"but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended..."
No Brian, you raised it, I responded to your doing so.
"Actually, having re-read the interview with Sheila Stewart, I realise I misunderstood part of it and would now upgrade my judgement of his behaviour towards her as reprehensible. Equally, I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired."
Given your objection to MacColl and SEEGER'S (you seem to be selective in your lying the blame) behaviour to the Stewarts, I thought you might be able to enlighten me on why their behaviour was "reprehensible" and "leaving much to be desired" - apparently you can't.
"Jim seems to have moved on to insulting bigger fish than me"
Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel; I said that having read the book twice and searched deliberately for the examples of offence, I have failed to find them.
I made a point of saying "I am not disputing that offence was taken, but I am totally in the dark as to what that offence was,"
Have you actually read the book?
Please climb out of your gutter for a few minutes.
Jim Carroll