Well what a spat from Fred.

Let us go through my agenda Fred because it is very simple and there is no hidden motive. Don´t bother guessing there is nothing to guess at. I have already said it a number of times on this thread and you have ignored it so far and no doubt you will ignore it again. But at least I personally feel I have tried.

The magazine of which you are a co-editor said it had kept a file over a number of years on Peter Kennedy. We know this because your co-editor Rod Stradling said so.

This file consists of anonymous allegations. Some of these are positive towards Peter Kennedy and the majority are not. The positive contributions have no comment from the publisher and the negative ones are listed under "It is alleged that:".

This published file is edited.

The piece then goes on to ask for concrete evidence of these allegations. (Emphasis in the original).

Now Fred, tell me honestly, is keeping a file of anonymous allegations, editing it, and then publishing the allegations, asking for concrete evidence to support them, the sort of standard you expect others to adhere to? For you seem happy to avoid the question however often is asked as to why Mustrad does this.

So there it is Fred, in black and white and said, I would hope, plainly enough. If you are not sure what it all means, Fred feel free to ask. For I can do patronising as well.

To ask why I have no interest in the accusations against Peter Kennedy is to ignore what I have written in this thread. But then Fred I get used to that from you. But I am happy to state it here again and it is no different from what I have written before.

I do not know enough about the collecting, copyright, and royalties aspect of Peter Kennedy´s practices to form a judgement about the man. I understand from what people tell me that they are not exactly honourable. Some of those people are people whose judgement I trust and are happy to put their name to what they write. Mustrad is not included in this because under "Peter Kennedy:An Appraisal" it publishes anonymous allegations.

I do not accept the word of someone who relies on gossip and assumptions, as you did when the question of the EFDSS and digitisation came up. Can you blame me?

I know there are other collectors and record companies whose practices are questionable and I fail to understand why Peter Kennedy has been singled out in this way. I can only imagine that the file at Mustrad is not large enough on them yet.

As for twisting your words, I doubt if you realise what you have written sometimes. But quote me an example where your words have been twisted and I will gladly retract them. I may have put words from one email in conjunction with the words in another email in a way which you did not intend but that is the way of the discussion list Fred. And it does succesfully point out the contradictions in what you write.

I have only ever quoted your own words and just because they contradict each other or show double standards does not mean they have been twisted.

But continue to ignore the awkward questions Fred.

Any views on how you think the family might feel yet?