I am friendly with both principals in this little contretemps, have done business with both and have also exchanged gifts and good wishes with both men and have no opinion or preference between them in the area of personal honesty.
However it's become quite obvious to me that both men have some sort of sub rosa 'stake' in this question of La Bantchni/Pachmayr. Without going into any more speculation or airing of hearsay, I'll cheerfully withdraw from the discussion with the observation and suggestion that we all ignore their differences.
If we apply the rules and conventions of 'debate' then both men IMO have failed to make a convincing case because of no demonstrated logical progression/connection of proven or strongly-indicated facts. I myself have seen a lotta data presented here but with no logical analysis or further development of their assertions on either side.
I repeat, across a debating table any logical knowledgeable person could blow both men's positions (as presented here) completely out of the water. In a debate almost anyone could take either side of the argument as presented and, in a few paragraphs, totally undercut the opposite argument. I myself COULD do it but I don't wanta lose a friend...
I repeat, either side can totally undercut the other side's stated argument but so far neither has done it or even come close!
So, why should the rest of us worry? It's a tempest in a teacup with no logic on either side and no convincing debate exchange either, at least not IMO. Let the 2 with the 'stake' argue it out and the rest of us will hide-&-watch to see if anything is ever published and if it includes Jerry's account or not (grin).
Regards, Joe
