Monday, December 13, 2010

Double Blep

Well, a friend of my Writing Partner sent a package of stuff. This is good. It contained a tract from 1882 that neither of us has seen, and nicer copies of some other items. The 1882 tract is very interesting. I don't think it adds to historical events much if you consider a straight chronicle. But it gives a bit of insight into one of these characters personalities. I'll think about that for a while.

The blep part of this comes from another package. A guy who lives across the river from friend noted above contained some pages of photocopy and one digital scan. Now we already have the bit of scan we got from this guy. Or we had it for a tiny bit. Someone else sent that to my WP with the understanding that he could look but would delete it. I didn't even get to see it! But it at least provided evidence of a sort. So WP writes to friend B. Friend B says, yes, that's the real deal. He adds I have some stuff you might want to see. Okay? Great! So WP writes back and says can we have a copy of document C. Answer: Maybe. Do we get document C. NO! What the heck is so secret about this thing?! What we get is a very clear black and white scan of some signatures.

Now, dear hearts, the signatures are prolly the most important bit, but, this is disappointing. At least we have it in a form we can use, though I'm not comfortable crediting "Courtesy of an Anonymous Contributor from New York." It will have to do unless we can pry this out of someone's stingy hands.

The tendency toward secretiveness on the part of the religion involved marks it as one step away from being a suspicious cult. They deserve the reputation they have. They bring it on themselves by this inordinate and unnecessary secrecy.

So ... double Blep!

No comments:

Post a Comment