Monday, November 28, 2005

How Many Arguments Will Stick To The Wall?

At the bottom of the October page, in the 'Comments' section, I argued with "Dexy" about the Badfinger book. This debater, although using better structure than some previous opponents, has used the same overall approach; i.e. throw everything you can against the wall and see if anything sticks. The problem with this approach is the abundance of refuted arguments that fall to the ground.

Dexy eventually supplied some answers to my questions, which are in the comments section of this article, but few of these are very applicable to the accuracy of the book.

In this case (as in many cases), the argument mainly revolves around whether or not author Dan Matovina had a bias against the Mollands and portrayed that in the book. Any proponent of "bias" is working from a presumption. The burden of proof for a presumption is squarely on the shoulders of the proponent. I don't have to prove the non-existence of bias. In the case of "bias," I look at the verified evidence and conclude there was none, or at least none that is perceivable.

Regarding the topic of missing information: This is a subject that can be forever debated without any resolution. Theoretically, a totally comprehensive book on any subject could fill several sets of encyclopedias. Obviously not every bit of information will be included in a single book. Are the things that are left out designed to deceive the readers? Conspiracy proponents will say yes. I say no. The preponderance of available, verified evidence indicates the book presents facts as they are. Interviewees who have stepped forward have said the book represented what they said, and basically represented events as they remembered them. Not a single book participant has stepped forward and said Matovina twisted facts or was pushing an agenda.

Suppose a piece of missing information was something favorable to Joey, say a charity benefit he performed for. Is this evidence for "bias?" Again, the preponderance of evidence suggests not. One might also find a charity benefit performed by Tom Evans that was not included, or a substantial contribution made by Pete Ham to a charity that was not included. A modus operandi would need to be compiled, not a single instance, to prove an omission of facts against the Mollands. But since the book has been far more informative than Joey has been about Badfinger history, the problem of omissions appears to reside in Joey's corner.


Kevin said...

Bravo Bill !!! A voice of reason.

dexy said...

Bill, I am not going to go through
this again. I supplied you with
the change in the book. Sorry if
you can't find it. Put the books
side by side, and compare paragraph
structure. The additions stand out
that way. The link was one someone
vicariously posted on the Justesen
website to try to cause trouble,
but it didn't work, and I beleive
was omitted. The company you keep
I clearly stated, who I was
talking about, and Kevin (the
voice of treason) was quick to
show why I said what I did (you
may add Dan to this list if you two
are aquainted). And lastly, what
people were upset that were not
Joey fans? Before the book, there
were pretty much just Badfinger fans.

ßill said...

OK, thanks Dexy.
I posted the article before you answered some of those questions.

Your answer to the Mike Gibbins sections of the book are vague. I normally expect my opponents to do their own homework and provide more detail. I still don't understand what link you referenced or what statements it contains. And your answer about the "upset" non-Joey fans is not responsive according to your original context.

Although I still believe most of your answers are insufficient, I will remove this article now if you so request (which will also delete these comments attached to it, by the way).

I'll leave it up to you.

dexy said...

My references to the info in
the book were hardly vague. I
spelled out exactly what it said. As far as homework, I did it ages
ago, I do not keep a running log
of info to try and disprove things
the way others have. I am not that
obsessive or vengeful.
As I said about the link, it
was put on the site and had
comments from a lot of people
interviewed, though nothing
showed this was after the book was
published. The only statement I
seem to remember, was one of John
Ham's saying the other 3 were
basically vultures and things
would have been fine had it stayed
just the Welsh line-up (don't
quote me exactly).
On the other front, I'm not
looking at you as an opponent,
just trying to shed some light.
And I think you really
side-stepped my whole first
question by focusing on the word
Incidently I was never
purporting that Dan wanted to
stay on anyone's good side, sorry
I did not make this clear. It
was all the credibility issue.
I think that you have totally
minimized and dismissed alot
of what I have said just filing
it under a few word heading on
the second page of this blog,
however I think as long as people
can read what I actually said,
they can draw their own
conclusions about it, and your
evaluation of it, so I have no
problem with you leaving things
standing. I would appreciate
you changing the parts where I
didn't provide you with answers,
however I'm sure you won't find
any of them sufficient for you.

ßill said...

Regarding the book revision, that's all fine and good. But normally when someone wants to provide support for their position, they also provide details, page numbers, or even best, quotes. The first edition of my book is packed away in my attic somewhere so it isn't handy to make comparisons. I would be more inclined to dig it out if it wasn't followed by further digging work.

I suspect the link you are talking about is to Matovina's website, and those comments are not what I am speaking about. Those statements are more general support. I will be composing an article eventually which will include statements from interviewees, which are compiled from several guestbooks and articles. All the sources and dates will be cited. Also, I didn't mean "opponent" with a hostile intent. More like a debating opponent.

I edited out my summation of our discussion and directed people to the actual comments.

I am so confident that this Badfinger biography is accurate that I find no reason to be evasive with you, or anyone. If I didn't believe it was accurate I wouldn't be defending it.

dexy said...

Thank you for letting me have my
say, and not deleting my comments
you were not fond of. It has been
nice having an intelligent
conversation about this. In closing
I must say generally, the complaint
about the book is not whether these
things are factual so much, as in
the way they are told. You can
say when Hitler invaded Poland,
no one was worried about the
price of gas anymore. This may
indeed be true, however...
In order for me to make my case
under these circumstances, I had
to prove questionability and
intent of the author, and I
certainly feel I have done this.
Thanks again,

ßill said...

I don't mean to tie you down with this thread, but I still have two more questions (spurred by your last post). Can you provide a motive for bias? I have heard some motives floated before but they have all been pretty much dismantled. And regarding your Hitler-invading-Poland analogy, are you suggesting there was a bigger picture that was not presented in the book? If so, what picture?

dexy said...

I don't have much time tonight,
and my posts have been lengthier
than I normally like. I'll just
touch on the last question for now.
Part of the bigger picture in
the 80's was, Tom wasn't always
the victim he was portrayed as in
the book. There were decisions
the others were forced to make
because of him, that they were
eventually blamed for themselves!
Clearly, one thing he did caused
the split between him and Joey.
It's in the book, but it's
quickly passed over to get back
to petty stone-throwing. I will
explain if I need to, but hopefully
you know what I'm talking about,
Bill (I would say everyone, but I
don't know that anyone else is here). I'll get back to you, let
me know if you need me to clarify
anything I just said. I won't
duck questions.

dexy said...

Hi Bill,
I've returned. I re-read
your last post. I'm sure you know
motive is a pretty speculative
thing. To me, I really don't care
why he did it. I don't care why
Hitler invaded Poland, but if
I had a reason, and you disproved
it, it wouldn't change the fact
that he did it.
On the surface, it seems very
obvious that it was in his own
self-interest. Would he be where
he is today if the Ham family
had resented what he had written?
He wouldn't have gotten to
release anything legitimately
to do with Badfinger, and put his
name on it (more than likely, his
biggest goal).
He wants to be a part
of Badfinger history so much, he
feels the need to put out a press
release on everything that happens,
so he can try to claim some sort
of involvement. I don't feel you
can disprove ANY of this, but I
would rather focus on what he
actually did. That stands in
print. Some things just couldn't
be explained away, so they were left out, others could be
exaggerated or played down.
I am also not the first person to
say this. I beleive it was said
on the Justesen site before (and
before you ask, I don't know who,
and can't tell you the date, but
it really shouldn't matter).

ßill said...

So you are saying Matovina treated the Mollands harshly to impress the Ham Estate? You'd almost have an argument as far as the way Pete was portrayed, because he appears to be quite likeable, but the fact remains that Pete's dirty laundry was aired (Fergie's wife, and his stubborn refusal to acknowledge Polley's dishonesty). Almost everyone (including Fergie) painted Pete in a good light. The Ham Estate shouldn't have cared in the least how the Mollands were portrayed. So no, I find that a credible motive.

The rest of your post either doesn't deal with the book, or are vague generalizations that I cannot address.

ßill said...

Oops, I meant to say at the end there: I don't find that a credible argument.

dexy said...

as I said, any motive is just
speculative. I don't want to
get close enough to Dan to even
try to figure him out. It could
just be a personal dislike for all
we know.
As far as Dan ever giving Joey
any credit, others did in the book,
yet I beleive the only word I'd
ever heard was adequate, otherwise.
Also, as far as Pete's
laundry, it would be hard to
overlook, with the Katz video
Referring to your "vague
generalizations", are you referring
to the 1980's Tom stuff? Because
I can be very specific if you like.
The general ill will of the band
was created by Tom, and yet you
seem to point the finger at Joey
for having an every man for himself
attitude. That's the way it was
when the original band broke up,
and Tom reaffirmed it in the new

dexy said...

I'm taking off now. I feel
you're really running out of steam.
You think the Ham family shouldn't have cared? Why not? They're
pretty bitter. You can try to
re-word things, but I stand by my
original statement that if they
resented what he wrote, he
wouldn't have gotten the
opportunities he has.
As I said, motive is very
speculative, and doesn't deal with
actual factual evidence. So it's
just side-stepping the main
issue. The issue is proof of
bias, not proof as to the reason

ßill said...

You're claiming The Ham Estate was bitter about the Mollands so Matovina played that up to get on their good side? Well, Joey claims it is the reverse; that they were all happy-go-lucky and that Matovina changed that. So who's right, you or Joey? I've entertained all the so-called motives people have offered and none of them make any sense. You say there is proof/evidence of bias? All I see are the opinions of many people that are in agreement with each other. Matovina would have had to place words in their mouths to paint a biased picture. The proof of the facts are in the statements of the people interviewed.

Dexy said...

Who's right? I'm surprised
you'ld have to ask.

Mister X said...

Isn't it funny, you wait long enough
and the truth will finally surface.
I suggest any of the Dan followers
who don't beleive there were
alterior motives with Dan, and
that there hasn't already been
enough evidence presented from
people like Dexy here, check out
the BadfingerBoogie website. It
seems Dan made known his motives,
which included reducing money paid
to Joey and Mike at any cost.
So squirm like a worm, guys.
There will be enough people who
could verify this. I remember
hearing of it, I think in the
later 80's, but I'd never connected
that that guy was Dan. It was all
because of those stupid phone tapes
Steve Craiter made without Tom's
knowledge, that Dan is so proud of.
He used it as a personal go-ahead
to do whatever he could to
discredit and attack the
Mollands, and try to make sure
Joey and Mike would never get a
decent deal, if he had his hands in
it. I beleive at this point, it
would be apt to say "case closed".

ßill said...

1) Dexy's "evidence" was speculation. You need to recognize the difference.

2) The book somehow aided Matovina in reducing money paid to Joey and Mike? And Mike was a party to it? Mike did interview for the book, you know, and continued to interview with Matovina for years afterward. I have no idea what you are talking about.

3) You remember hearing about what in the 80s? For someone with such a long commentary you are extremely vague.

4) You're claiming the Craiter tapes are the nucleus of some sort of Matovina vendetta? Nevermind. This is obviously just another rambling anti-Matovina rant with no evidence or even logic attached to it.

mister x said...

You're as blind as a lot of the
fans you criticise. There was an
agena to everything Dan has done.
Are you now going to say those
letters meant nothing? If you don't
want to see something, you just
dismiss it as irrelevant. Why
don't you ask Dan what he meant
when he wrote them? But that would
be questioning the person who tells
you what to think, so I figure
you probably won't. This site was
nice for awhile, but I think now
everyone's done here. You're
defending someone who can have
no defense for what he's done.

ßill said...

What letters? I saw only one letter Matovina wrote regarding Joey and Mike getting royalties from the song "Without You." If I remember correctly, it was from the mid 1990s (not the 1980s). I have no clue what else you are talking about. Enlighten me.

As for being blind, it is the people who defend Joey and Kathie and condemn Matovina despite the ample evidence of their shenanigans. It is the people interviewed in the book who describe the Mollands. You choose to ignore them and blame the author for their words. You no doubt also blame Matovina for rainy days as well.

I never claimed Matovina is beyond reproach, but the salivating Molland fans have never provided anything worthy of disection. While you people hunt around for that smoking gun, try examining what everyone from the 1970s and 1980s have said about the Mollands; these are the people who lived and worked with them. I really couldn't care less if some fan says "I've met Joey and he was really nice to me." I'm sure O.J. Simpson's fans feel the same way about him.