Samuel 1650 – a Dutch mid-17th century trader

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Ab? Apparently you haven't even looked at the illustrations and plans reproduced in post #74, and I can find much more period material that clearly shows that pretty much all your personal preferences for a "necessary" reinterpretation of this reconstruction have no solid basis. Unfortunately, I also have my other projects and limited time to manage, so perhaps we won't waste time on such mutual, perfunctory "help" after all.

This is probably also a good opportunity to say that I will not take up your offer of a joint project for publication after all.

.​

 

[Ab Hoving]

Waldemar,

It is remarkable and regrettable at the same time how furious you react when confronted with other opinions than your own. Yes, I have seen your illustrations (of which some even confirm some of the aspects I mentioned and as expected contradict them at the same time), but the point is that I have been playing around with this stuff for over 50 years and I have seen many, many variations in all sorts of material. Self-contradictory phenomenon are more a rule than an exception. Remarkable and almost hilarious is the contradiction between praising my work over the top several times and your furious comments if spying different opinions. I must conclude that critics hurt you more than could be expected for a person as erudite as you are. But I'm sorry to say, even you are not infallible. As an example I may perhaps remind you of your first totally wrong analysis of Samuel, about which I tried to correct you as diplomatic as I could. I would have appreciated if you had asked me to elaborate about the points mentioned in #80, but it is regrettable that apparently you are only focused on your own brilliant work and that you are blind for other possibilities.

It is also debatable how elegant it is that you publicly turn me down over an offer I made you in a private conversation. You may have noticed that my bibliography is about as long as my arm and I am certainly not eager to make it even longer. I was only trying to help you to spread the interesting news you discovered amongst fellow historians, technicians and model builders, offering my contacts in several language areas. Over your behavior in this matter I feel offended.
For the rest I don't care what you do with your efforts, I wish you the best.

Ab

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Ab, first of all, this reconstruction of Samuel 1650 is a gift to Don, made at his personal request. I don't know why you saw fit to disparage the value of this gift. Maybe it's a kind of peculiar elegance that I don't have, although this gift was neither intended for you nor was it intended to satisfy your personal tastes, and this reconstruction is reliable, being in line with the sources, and does not require any "necessary adaptations" according to your expressed, personal and seemingly only momentary criteria.

As an example I may perhaps remind you of your first totally wrong analysis of Samuel, about which I tried to correct you as diplomatic as I could.

My "first totally wrong analysis", as you put it, of Samuel 1650 was in fact too closely based on the archaeological documentation and also on your paper "Een theoretisch bekekens scheepswrak", published in 2020 and dealing with this shipwreck. It took quite a lot of effort to break out of the conclusions of these previous attempts, which indeed misled me initially, and to find a much better, more correct solution, and this is my personal achievement.

It is also debatable how elegant it is that you publicly turn me down over an offer I made you in a private conversation.

I was only trying to help you to spread the interesting news you discovered

I have reason to believe that it is quite the opposite, because privately you ask the things you want to know from me, and publicly you constantly try to judge my creations in a rather condescending way, as in this case, and look for errors in them that are not there, and in the process you yourself seem to forget the content of the sources. This is quite inconsistent behaviour, which I find difficult to get over. My preference is for clearly expressed intentions and consistent conduct, equal in both private and public spaces. In this context, too, I find it difficult to accept instructions on elegant behaviour.

the point is that I have been playing around with this stuff for over 50 years

People lived on a flat Earth for hundreds of years and did not even allow the thought that things could be different. Those who remained were burned at the stake, but in the end even that did not help.

.​