self ordained vuneralbility that is the difference there! Do you feel criticized? Heh Heh. Peary's main problem was excessive Hubris and it is his loudest exhorters main problem as well. Good luck with your upcoming lobotomy. :)

AWARD: mycatsapunk@aol.com
 
is Polar Moron of the month for November, 2003.

"...Cook's Texas fraud and polar/Mckinley hoaxes seem relatively harmless in contrast to Peary's crimes against humanity..."
From: mycatsapunk@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003

There is no doubt that Cook was a crook, but Peary's character was far worse. It is unbelievable that the Peary and Cook camps still insist on the absurd claims of these explorers. It is very possible that there was a power struggle between Dedrick and Peary, but who cares. Peary's record of destruction and exploitation speaks for itself. Cook's Texas fraud and polar/Mckinley hoaxes seem relatively harmless in contrast to Peary's crimes against humanity, not to mention his gold brick! In any case, I think these guys are fascinating and I enjoy your listings and your editorials (tirades? heh heh). Obviously we disagree on Peary, but I hope you won't hold that against me if I bid on any of your items at some point! :) Sam

AWARD: mycatsapunk@aol.com
 
is Polar Moron of the month for November, 2003.

"...Cook was always charming, and was an accomplished explorer..."
From: mycatsapunk@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003

You haven't researched your history well. Peary was nothing more than a sniveling exploiter who damaged everything and everybody he ever came into contact with. At least Cook did not kill and destroy and abuse the peoples of the north. Peary never made the pole and his hoax was greater than Cook's. He can only brag about lying better. In the many hours of research I've put into this matter, I have yet to find any redeeming quality for Peary. He was simply a pathetic, narcisistic man who was crushed by his mother years before he got his start crushing others. History is catching up to Peary's Tour-de-Force deception and his legacy will soon mirror the true weasal he was. Cook had some character and integrity, although as he got older these qualities eroded. Cook was always charming, and was an accomplished explorer. During his adventures he always proved himself a compassionate and self-sacrificing compatriot. Peary possessed nothing but his own fat head.

:) -Sam

AWARD: mycatsapunk@aol.com
 
is Polar Moron of the month for November, 2003.

Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Note: We requested (read previous messages below) a proposal on letterhead from this particular Polar Moron. That is a normal response from any organization when a stranger requests time and resources. Instead of mailing us a letter, Roger sent another email, with the text below.

ROGER EMAIL #3

8606 East San Felipe Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
October 5, 2003

Mr. Russell R. Robinson
Peary & Henson Foundation
203 ½ Granada Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Russell R.:

I am writing you to obtain information on background on Adm Peary for an article I doing for a major newspaper in this country. I am aware he attended Bowdin (I went to Middlebury). He was commissioned in the Navy directly as lieutenant, apparently skipping two grades. What did his father do? I believe he came from an affluent family. Is my assumption correct? In this article I want to deal with facts. I don’t want anything in print under my name unless I can back it up with facts. This is the reason I am writing you, to avoid suppositions.

To explain where I am coming from – the Cook-Peary controversy has been a hobby of mine over many years.

In your office file I bet you can find a short biography (more detail than on the web) of the Admiral. I’d be glad to pay for reproduction costs.

From your perspective, what is the best book on Cook and Peary? I may already have it or I’ll have to buy it. I just ordered Mirsky. What do you think of her book?

If you wish to call me, my telephone number is 480-922-1534. Your help on this project will be greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Roger L. Freeman
 

(Reply not sent to Roger. Shhhh...)
Dear Roger,

Now you are becoming pathetic and I hate that. You will make me seem the bad guy here. But what can I do? You leave no options:

1) You can't mail a letter? All you can do is fire off emails? Then how are you ever going to be published in "a major newspaper" as you claim? Is the Arizona Cattle Bulletin a "major newspaper" to you?
"...an article I doing for a major newspaper in this country."

AWARD: Roger L. Freeman, <rogerf67@cox.net>
 
is Polar Moron of the month for October, 2003.


2) You cannot write a sentence without leaving out words or misspelling them. Yet you claim in every email "I doing for a major newspaper..." but in fact you have only been published in the dark pages of the obscure Vetters Vendetta newsletter. Therefore you are delusional, or trying to con me.

3) You cannot spell Peary's college, have his military rank incorrectly stated, admit you are making assumptions without facts, and otherwise indicate a sub-high school level of scholarship.

4) Your most absurdly patronizing request is for a recommendation "...what is the best book on "Cook and Peary."? Roger, there is no such book. Crook has nothing to do with Peary except that Crook was caught trying to steal Peary's life work. Crook's preposterous attempt to steal fame from Peary ended on December 22, 1909 when "major newspapers" all over the world proclaimed Crook a fraud. That was 94 years ago. Only you and your fellow Vetters Vendetta pals are beating this very dead horse with Vetters million dollar trust fund as the only known source of motivation.

I know perfectly well who you are; the son of the man conned by Cook's vindictive daughter to publish one of the classic anti-establish books on Crook. In fact, your dad's The Case for Dr. Cook is hilarious because it is simply proof that Crook and his daughter Helene could infect others with their delusional con game.

The Crookies have warmed you in the past with their campfire. What happened? Did they kick you out? Won't they let you be a member of their gang anymore Roger?

Please forward a clipping of your article when a major newspaper publishes it.

Thank you so much for writing.

Sincerely,

Dr. Frederick A. Crook
Milkman, Explorer of Public Gullibility & Famous Con Artist
C/O Leavenworth Federal Prison
ROGER EMAIL #2

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003
From: "Roger Freeman" <rogerf67@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Yes, the IRS should look at the Vetters Vendetta

Russell R.:

I don't have much of a letter head; I'm just a working troop. I've been both in the Arctic and Antarctic, in more or less secondary roles. The Cook-Peary controversy is a hobby.

I'll mke up a letter and send it to you on Tuesday.

roger freeman

 
(Reply not sent to Roger. Shhhh...)

Dear Roger,

You do not have stationary? Then how would ever realize the intention to have your work published, as you stated, "...in an article for a major newspaper."?

Were you trying to impress me? If so you blew it with the follow up email. You should have snuck off to Kinko's and asked them how to fake an impressive letterhead. Better idea--sneak into the offices of your local "major newspaper" during lunch hour. Grab a sheet of stationary or business card off an editors desk. If security tosses you out try the dumpster around the back of the major newspaper." Then scan the artwork into your computer and make nice phony letterhead stationary.

I'd say for a guy of your ambitions, one who wants to revive the fraud perpetrated by a delusional con artist over 90 years ago, that any "journalist" title on your phony (a la Crook) stationary would do fine. Remember that guy at the New York Times who was making shit up about the Iraq war? Use his title. He has no use for it now.

Oh, and don't tip you hand! Don't say totally dumb-ass shit in a follow up email such as "The Cook-Peary controversy is a hobby.  I'll mke up a letter and send it to you..."

Roger, that immediately exposes your IQ, motives, and, well, just everything we needed to know about you. In fact, why don't you send that letter you promised to "mke up" and mail it to the Crook Society instead of me? "Birds of a feather", you know?

Please send us a clipping of your finished article when a "major newspaper" prints it. I can't wait to see that.

Thank you so much for writing.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Dr. Frederick A. Crook
Milkman, Explorer of Public Gullibility & Famous Con Artist
C/O Leavenworth Federal Prison
ROGER EMAIL #1

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 13:50:45 -0700
From: "Roger Freeman" <rogerf67@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Yes, the IRS should look at the Vetters Vendetta

Russell R.:

I'm trying to get some factual information on Adm Peary's background. I believe he came from a very good family. Could you please give me any information you have on that. He went to Bowdin in Maine. That's one of America's finest schools. My objective is a small research project ending up in an article for a major newspaper. I intend to call the shots as I see them, facts only. Your support would be greatly appreciated.

roger freeman
rogerf67@cox.net
Roger,

Please send your proposal on letterhead. Thank you.
 
RE: Inuit or Eskimo
I appreciated your sensitive dissertation on Eskimo vs. Inuit.

Political correctness is a funny thing. Eskimo was not a European epithet for those people, but rather the term used by the Labrador Native Americans (Native Canadians? or does America refer to the whole continent? How do distinguish among a Native American Mexican, a Native American U.S.
American, and a Native American Canadian. Maybe Native Americans don't.)

If it was demeaning, that is not to different than other Native American tribal names that have crept into usage. As I recall, the Adirondack tribe was so called (derogatorily) by another tribe, and means those who eat bark. Referring to the Inuit as "those who eat raw meat" might or might not have been derogatory, but it was certainly accurate (although obviously it is not any longer). I am not sure Inuit is much better. Yes, it simply means "people," but its use to apply only to the people in question reflects their ignorant belief, a couple of centuries ago, that they were the only people in the world. Certainly they don't believe that any more.

I suppose we could call Germans Volk, French people Gens, etc., but then we would be stuck calling Brits, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders (leaving aside the controversial issues of Scots, Welsh and Irish, Northern and otherwise) all by the same term we use for ourselves. That would never do.

Like you say, who cares?
Wow. You are not a moron. Thank you for elevating this discussion way over Fred's head.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Janet Vetters
 

Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Email #1
Return-Path: <imageindesign@sympatico.ca>
Received: from sandy ([65.93.123.172]) by tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.32 201-253-122-126-132-20030307) with ESMTP
id <20030816201040.SWQX26593.tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net@sandy>

From: "Sandy Wallace" <imageindesign@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003

Another myth perpetuated, they're not 'Eskimos' but 'Inuit'... Eskimo is a white man's version of what they thought of the Inuit, they were 'meat eaters' or 'Eskimos'.

Email #2

Well, Duh back to ya, fuckhead... As you can tell, I'm awake now and pissed... No, to call it a 'historical' web site as you have, implies it is a recreation of a site from 1909... Best 'o my knowledge Sparky, there wasn't an internet then. And they wouldn't be called 'negroes' they'd be called 'niggers', better parallel don't you think? Oh, and considering our beer is the best on this planet, and your mother's probobly a moose, thanks for the compliment. Now, crawl back under your rock, good luck with your little project, and go fuck yourself.

Email #3

Hey Man, Sorry I hit a nerve. Take care, all the best, and I shall try to be fairer in the future.

William Wallace
207 Harvard Road
Waterloo, ON N2J 3V7
519-883-0717

PS Ya know, I had a kid not 7 weeks ago. Am tired to the bone, thought your site interesting-not perhaps worthy of cool site of the day, but there you go. But I'm so fucking tired, that your email almost made me cry. What ever happened to simple back and forth? Take care, have a good day, and I hope not to talk with you again.

PPS The likelihood of me reading anything you've written is pretty well nil, even though, historical lies are a big thing for me. C'est la vie.
Eskimo was the modern (for then) spelling of the 1800's Esquimaux.

This is an historical website (It is about the 1909 polar controversy) and every bit of literature I have from that period calls them Eskimo. The term Inuit came 80 years later. I suppose if you visit a Civil War website you would encounter the term "slaves", but would you write to tell the owner that they were actually "African Americans"?

Crook called the Eskimos his "boreal pygmies", or the "savage children of the north", "savages", etc. I publish three books of that period and not one of them calls them Inuit. They were, historically, Eskimos, boreal pygmies, natives, or savages.

Inuit is only a politically correct "new term" similar to when Negroes became Blacks before becoming African Americans before going back to being Negroes again. You'll find that in the Introduction to My Arctic Journal Peary's grandson writes: "...the Eskimos (the word Inuit was not yet in use)..." http://www.myarcticjournal.com

An interesting point to consider is that Dr. Allen Counter, who himself is Black, wrote a book about the Henson Inuits: http://matthewhenson.com/legacy.htm. He titled it "Black, White, and Eskimo". Maybe you should mail a letter to him at Harvard University and ask him why he choose Eskimo instead of Inuit.

The point is that these terms are nor inherently pejorative yet many people have knee-jerk negative reactions similar to Sandy Wallace in the belief that one has to change even historical uses of a term. In that regard, my comments about the Civil War are profound. Should we re-write history books to call the slaves "freedom challenged African Americans?" You can see how potentially burdensome this becomes.

I refer to Henson as a Negro because he refers to himself as a Negro. I use Eskimo because Matt did, Peary did, etc.

Just so you don't forget, you visited a history website about the 1909 period. My terminology is appropriate in that context-- in contemporary ones I always use Inuit.

Love,

Russell R. Robinson,
Caucasian American
Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Dear Mr. Claus,

I had heard recently that Santa Claus missed the North Pole by almost 100 miles on his Christmas Expedition of 1979-1982. Could that really be true? And, if so, can it mean that the "circumnavigation of the globe by its polar axis" trek is still unclaimed?

By the way, I absolutely love your website, and I support Robert Peary.

Sincerely,

Sir Rudolph The Reindeer
Thank you for the compliment.

Santa may have missed the Pole, but his reindeer urinated on it. What I'd like is a shot of Rudolph pissing on the Pole. Or taking a dump. After all, Peary and Henson shit and pissed on the Pole back in 1909.

Why do you call yourself "Sir Rudolph?"? You can knock that phony royalty crap off with Santa—damn deer either pull their weight or they go into the oven for dinner.

Santa
From: "Julian Baggini" <editor@philosophers.co.uk>
Subject: RE: if I cannot corroborate it.
Date: Mon, 26 May

Of course you are right. I'm looking for one anecdote which I could replace with another if I need to and instead of asking a few people who might know something about it, I should go and spend months reading the whole literature on Peary, perhaps only to discover that the anecdote is false so I can't use it, because that's "proper research". (It wasn't in the diary - which I read before I emailed you - but that's only a small part of the literature.) I will also, if asked about any area of my own expertise in the future, tell people to go away and do their own research because although it costs me no effort to say "Yes, you should look here" or "sorry, I can't help", the most important thing is that someone else doesn't benefit from my knowledge.

Please feel free to reply with the last word and abuse me some more. I shall not bother you again.

Yours

"Phony"
---------------------------------------------
Dr Julian Baggini
The Philosophers' Magazine
98 Mulgrave Road
Sutton, Surrey
SM2 6LZ
United Kingdom
http://www.philosophers.co.uk
... the most important thing is that someone else doesn't benefit from my knowledge.

What knowledge? Your "hearsay" variety obtained from a TV show?

Your offer to help such hypothetical "people" is based on the current fact that you do not receive numerous daily email from lazy know-nothings. If you did you'd quickly catch on that you can't spend 8 hours a day writing free research material for strangers who disappear like smoke as soon as you have given them what they want.

Your eternal servant in Truth,


Dr. Frederick A. Crook
Milkman, Explorer of Public Gullibility & Famous Con Artist
C/O Leavenworth Federal Prison
From: "Julian Baggini" <editor@philosophers.co.uk>
Subject: RE: A comment about your Polar website
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003

I am sorry you feel the need to be so hostile. The reason I am checking this is precisely because I will not include what I have been told if I cannot corroborate it. The book I am writing is also not about Peary and the incident I am interested in is little more than an anecdote along the way. That's why I am certainly not a Peary expert and cannot be expected to be one.

I think you must have got the wrong impression from my enquiry for otherwise your abusive reaction is inexplicable.

---------------------------------------------
Dr Julian Baggini
The Philosophers' Magazine
98 Mulgrave Road
Sutton, Surrey
SM2 6LZ
United Kingdom
http://www.philosophers.co.uk
Oh, now you are posturing as being indignant. You're such a phony. You want the opinions of strangers to include in a book you will copyright? You call that "research?" I'd expect that from a lazy college freshman and do often get asked, in email, to write content for total strangers. Never do it.

I always, and you are no exception, recommend the library and original sources.  For Christ's sake--Peary's diary of the Pole trip is published on the website where you found my email address. So what is your problem? Can't read, won't read, or what? http://dougdavies.com/diaryMAIN55.htm

You said you were doing research. Well, get to work and read what Peary said. That is research. Then you can judge what possible need you have for what others said about Peary who were not there or was said well after the fact by non-participants.

Research? You are such a phony. Who do you think you're fooling?

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
From: "Julian Baggini" <editor@philosophers.co.uk>
Subject: RE: A comment about your Polar website
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003

I am researching a book and have been told that Robert Peary reported feeling empty, a "deadweight" on the return trip from the pole. I can't find the source for this, although I was told it came up in the History Channel's Iceman series.

Julian
---------------------------------------------
Dr Julian Baggini
The Philosophers' Magazine
98 Mulgrave Road
Sutton, Surrey
SM2 6LZ
United Kingdom
http://www.philosophers.co.uk
I am researching a book...

What does that mean? Are you writing one or investigating one?

...and have been told that Robert Peary reported feeling empty, a "deadweight" on the return trip from the pole.

You have "been told"? What kind of research are you doing? Listening to misinformation from non-experts?

What books by Peary have you read?
I will wager the answer is none.

I can't find the source for this, although I was told it came up in the History Channel's Iceman series.

Oh, there you go! Television! You're not doing research--you're a phony. Get off your ass and go to a library.
Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:32:09 -0700
From: Asenderno23@wmconnect.com

Here are the facts:
FACTS

Monty has been convicted of criminal acts in Bay St. Louis, MS; one count of criminal assault, one count of criminal trespassing, and one count of criminal disturbing the peace. He appealed those convictions and lost. This appears on the site for the Mississippi State Court of Appeals.
Monty was arrested on Oct.31, 2001 for the beating and rape of a 20-year-oldmale. He did not deny having sex with the victim, but claimed it was just not rape, as published in the newspaper in link 2 below.
MaleRape Article 1 link, Little Rock (2 articles, $1.95 per article)
MaleRape Article 2 link, Little Rock, AR, KARK-TV story with photograph
Male Rape Article3 link, Hot Springs, AR, part-way down page
Male Rape Article4 link, Hot Springs, AR, half-way down page
Male Rape Article5 link, Hot Springs, AR, half-way down page
MaleRape Article 6 link, Bay St Louis, MS [includes photograph]
MaleRape Article 7 link, Bay St Louis, MS [includes photograph]

NOTE BENE: Your email about libel is ignorant nonsense, so do not respond to this email as we are no longer interested in helping you.
Thank you for the links, but they fail to support your allegations that Father Monty was sentenced for crimes, let alone even tried. Spanking is a common sexual act in dominance. Don't you watch TV? Sounds to me like Monty knows what gets him off and finds men over 18 to play games with. Sex between adults is not a crime, even in intolerant, backward parts of the world such as Arkansas.

Rape charge against 'priest' withdrawn... has been withdrawn by prosecutors because they are unable to locate the alleged victim...in the case has left the area and despite the repeated efforts of two investigators to find him they have been unsuccessful. Given the age of the victim, Oliver noted that prosecutors need his testimony that the sexual acts that allegedly took place were against his will...(Father Monty) said the victim consented to be paddled that day, but not before he first had the victim sign a written record including his name, age, his offense, etc. "This was done mutually," he said. "Not forced."

You still have not supplied your name, address, phone number, or other necessary information that would allow us to direct an attorney to you for a defamation of character lawsuit should Father Monty wish to do so.

The information you sent relates only to charges, not convictions. "A local man charged Wednesday with rape for an incident involving a 20-year-old man said Thursday his arrest was "a day of degradation of the kind no human being should endure" and that he did nothing "morally or legally improper." Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

How do we know that man making the charges is not lying? After all, it seems to me that a 20 year old would be able to whoop old Father Monty's ass in a fight; have you tried to rape a 20 year old recently? Believe me, they don't exactly stand still. Take it from me, it is hard to do and unbelievable that an old fart like Father Monty could pull it off.

But thank you for sharing your desires to destroy the reputation of a man not convicted of any crime. He may have only been the victim of an angry gay lover turned vindictive. Would not be the first time.

Thank you for sharing.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 20:40:12 -0700
From: Asenderno23@wmconnect.com
Subject: Re: Matthew Henson Website

RE: The piece by "Canon White" quoted below is bogus and should be removed from your website because "Father Monty", the author is a convicted criminal and known sex offender to the Hot Springs Police. Monty aka White was arrested for the brutal rape and beating of a 20 year old man in October, 2001.

B O G U S email quoted below:

Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
From: "Rev'd Canon Henry White, M.A. (Oxon)"
Subject: The Father Monty Foundation, UK & USA.

Dear Russell R.:
I am very pleased to inform you that Father Monty's piece titled "Graves of Segregation," has now included a link to your fine Matthew Hensen site. Here is Father Monty's wonderful piece on cemetery discrimination: www.fathermonty.org/graves.htm Our Blessings! Faithfully, Rev'd Canon Henry White, M.A. (Oxon) United States Anglican Church House Hot Springs National Park Arkansas, USA. From the Boyhood Home of President Wiliam Jefferson Clinton.+ Dearly Beloved, 2001.
"Should be removed from your website..."
Your email is libel in the full legal sense. If you provide documents substantiating your remarks, then it is factual information called "news" and I can print it with you attributed as the source. Otherwise it is simply "some person with no address, phone number, or documentation sent me a libelous email and I printed it without verifying any of its assertions." What the hell do you think this is, The New York Times?!!

By all means, mail us copies of the news clippings, and a statement from the Hot Springs Police testifying that Father Monty is, as you say, "a convicted criminal and known sex offender...arrested for the brutal rape and beating of a 20 year old man". A photo of a Hot Springs police officer would make a great addition as the web is a visual media. Copies of publicly available court records, showing the convictions, the raped 20 year-old man, etc. would be perfect.

However, I should point out that in our free society even "a convicted criminal and known sex offender" has the right to have their email published. There is no law against freedom of expression that I am aware of. But there are laws against libel.

In any event you are only known to me as "Asenderno23@wmconnect.com". Please send a letter by USPS with your full name and contact info so that I can publish these concerns with your name attached to it.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
From: Robert Adams <rdashopping@postmaster.co.uk>
To: judgekillits@polarcontroversy.com
Subject: Inaccurate?
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003

With your gifts of persuasion and diplomacy your views are bound to become accepted the world over.

Why, then, are we known as a mongrel race?

I can tell the difference between Tongans and Samoans - becaues the different genetic lines that make up those "races" cause different features to come to the fore. BEing able to difeerentiate between peoples is no indicatin of the "purity" of their gene pool.

You're clearly frothing at the mouth about something that most people really couldn't give a damn about. You've responded to me with little other than ill-informed racist abuse and strings of assumptions and conjectures to support your ill-formed arguments. In short, you're an arsehole and I hope you're happy with that, for your sake.

Goodbye,
Rob
You've responded to me with little other than ill-informed racist abuse ...you're an arsehole

Sure, whatever. But the facts are the same.
English people mouth off in public (Fiennes) to deny Henson his place in history, or write a book (Herbert) to try and steal the North Pole from America!

Who are the racists? Who are the arseholes?

Peary and Henson reached the North Pole in 1909 and no amount of British bullshit will ever change that.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
From: Robert Adams <rdashopping@postmaster.co.uk>
To: judgekillits@polarcontroversy.com
Subject: Inaccurate?
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003

To view the world so simplistically is a gift to be envied.

I'm English, I've known Amundsen got to the South Pole first for as long as I can remember hearing stories about men going to Antarctica.

As for the inbreeding... parts of me are Italian, Irish, French, Scottish and Tongan....there isn't now and never has been such a thing as ethnically English.

Your knowledge of England would seem to come from reading too many Jeeves and Wooster books.

Rob
Your knowledge of England would seem to come from reading too many Jeeves and Wooster books.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to. Jeeves? Isn't that a search engine?

The point is still the same. According to a BBC producer you "people" virtually worship polar bozos Fiennes and Herbert and hate Peary.

Whatever the problem is, the fact remains. England denies Henson and Peary the North Pole. It is a national mental health problem of some sort. A need to compensate for no Pole by stealing a Pole, or, failing that to deny Peary the Pole.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
From: Robert Adams <rdashopping@postmaster.co.uk>
To: judgekillits@polarcontroversy.com
Subject: Inaccurate?
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003

Evening,

I've just stumbled across your Polar Controversy site (thinking about getting a friend a title for her birthday and there was a link on your page... anyhow) and you seem to have a serious problem with English people.

I've only skimmed across the site and can't comment on much of it but just hoped to explain a few things. In England we love a glorious failure - that's why the base is named after Scott rather than Amundsen (you know, the successful one who didn't actually die). Hell, look at the way we idolise Earnest Shackleton. Don't know why we do, but we do. And, like most other people, we do tend to laud our own above others who may deserve it more.

Other thing was, you mention that South Africa is the last outpost of the British Empire. Isn't true in the least. And apartheid? read up on your South African history and you'll find out that the countrys white population was broadly split along Dutch (Afrikaans)-British lines... the former (under Smuts) being the driving force behind apartheid. If it had been the british they wouldn't have used an afrikaans word, believe me there's no love lost between them.

And as for being a global oppressor, I'm not going to argue that there are too many sainthoods to be handed out but just consider that under British global hegemony the poorest nation on the earth had an average GDP one tenth of the richest, under american global hegemony it is one hundreth.

Not saying we're the best, but we're not and we weren't all bad.

Hope you have a good weekend,

Rob
...just stumbled across your Polar Controversy site

Stumbled? Did you hurt yourself? Dr. Crook would never forgive himself if he harmed you.

...you seem to have a serious problem with English people.

Problem singular? That would be great if I only had one problem! Serious? Don't go getting all overly dramatic with me.

Don't you know that the "English people" had a serious problem with Amundsen? Your rotten son-of-a-bitch forefathers and foremothers wrote him out of your history books. Why? For his sin of reaching the South Pole before Scott? Why would such fair minded, justice centered, altruistic English people condemn him for his success? Was it because it magnified Scott's manslaughter?

You tell me who has the serious problem; you confirm English people have condemned the success of others. We call this a "sore loser"; as in my editorial refrain of "sore British losers." It is my duty to make readers aware of the damage England has caused manipulating the facts of history.

...In England we love a glorious failure—look at the way we idolise Earnest Shackleton. Don't know why we do, but we do.

Well, there you go Sherlock Holmes! Yes, you love failures, as you so brilliantly put it. You tell me who has the serious problem. It sounds like a British national mental health issue.

...you mention that South Africa is the last outpost of the British Empire. Isn't true in the least. And apartheid? read up on your South African history...

So you missed this footnote? http://polarcontroversy.com/sorebritishlosers/sorebrits3.htm

(3) "...Anglo-Boer Wars of 1880-81 and 1899-1902. British forces prevailed in the conflict, and the republics were incorporated into the British Empire. In May 1910, the two republics and the British colonies of the Cape and Natal formed the Union of South Africa, a self-governing dominion of the British Empire. The Union's constitution kept all political power in the hands of whites. ...the government continued to pass laws limiting the rights and freedoms of blacks. [http://www.worldrover.com/history/south_africa_history.html]

You tell me who has the serious problem. It sounds like a British national mental health issue of denial and justification for anything the British Empire ever did no matter how cruel, oppressive, or racist.

.. under British global hegemony the poorest nation...had an average GDP one tenth of the richest, under american...it is one hundreth.

First, the problems of today ("...average GDP...") are uniquely the result of very serious overpopulation. 6,000,000,000 humans in an age of industrial deflation is pure insanity. We don't need that many humans to slave away in agriculture or industry now that these have been automated. Yes, it is true that without enslavement by the British Empire entire populations such as India are no longer forced to provide a gross domestic product (GDP) to the Queen.

Secondly, my remarks are sarcastic but have absolutely truthful historical roots. "They once ruled an imperial realm known as "The British Empire", upon which the sun never set. Britain sailed all over the globe spreading imperialism, mating with locals and giving them venereal diseases. They used Australia for a prison. But then the sun did set as local people woke up and killed the British to have freedom. America had to battle Britain twice; once during the Revolutionary War, then again during the War of 1812 when they burned down the White House. India had a hell of a time kicking the British out, until Gandhi united the people. Hong Kong was British ruled after they lost the Opium Wars (2). That was because the Queen wanted Chinese tea and porcelain. She wanted gold & diamonds, too, so Britain enslaved most of southern Africa (3)"

...we weren't all bad.

England is all bad in the sense that inbreeding has created a population that leans heavily towards upper class snobbery. Those who wanted freedom fled the country and are now known as Americans. Those who opposed it's rulers were killed or exiled to Australian penal colonies. Right? And those who stayed in England were obviously brown-nosers of the ruling class. So there you have it.

After all you are writing me because of the actions of your fellow countrymen to deny two Americans their rightful place in History. Your Fiennes denied Henson's place on the event of the Hubbard medal award. Your Herbert tried to steal the North Pole from Peary in a book based on delusions and/or lies.

You tell me who has the serious problem.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003
From: wayne <patrickstuart81@go.com>
Subject: 10" seconds of arc needs some form of repetition

Greetings, may I start with a quote...

Although I do not use copyrights for a very good reason, thoughts and ideas are free, I would have expected some courtesy from your part, especially in advising of the usage of some of my images and text...

Dr Cook has seen the sun at -4 to -5 degrees below the horizon while on his way to the pole, this has been repeated, mathematically and physically (at other sites, one of which is Novaya Zemlaya). Although I still  find 6-7 minutes of arc compressions very difficult to prove at low elevations, Peary's 10 seconds of arc (notice always 10 seconds of arc, no variations) measurements unprovable.

I really appreciated your criticism, it is healthy to do so. Although your thinking too much in terms of atmospheric pressure rather than following a light path.

And Finally, I noted your bias in favor of Peary, while you think I have one in favour of Dr Cook. These sentiments are irrelevant, what matters is the truth found in nature. At this time, I am not convinced that 6' of arc compressions are to be found in nature at sun elevations but I'll be doing a great deal more of observing in cold air (whenever it returns) , I would encourage your own research to continue on this subject, a challenge would be for you to repeat Peary's measurement, a Peary elevation sun compression of 10" of arc, measure it in your neighboorhood with a similar sextant if you wish. I think that you'll find it an interesting and compelling challenge. Lack of magnification of a sextant is not limited to the vertical.

Wayne PS Davidson
Resolute Bay
Listen here you preposterous ASS!

1) Read up on copyright at the Library of Congress (as in dot com, jerk-off). They have a tutorial for morons you might grasp.
2) Read the Associated Press Style book and Libel Manual. That will explain the "fair use doctrine" and non-commercial uses so that even you can understand it.

Point is, anything published can be used ("Fair use doctrine") in commentary, review, etc. without anyone's permission. No credit is necessary you idiot. When the publication has NO COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, then you can double that.

The 160 pixels width derivative screen shot of your ice-hole website is credited to the asshole who owns it (one Wayne Davidson) AND HAS A FUCKING LINK TO SAID ASSHOLE'S WEBSITE. None was required by any law.

My advice is to take down your website so the link will fail. After all, it is a smoking gun to your stupidity.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003
From: wayne <patrickstuart81@go.com>
Subject: would like to link, but...

I forgot to mention, would like to link your critical review, but I am compelled not to do so, because of the language used, especially against Dr Cook. You can get your point accross stronger if while not using the usual Cook vs Peary slang words, or prop pictures which can be used any which way one chooses. Some segments of your work have merit and deserves attention, but the usual Cook vs Peary language dilutes the quality of your web page a great deal. Then again if you are a 'believer' of Peary, a religious attitude, an act of faith, then your web page should say so, I will then eventually definitely link in that case, while saying that your page is a perfect example of why history sometimes gets confused by a blend of emotional faith and science.

I would link like this:

Here is a critical review.... Warning he is a Peary apologist, and the language used is unfortunately at times inappropiate.....

If (by miracle, knowing that for Peary apologists this is a hard thing to do) you would remove the offensive language:

Click here for a critical review ...especially with respect to the Cook vs Peary debate. He defends Peary's sun disk measurements at the Pole in an objective structured way, while questionning Dr Cook's data quite effectively.

It is a shame that I can't link like the latter way.

Wayne
God! What a weasel you are. You are a manipulative ass on top of everything else.

Get with reality: Dr. Crook was a vicious criminal. His name and the events associated with it should be erased from the history books, not debated 90 years later.

Stop drinking so much beer and lay off the home grown Canadian pot.

Your eternal servant in Truth,

Frederick A. Crook
Your comments (with your spelling)
Our reply
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003
From: wayne <patrickstuart81@go.com>
Subject: Re: Solid evidence proves Cook was a con artist

Dear Fake name

I never said Cook made it to the North Pole, therefore your brain is not reading well, try to read more than call names like an angry spoiled teenager, that will do you good.

Wayne
Hi Wayne!

Thank you so much for writing, once more. Glad you have not forgotten us. The rest of your asinine mail is on page two, Wayne.

[Wayne, for those who don't know and probably don't give a shit anyway, takes pictures of the sun. These (he believes) prove something or other to Wayne, but are used as an insomnia cure for the rest of us.]

http://www.eh2r.com/mp/frame_pages/differ_main.html

More Polar Moron Mail: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3


Email Page  |  Forum  |  Book store  |  Contact  Home

© 2002. To use our material: Terms