1. I did no use the work "attack" in any part of my posting. You should read my posting carefully. I challenge you to show me where I refer to "opinion" as "attack"?
2. Accusation versus opinion. You are using semantics to try to avoid the essential issue: whether as an opinion or as an accusation, you are stating that Sudhalter included fabrications in "Man and Legend." It is unethical to present the statement/opinion about fabrications and then claim "I don’t have to provide nothing."
3. You claim that asking for documentation from Sudhalter and from Sudhalter and Evans is the same. No,, it is not. You are referring to Sudhalter's fabrications and you ask about documentation from Sudhalter, not Sudhatler and Evans.
4. You give Ruth's pregnancy as an example of a "fabrication." You justify your assertion by stating "You won’t find a single “documented evidence” in Phil Evans’ collection about it (and hence not a single word in the second book) so… how would you call something like that? I call it fabrication. Ten more books sold." I infer from your statement that if if there is not a single word in the second book, then it is necessarily a Sudhalter fabrication. Well, that is wrong. I will give you an example, that of "boxes of unopened records." Evans and Evans write, p. 491, Bix's life has been filled with many rumors and colorful stories, none has been more damaging than the "false" story of his finding unopened boxes of records he had sent home over the years." Then Evans and Evans quote Burnie, "Charles B. Beiderbecke (12/4/59) totally dismissed this story: Bix never did send any test pressings or recordings."
I have copy of a letter from Bruce Foxman (thanked for his help by Evans and Evans in their book and by Sudhalter and Evans in their book) to Phil Evans dated March 10, 11 1964 in which Bruce tells Evans the result of his interview of Esten Spurrier. [Bruce Foxman was a chemistry student at Iowa State University at the time. He was very interested in Bix and got hooked with Phil Evans through Bob Mantler. While at Iowa State, Bruce would go down to Davenport to consult old newspapers and documents in the Davenport Library and would try to interview people who knew Bix. Bruce was helping with Phil's research and would investigate issues of interest to Phil]. Here are the exact words from Bruce's letter to Phil. "He (Spurrier) said that Bix was a loyal son who always sent every record home, but that he (Esten) later went over there to find them all unplayed." So Evans had documentation that Spurrier told Foxman about the unopened records, but chose to deny the story. The account in Sudhalter and Evans about the unopened boxes of records is NOT a Sudhalter fabrication but a report from Spurrier to Phil Evans by Bruce Foxman. So, the fact that an account in Sudhalter and Evans is not included (or denied) in Evans and Evans does not necessrily make it a Sudhalter fabrication.
5. You conclude your posting by stating, "These are the kind of things I don’t like here. Opinions are considered attacks, and we have to “provide evidence” for them. It’s ridiculous.
As I said above, I don't consider opinions attacks. These are your words. You are twistng what I said. And when it comes to scholarship, asking to "provide evidence" is not ridiculous; it is proper research methodology. Maybe rigorous thinking and meticulous inquiry is what you "don't like here." However, using documentation is my protocol to understand Bix and all related matters, it is the central focus of this forum, and it will continue to be my approach in investigating all that has to do with Bix.
Albert
PS The boxes of unopened records and Foxman report were discussed in the forum in 2004. See