Paranormal Review A Proper Reply to Brutons Interview +

So the chairman of the board is not the chairman over the editor Z? Are you actually saying the editor has total editorial control and the board of directors have no say over what the editor publishes? If so, there would not seem much point in a board, other than dealing with the financial status and functioning.

How interesting.

I see little point in continuing this discussion as you have your views and I have mine.

It's better to agree to disagree.

So you don't intend to respond to the fact that the current Two Worlds has nothing to do with the original?

Lis wrote:So the chairman of the board is not the chairman over the editor Z? Are you actually saying the editor has total editorial control and the board of directors have no say other what the editor publishes?

How interesting.

I never said any such thing at all, Lis, so it's not interesting.

I am sure that readers of this forum are not the slightest bit interested.

Z stop the twists Bruton said that Tony Ortzen ran Psychic news like a

'tabloid-like presentation'

You and I both know that and the Two Worlds interview shows that please stop bending the words the interview shows that Sue tried to return it to an investigative publication a la Maurice Barbanell.

Reading Two Worlds it is clearly as David Bruton described it a

'tabloid-like presentation'

Stop trying to bend things Z and answer the question you and I know that I asked. The current ownership of TW, and its publication is neither a direct descent from a live publication edited by Maurice Barbanell nor was that in the line of a direct descent from that of Emma Hardinge Britten. I know the answer as do you. It is important to be factual and honest when you try to carry such authority into the communications with Spiritualists.

PN is the only ongoing publication, which had not the SNU behaved so badly would never have ceased publication, that has the history to claim legitamacy.

You said, correcting Jim, or at least appearing to, that you were not "his" chairman, but you are the chairman of the board.

I think that is most interesting, and I am sure others might think so as well. A chairman of a board that doesn't have editorial control? Or a chairman that does, but doesn't wish to make that fact clear on here? Please do clarify what role you do play in being chairman of the board. I am sure that others would be as pleased to know as I would.

Z I am sure that a discussion like this involving the Chairman of Two Worlds and his editor is absolutely fascinating to members of the forum

In a much earlier post Z you wrote

Jim, I should point out that "Two Worlds" is a magazine not a newspaper and is more concerned with the philosphy of Spiritualism.

I do hope that, after receiving two current editions, without philosophy, we will see some good stuff in the future Z.

Quoting Tony Ortzen in the latest Two Worlds:

"When I became editor of 'Psychic News' for the second time in the late 1990s, David Bruton was executive director of Psychic Press (1995) Ltd, which then owned the paper. David and I had a highly amiable five-year professional relationship, which continues to this day. Indeed, I still have the utmost respect for him. In various e-mails arranging the interview, I explained to David that although some of the questions appeared fierce, they did not necessarily reflect my opinion. However, I am much relieved that I did not have to answer the questions put to him. Now where's those tranquillisers?"

This was written as an editorial comment in response to the letter from Ken Morgan posted by Z somewhat earlier in this thread.

Mr Ortzen makes quite clear, I think, where his friendship and allegiance lies in relation to the president of the SNU, and perhaps his comments go some way to explaining just why he never asked the real difficult questions that an impartial, objective, non-partisan journalist might ask.

After all he makes quite clear he has both great respect for Mr Bruton, and has a "professional relationship" with him that "continues to this day."

(I do rather wonder just what that continuing "professional relationship" might be.)

I have no problem with Mr Ortzen having had a good working relationship with Mr Bruton, nor with him writing from that perspective. I have rather less acceptance of him doing so, without prefacing his interview with the fact that he holds that view of the current president of the SNU, and that he, in publishing the interview, failed to make clear that he personally may not have agreed with the questions put to the president, especially since, on the surface at least, initially the first part of the interview (and, indeed, the second) published is presented as an objective, independent, non-preferential interview, something it clearly was not.

Perhaps we should be grateful that Mr Ortzen has, in the following TW publication made clear his real position and the readers can now put the value to be placed on the 'interview' into a more real perspective than might at first have been perceived to be the case.

It is clear, however, from reading Mr Ortzen's remarks that he was never likely to ask any questions which might have elicited from the president of the SNU honest answers about what actually went on with the closure of PN. So we must, if looking at the situation objectively, accept that the Two Worlds publication has not, and is never likely to, examine in any real sense the facts of what occurred.

As for Z's remark that he was sure that the readers of this forum "are not the slightest bit interested" I would just point out that in a matter of hours some 340 odd people have viewed this thread. Hardly suggests a lack of interest in the topic.

Who are you calling odd?

obiwan wrote:Who are you calling odd?

quite!

It's been a fascinating interchange of ideas - I have to wait 'til I get home before I get chance to read February TW but I did have some concerns about the interview reported in the earlier edition...

It will make interesting reading in the light of all that's been said here and all that's likely to be said for some time to come., I'm guessing

Lis wrote:As for Z's remark that he was sure that the readers of this forum "are not the slightest bit interested" I would just point out that in a matter of hours some 340 odd people have viewed this thread. Hardly suggests a lack of interest in the topic.

Not one has joined in commenting on the thread!

How many are individual viewers or is it the same person viewing over and over again?

I have just received an e-mail from Tony Ortzen. Part of it reads:

Having taken time off from producing the March edition of Two Worlds, I note with some sadness that Jim and Lis's comments are increasingly bordering on the semi-hysterical and abusive. Would they like to back up or withdraw their completely unwarranted claim that:

I very much doubt that now, at this time, there is much love lost between Tony and the others however much they may smile at each other

I am delighted to confirm in public that I have an excellent relationship with those who run Psychic News, Psychic World, etc, and hope that it will continue for many, many years to come.

For some reason best known to themselves, Jim and Lis seem to derive an obscure pleasure in attacking both me and Two Worlds. Fortunately, I have more much productive and spiritual matters with which to concern myself and will not comment further on their wearisome outbursts...

zerdini wrote:

Lis wrote:As for Z's remark that he was sure that the readers of this forum "are not the slightest bit interested" I would just point out that in a matter of hours some 340 odd people have viewed this thread. Hardly suggests a lack of interest in the topic.

Not one has joined in commenting on the thread!

How many are individual viewers or is it the same person viewing over and over again?

I've only just gotten out of bed so all that's happened over the past several hours is new to me - it's taken quite a time just to read through all the recent postings. That's my take.

I am interested in all of this and I'll add my two-pennyworth if I can find anything to say that's not already been said - or shouted almost!

ps Is my letter to the editor in the Feb edition?

Mac wrote:

ps Is my letter to the editor in the Feb edition?

Tony tells me that "your quite excellent letter" is the lead letter in the Letters column.

zerdini wrote:Mac wrote:

ps Is my letter to the editor in the Feb edition?

Tony tells me that "your quite excellent letter" is the lead letter in the Letters column.

Now I'm blushin'....

I very much doubt that now, at this time, there is much love lost between Tony and the others however much they may smile at each other

Very much personal opinion Z and I never mentioned Psychic World but I am quite sure that in this area a professional courteous approach will be maintained by everyone.

I note that a number of people have shown considerable interest in this thread, as they should do. I hope that it will draw them to remember what actually transpired with the SNU and Psychic News.

The first topic in this thread outlines the full details.

https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t1215-psychic-news-is-free-from-snu-spiritualist-national-union

Many of these issues would have been interesting matter for an interview.

I am not attacking either Tony or Two Worlds I was just drawing attention to what David Bruton had said. Two Worlds has the capacity to take an important communication role in Spiritualism. Whether it does in fact do that at the present time is a matter of opinion, and I am sure many will think it does, while others may not.

What I was commenting on was the substance of this interview between two, as Tony acknowledges, good friends. It is fine that he chose to do this but important that the other side is presented; which is where I started this thread.

There have been many places where discussion could have stopped Z but you have constantly brought a need for more posts with every reply you posted. Clearly you did not want discussion to cease when the interview was in debate.

zerdini wrote:I have just received an e-mail from Tony Ortzen. Part of it reads:

Having taken time off from producing the March edition of Two Worlds, I note with some sadness that Jim and Lis's comments are increasingly bordering on the semi-hysterical and abusive...........For some reason best known to themselves, Jim and Lis seem to derive an obscure pleasure in attacking both me and Two Worlds....

My goodness me! So expressing a viewpoint, contrary to that held by the editor and chairman of the board of the Two Worlds publication is deemed to be "bordering on the semi-hysterical and abusive" and apparently "attacking" both the editor and the publication, an action from which, allegedly we "derive an obscure pleasure"???

I am always saddened when people, who should know better, choose to "attack" the person, and make rude and derisory personal remarks about character, motives and intent, rather than to respond to the actual issues raised.

Let us be quite clear about this. Views expressing disappointment that an editor of a publication did not ask the questions which many feel need to be asked when there was an opportunity to do so, does not constitute conduct that is either hysterical, semi-hysterical, abusive, or attacking. To suggest this is the case is ridiculous.

zerdini wrote:

Lis wrote:As for Z's remark that he was sure that the readers of this forum "are not the slightest bit interested" I would just point out that in a matter of hours some 340 odd people have viewed this thread. Hardly suggests a lack of interest in the topic.

Not one has joined in commenting on the thread!

How many are individual viewers or is it the same person viewing over and over again?

In response to your query Z - whether people have commented or not hardly means that there is no interest, and the 340 plus views were not the same person viewing over and over again - nor just the same few people viewing over and over again. Perhaps it will help to clarify the issue by stating that the administrators are able to see how many people are viewing a thread, and indeed who they are, and where they are in the world.

Now that query is sorted, I must add - not all of those viewing the thread were odd people but one or two certainly may have been!

"I must add - not all of those viewing the thread were odd people but one or two certainly may have been!"

I can speak only for myself and I am odd!

mac wrote:"I must add - not all of those viewing the thread were odd people but one or two certainly may have been!"

I can speak only for myself and I am odd!

Me too. Though probably in a different way.

Lis wrote:

zerdini wrote:

Lis wrote:As for Z's remark that he was sure that the readers of this forum "are not the slightest bit interested" I would just point out that in a matter of hours some 340 odd people have viewed this thread. Hardly suggests a lack of interest in the topic.

Not one has joined in commenting on the thread!

How many are individual viewers or is it the same person viewing over and over again?

In response to your query Z - whether people have commented or not hardly means that there is no interest, and the 340 plus views were not the same person viewing over and over again - nor just the same few people viewing over and over again. Perhaps it will help to clarify the issue by stating that the administrators are able to see how many people are viewing a thread, and indeed who they are, and where they are in the world.

Now that query is sorted, I must add - not all of those viewing the thread were odd people but one or two certainly may have been!

I have been an Admin on a similar site and I know very well that you cannot know who has viewed a thread unless they have registered as a member and there are many who view sites such as this who are unregistered and there is no way anyone can know who they are or where in the world they are.

Every time you, Jim and indeed, myself have posted on here counts as a view - it soon mounts up. One has only to look at the members list to see who has viewed the thread.

This is a debate about the issue, not who or what is visiting it, like you we have only visited when we post so that is no where near 341 views.

I note that you are effectively calling Lis a liar now, so I am offended at your attitude, just because we disagreed about the nature of an interview conducted by Two Worlds.

On this forum, when we monitor it we can track where guests are and we monitor it for hackers and spammers constantly. We need to because we get hundreds of visitors every day who can and do view the entire forum.

If you wish to comment get back to the substance please, not the distractional flim flam. The point is the Paranormal Review article dealt with the key issues relating to Psychic News, Mr Bruton and the SNU which were not brought out in Tony Ortzens interview.

As a matter of interest the thread has now 563 views and it is rising fast. I have noted that, once an issue takes light on this forum it attracts attention very quickly.