I´d like to draw back this discussion to the original post, since I feel it has drifted away.

Mustrad saves files on people over a period of years. We know this because Rod Stradling says so. ("Over the years a file of comments and information has built up in my office".) And because Fred McCormick (co-editor of Mustrad) tells us that nothing is thrown away. ("Rod, like any good editor, keeps all MT correspondence on file".)

He has waited until the particular subject of this file is dead and then......under the guise of a critical re-appraisal.........and with as far as we can tell no thought to the family.........

Mustrad publishes an edited version of the file (we know this because the editor says it is edited.("I have now edited it").

It consists of a series of positive points which have no qualification whatsoever attached to them (i.e. presumably the editor agrees) and a much longer series of negative points. The negative points begin with the words: "It has been alleged that :"

Apart from one all these allegations, positive and negative are anonymous.

The editor says he is "particularly interested in concrete examples..." of at least some of the allegations that have been made made anonymously and which he has just published. In other words he seeks evidence to support the anonymous allegations he has just published.

He then suggests that if another editor does not publish his version ("I will then subsume these contributions within the piece") then he will.

I happen to think this is a disgraceful way to behave, and I am interested to hear who else will have this technique applied to them in the future. Ready to tell us Fred, or will it only happen when we/they are dead too?


Dave Eyre