(Close Window)
Topic: The Hunt for Erdnase
Message: Posted by: Chris (Nov 30, 2016 07:10PM)
I am convinced I have found Erdnase. For more info go here http://www.lybrary.com/the-hunt-for-erdnase-and-the-path-to-edward-gallaway-p-673843.html
Message: Posted by: hcs (Dec 9, 2016 04:36PM)
Fascinating! Thrilling!

Chris Wasshuber solved a more then 100 years old mystery. The search for Erdnase has been going on for decades. But at now the magic community may be pretty sure Edward Gallaway will be generally accepted as S.W. Erdnase.

Chris Wasshuber can even explain the name S. W. Erdnase. Erdnase actually comes from the German words Erd (earth or soil) and Nase (nose).

Chris Wasshuber explores Gallaway's opportunity, motive and means to prove his theory. Gallaway must be S.W. Erdnase!
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Dec 16, 2016 05:59PM)
This book received a highly skeptical review from John Lovick in the January 2017 issue of Genii.
Message: Posted by: hcs (Dec 18, 2016 06:52AM)
Please may you say more about Lovick's review?
Message: Posted by: Chris (Dec 18, 2016 11:06AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2016, hcs wrote:
Chris Wasshuber can even explain the name S. W. Erdnase. Erdnase actually comes from the German words Erd (earth or soil) and Nase (nose).[/quote]

The credit of noting that Erdnase has the German meaning 'earth nose' should go to Tom Sawyer who was the first to publish this insight. My contribution was to actually find this term in the German literature before 1902 and to also find that it is to this date used as nickname for kids and pets. We can therefore conclude that both the term Erdnase existed during the time the book was written, and that it has been used as nickname. It is therefore quite possible that Erdnase was a nickname of the author, particularly since we know that Gallaway spoke, read and wrote German fluently, went to a German school, had German relatives, and worked for a German newspaper. While we do not know for sure how the author chose his pseudonym, I find the nickname theory the most likely explanation for Gallaway.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Dec 18, 2016 01:07PM)
I have now read John Lovick's review in the January 2017 Genii. I have read many critical reviews, and have received many critical remarks regarding my work, but I have never read such an unqualified review than this one by Lovick. He starts off chastising me for writing a book on the Hooker card rise in 2007, but not flying to LA to watch a performance of it. At the time of the LA performance I was professionally at the other side of the earth unable to attend. He also fails to recognize that I built a prototype which can replicate the core of the Hooker effect, which is a lot more than all the speculation by all those great magicians that came before. Besides, the fact that Gaughan had a temper outburst when he met me at a magic history conference confirmed that my method must be fairly close to the real thing, otherwise Gaughan would have had nothing to be mad about. However, all of this is completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with my work on Erdnase. This just shows you how much off the mark Mr. Lovick is from the very start of his review. It appears that Mr. Lovick either didn't really read the ebook or he just can't follow the arguments in the book. After some contemplation I think Mr. Lovick just can't believe and accept that somebody could actually solve these long standing mysteries in magic. For romantic and emotional reasons he tries to hold on to the believe that they are unsolvable.

Let's address some of the errors in the review:

For example he states that I was shocked seeing the similar cover designs of Expert and Estimating. If he would have read my ebook he would know that my shock didn't come from the cover designs but from the similarities on the title pages (or perhaps Lovick doesn't know the difference between cover and title page), particularly the price on the title page, and that the real shock came from the prefaces which have surprising similarities.

Then he states that my claim that Gallaway performed magic in a amateur theater production in 1924 is not true. Well Mr. Lovick is wrong again. We have both the program of the theater production as well as reports of people commenting about Gallaway's performance in that show. In the program Gallaway's performance is called "The Magic Wand", and a reviewer wrote: "Mr. Gallaway and his bag of tricks was one of the outstanding features." Add this with the fact that we know that Gallaway had magic books in his library. I think it should be pretty obvious that magic was part of the performance.

But what really disqualifies Mr. Lovick in my own judgement is that he compares Dr. John Olsson's careful 36 page analysis with a bit of word counting done by Bill Mullins on the Genii forum. Mullins concludes that Gallaway can't be Erdnase - a ridiculous conclusion considering that Mullins is no linguist and the little bit of counting hardly amounts to an analysis of any depth. But for Mr. Lovick it is enough to dismiss Olsson's work and conclusion.

I guess Mr. Lovick has to do his job and review for Genii. I have nothing about critical reviews, but when it is littered with incorrect statements, misinformation and personal attacks then I do have a problem.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Dec 18, 2016 05:25PM)
Since I am at it, here are a few more points:

Mr. Lovick spends a lot of time talking about my Hooker book from 10 years ago, but he doesn't see the need to even mention my historic discovery of the James McKinney and Jamieson Higgins bankruptcy files. All those clever, smart, and hard working Erdnase hunters who came before me could not find it. Here I come and find it. Yet, Mr. Lovick doesn't even mention it. I guess it didn't fit his narrative. One can have different opinions on how important a find this was, but at the very least it allowed the identification of who filled out the copyright application form for Expert. It also told us a lot more about the printer James McKinney and what kind of operation he ran. Given the fact that we only have two other sets of documents surrounding Erdnase (his book, and the copyright application form) my find of the bankruptcy records was certainly a big discovery.

Mr. Lovick finds the fact that Gallaway toured with a circus for three years "almost irrelevant". This is another beauty. I guess he missed to read my ebook and learn that Martin Gardner found credible evidence that Erdnase had contact with James Harto, who at the same time as Gallaway toured with circuses. So why would it then be "almost irrelevant"? It is hard to follow Mr. Lovick's logic, which he doesn't share with us. I guess he lacks it or he had a different agenda writing his review.

Mr. Lovick's review lacks any backing up of his statements. For example, he mentions that he was not convinced by the opportunity, motive and means I present for Gallaway, but Lovick does not share any information why he was not convinced. He simply states his opinion without explaining himself. Genuine reviewers explain themselves. It is very easy to say: "I don't believe that." But it carries little weight unless one can provide some reasons, arguments or other explanations supporting that opinion. Regardless of Mr. Lovick's opinion regarding my ebook, it is not a particularly helpful or enlightening review.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Dec 2, 2017 05:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Chris wrote: Add this with the fact that we know that Gallaway had magic books in his library. I think it should be pretty obvious that magic was part of the performance.[/quote]

The only magic text that Gallaway had in his library is The Expert at the Card Table. To wit, Chris cannot prove that Gallawy owned any more than this one magic book.
Message: Posted by: Chris (May 14, 2018 03:52PM)
I thought that a little update on my research into Erdnase and Edward Gallaway is in order.

1) We have found out that Erdnase must have read German magic books, because several items we find in "Expert at the Card Table" (EATCT) only appear in German books and magazines prior to 1902. For example, the trick called "The Three Aces" from EATCT, which was assumed to be an invention of Erdnase, because nobody found any prior mention, was published by H. F. C. Suhr in his book Der Kartenkuenstler (1895) https://www.lybrary.com/der-kartenkuenstler-p-922426.html under the trick title "Das verwandelte As" (trans. The transformed Ace) and in Der Amateurzauberer (1900) https://www.lybrary.com/der-amateurzauberer-p-922413.html under the trick title "Die Unsichtbare Wanderung" (trans. The Invisible Hike). Also formulas for the prearranged deck were published prior to Erdnase in German magic literature developed by Hugo Schrader for a 28-card deck (a 32-card deck from which the four 7s have been removed), and published by both Willmann and Conradi in both their journals (Zauberspiegel https://www.lybrary.com/zauberspiegel-alle-jahrgaenge-p-921995.html and Zauberwelt) as well as in their books.

Since Gallaway spoke German fluently this finding about Erdnase's German sources makes him an even likelier candidate.

2) I found that Edward Gallaway not only wrote two print estimating textbooks for his school, and earlier a comprehensive printing practice course for R.R. Donnelley, but also two books on The Monotype System for Lanston Monotype Machine Co. Very likely he was also the editor of their Monotype journal as well as was involved in various promotional and instructional publications which were largely excerpts from the books he wrote. The Monotype was the most versatile and capable composing (typesetting) machine on the market. In these books we find proof that Gallaway played cards skillfully. He writes:

"The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who 'take all day' to decide what card to play."

Gallaway continues to use magic phrases in these technical books such as:

- "like the conjurer who takes white rabbits out of a silk hat"
- "it is not magic"
- "magic stick"
- "second-sight"

Additionally we find photos of Gallaway's hands which match several characteristics of the hands illustrated in EATCT. One photo shows him making a beautiful fan with rulers produced with the Monotype casting machine.

3) Edward's great aunt Harriet was an Andrews - Harriet Andrews (1808 - 1884). She and her son's (John Henry) family lived in Fort Wayne, only a short train ride away from Delphos, OH, where Edward grew up. They certainly met on various occasions. We have a newspaper note of one such visit. Edward also worked at least a year in Fort Wayne, which means he may have roomed with this branch of the Gallaway family. This is probable cause for Edward to adopt the Andrews name as his cardsharking cover identity.

All of these new discoveries proof that Edward Gallaway was Erdnase. When you have the right guy new findings further strengthen the case.

I would like to remind folks to search for any magic and gambling books with the Edward Gallaway bookplate. His bookplate can be seen here https://www.lybrary.com/looking-for-books-with-edward-gallaway-bookplate-a-31.html If anybody has or knows about a book with this bookplate, magic or not, please contact me.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (May 29, 2018 11:24PM)
Gallaway's writing does not resemble anything from Erdnase. Literary characteristics in the pages of The Expert are not evident in Gallaway's published work such as humor, vernacular dialect, and parenthetical quote marks.

Now you say that Gallaway utilized his great aunt's name "Andrews" as inspiration to create the S.W. Erdnase pseudonym that spells out E.S. Andrews backwards? Beyond your creative speculation, where is the evidence for this?

Have you finally encountered any evidence that Gallaway patronized gambling establishments?
Message: Posted by: Chris (May 30, 2018 10:18AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Gallaway's writing does not resemble anything from Erdnase. Literary characteristics in the pages of The Expert are not evident in Gallaway's published work such as humor, vernacular dialect, and parenthetical quote marks.[/quote]
What you write is completely wrong. You do not know what you are talking about. You should read Dr. Olsson's report, and my analysis of rare words and phrases which both Erdnase and Gallaway use. But one does not necessarily have to go deep into linguistics to see some odd things. Why does Gallaway constantly use magic phrases in his non-magic books? Why is he using words and phrases such as "second-sight", "tricks they can perform", "subterfuge", "vanished into thin air", "not like magic", etc. Other authors who are not magicians do not do that. This is proof for Gallaway's interest in magic.

[quote]On May 29, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Now you say that Gallaway utilized his great aunt's name "Andrews" as inspiration to create the S.W. Erdnase pseudonym that spells out E.S. Andrews backwards? Beyond your creative speculation, where is the evidence for this?[/quote]
Are you disputing that Gallaway had a great-aunt Andrews? That information is in the genealogical record (census, marriage licenses, newspaper clippings). Edward not necessarily took his great aunt's name, but a name of one of her relatives. I am thinking that perhaps she had a brother, uncle, father, grand-father, cousin, etc., who was a gambler and she told stories about him to Edward. That could have been the reason for Edward to adopt his name for a gambling cover identity. My point is that there was an Andrews family which was closely related to Edward Gallaway. That is a good reason to adopt that name as cover identity.

[quote]On May 29, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Have you finally encountered any evidence that Gallaway patronized gambling establishments? [/quote]
Not yet. But we know he played cards, and we know he owned several gambling books. That combination means he played and gambled with cards.
Message: Posted by: Tom G (May 30, 2018 12:44PM)
Sorry, but owning books doesn't mean anything. I have a number of books and material on cold reading and have never, nor will I ever give a cold reading. Trouble is with any and all Erdnase candidates, is facts. Some have a few more check boxes than the others, but there is a long way from saying someone is definitively Erdnase. Most of what's available is conjecture and story telling. Look at the last line in Chris's above post. He admits in the first sentence that he has no evidence that Galloway patronized gambling establishments, but he played cards and had gambling books, so he gambled with cards. Conjecture.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (May 30, 2018 07:34PM)
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Dr. Olsson's report has already been discussed at length on the Genii Forum. You failed to provide Dr. Olsson with sufficient examples of Sanders writing, and that skewed the results in Gallaway's favor. That Gallaway uses words associated with magic is not enough literary evidence to even compare with the noted lexical characteristics in the pages of The Expert. Where is the dialect that mimics the speech of minorities? Where is the French and Latin? Where are the square quotes? Where are any of these things in Gallaway's work?

You have gone on a creative tangent with Gallaway's family, speculating that his great aunt told him stories about gambling uncles and whatnot. Evidently you're still drinking the Kool Aid.

No evidence yet that Galllawy patronized gambling joints as W.E. Sanders used to? Not surprising at all.

Bob Coyne's detailed report on the writing similarities between W.E. Sanders and Erdnase is astounding:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdnase-sanders-use-of-language.html
Message: Posted by: Chris (May 30, 2018 09:52PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2018, Tom G wrote:
Sorry, but owning books doesn't mean anything. I have a number of books and material on cold reading and have never, nor will I ever give a cold reading.[/quote]
The books somebody has means a lot. I guess you have never heard the quote: "For to know a man's library is, in some measure, to know his mind." - Geraldine Brooks. Of course, one can't take that too far, and there are exceptions, but we have several pieces of evidence which point in the same direction:

1) A copy of "Expert at the Card Table" in his library.
2) Several books on gambling in his library.
3) We know he played cards skillfully by counting and tracking the cards played.
4) Unusual frequent reference to magic in his non-magic technical writing.
5) A stage number titled "The Magic Wand" which he performed in 1924.

That is a lot of evidence to support he had an interest in magic, card play, and gambling.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (May 30, 2018 10:05PM)
3) We know he played cards skillfully by counting and tracking the cards played.

Where is the evidence for this card counting?
Message: Posted by: Chris (May 31, 2018 08:34AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2018, Leo H wrote:
3) We know he played cards skillfully by counting and tracking the cards played.

Where is the evidence for this card counting? [/quote]
Gallaway writes: "The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who "take all day" to decide what card to play."

This is not only evidence that he played cards, but that he played seriously by remembering which cards were played out. (It is also an example for scare quotes, which you claimed Gallaway does not use. There are of course many many more scare quotes he uses in his writings.)
Message: Posted by: Leo H (May 31, 2018 06:48PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2018, Chris wrote:Gallaway writes: "The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who "take all day" to decide what card to play."

This is not only evidence that he played cards, but that he played seriously by remembering which cards were played out. (It is also an example for scare quotes, which you claimed Gallaway does not use. There are of course many many more scare quotes he uses in his writings.) [/quote]

This is not evidence that Gallaway gambled with cards by any stretch. Are you suggesting that Gallaway card counted "seriously" in money games? There is no evidence of this--just your speculation.

On the subject of scare quotes, here is a scare quote by Erdnase: to "make good"
And a scare quote from W.E. Sanders: "made good"

Eerie isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 1, 2018 11:48AM)
[quote]On May 31, 2018, Leo H wrote:
On the subject of scare quotes, here is a scare quote by Erdnase: to "make good"
And a scare quote from W.E. Sanders: "made good".[/quote]
Wow, you have really maxed out on your scare quote similarities. Gallaway has more scare quote similarities. Here are some:

Erdnase: "doctored"
Gallaway: "doctoring"; "doctor" his work

Erdnase: "forcing"
Gallaway: "force"

Use of the word so-called before a scare quote:
Erdnase: so-called "victims"
Gallaway: so-called "chalk"; so-called "Standard Line Type"; so-called "two-letter matrices"
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 1, 2018 10:58PM)
One more similar scare quote is hardly impressive. Where are the other similar scare quotes you allude to?

And don't forget paranthetical punctuations shared by Sanders and Erdnase:

Both Sanders and Erdnase use parentheses around individual letters/characters, to interject doubt:
Erdnase: careless (?) dealer
Erdnase: when his error (?)
Erdnase: cant of reformed (?) gamblers
Sanders: innate and in(co)herent modesty
Sanders: We were fed fit for princes (?) stuffed with veal without the veal [Diaries... Marty Demarest]
Sanders: I am becoming quite a professional (?) cuisiner [Diaries... Marty Demarest]

And French and other foreign terms ****(H)

Both Sanders and Erdnase include foreign (especially French) terms in their writing.
Erdnase: beté noir, denouement, Beau-monde, entrée, cong‌é
Sanders: mon cherez frères d'amie [CRpoem]; coups des main [CRpoem]; chapeaux [CRpoem]; retrousse [CRbio]; avec corp de sanitation [CRpoem]; salud! [CRbio], terra incognita [montLib], aber nit [CRpoem]

And puns:

Erdnase: The Longitudinal Shift -- This SHIFT, for which we have to thank no one, is given a VERY LONG NAME, but the reader who is interested sufficiently to practice the process, will find it a VERY SHORT SHIFT [p130]
Sanders: SHIFTED some more cars up to the platform. ... Glad to hear the noon whistle and still more so to hear the evening's signal for the end of the SHIFT.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 2, 2018 08:59AM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2018, Leo H wrote:
And puns:

Erdnase: The Longitudinal Shift -- This SHIFT, for which we have to thank no one, is given a VERY LONG NAME, but the reader who is interested sufficiently to practice the process, will find it a VERY SHORT SHIFT [p130]
Sanders: SHIFTED some more cars up to the platform. ... Glad to hear the noon whistle and still more so to hear the evening's signal for the end of the SHIFT. [/quote]
You are kidding, right? Just because Sanders used the words 'shifted' and 'shift' in the same paragraph you call this a pun? That is where you loose all credibility. Where exactly is this paragraph from anyway?

Much more pun-like are Gallaway's expressions of: "A long longitudinal shaft", or "short of sorts".

Your other examples are also fraught with problems. Sanders uses (?) only in his informal writing (notebooks), not in his published work. Most of his use of French words is from poems. As I have pointed out many times, one cannot compare poetry with prose. These are two completely different forms and genres. But if you want to use his poems I can point you to a big discrepancy compared to Erdnase. Erdnase does not use any common contractions except the word "don't", which he uses 4 times in EATCT. He does not use "we'll", "haven't", etc. Sanders' poems are filled with common contractions of every kind. So if you really want to argue that the poems need to be included and compared to Erdnase's prose you also have to point out where they provide obvious discrepancies.

You are asking where is Gallaway's use of foreign words. Here are some examples: misnomer, nonpareil, homilies, bourgeoise.

You are asking where is Gallaway's use of (?). Here is one: "... indicates by a query (?) the question raised to the author."

Let me ask you, where is Sanders use of words ending in -wise excluding common ones such as lengthwise, crosswise, likewise, otherwise. Erdnase likes words ending in -wise such as: lengthwise, crosswise, endwise, fanwise, bookwise. Gallaway displays the same likeness when he uses: lengthwise, crosswise, endwise, sheetwise, edgewise, linewise, columnwise, setwise, pointwise, clockwise, counterclockwise, and others.

Erdnase and Gallaway share the use of lengthwise, crosswise, and endwise, and the fondness of unusual -wise constructs. 'Lengthwise' and 'crosswise' are not particularly uncommon, but 'endwise' is an uncommon word. The fact that Gallaway and Erdnase are using it is yet another authorship identity marker. Sanders does not use endwise or other unusual -wise constructs.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 2, 2018 10:16AM)
I want to see your list of the percentages of these words shared between Gallaway and Erdnase. Sanders shared all these words:

contrivances
longitudinal
vocation
axiom
curriculum
post-graduate
culled
countenance

I doubt that you can produce this list of shared percentages--and you still haven't after asking you several months ago.

This is your best example of Gallaway's French? misnomer, nonpareil, homilies, bourgeoise.

Evidently he fell asleep in his high school foreign language class.


Both Sanders and Erdnase mimic dialectical speech, accents, and various colloquialisms. Feel free to post here when you can locate examples of Gallaway's vernacular writing.

Erdnase:
A colored attendant of a club-room, overhearing a discussion about running up two hands at poker, ventured the following interpolation: Don't trouble 'bout no two han's, Boss. Get yo' own han'. De suckah, he'll get a han' all right, suah!

Sanders

and dormitzer as coxswain, with his lurid "langwidge" free
how in the name of "Heavings" did columbia...pasht th' nowlidge av the saints.
(stockholders lafin' fit ter kill when you got down ter biz);
We see you slayin' Mexic's sons with seven-foot machetes,...[more, in Dwight bio]
an event occurred that was so "amoosin'" that it has stuck in the minds...
he is not married but 'as 'opes
and faseeshusly smileth his smisle...for to sin till late once in a whisle
if half they say is true, B'GOSH, THE GAME IS UP, B'JINKS!
the while the BLOOMIN' octopi..
all this BLOOMIN' coil
of one, the fiercest of them all, YELEPT YE standard oil
the Divvil's own crew
lith'rachure -- in but one minnit ... that contains a sthick to lick wid;
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 2, 2018 11:24AM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2018, Leo H wrote:
I want to see your list of the percentages of these words shared between Gallaway and Erdnase. Sanders shared all these words:

contrivances
longitudinal
vocation
axiom
curriculum
post-graduate
culled
countenance

I doubt that you can produce this list of shared percentages--and you still haven't after asking you several months ago.[/quote]
Why does Gallaway have to share exactly these words? Most of them aren't very rare to begin with. In my post before I gave you an example for longitudinal that Gallaway used: "long longitudinal". Gallaway shares much rarer words and phrases than the list of the ones Erdnase matches with Sanders. Here are some of the matches Gallaway has with Erdnase:

- subterfuge
- hard luck
- end for end
- misnomer
- proportionately
- for all practical purposes
- as a matter of fact, the
- "doctored" / "doctor"; "doctoring"
- endwise
- imparting the knowledge / impart that knowledge (both use it in the preface)
- jog, jogged
- squaring
- longitudinal
- interlocked

These taken together are much more significant, because much rarer in usage, than your short list.

Regarding slang, Gallaway did use the word 'didja' in a company report. I also claim that Gallaway is Eugene Edwards. In his "Jack Pots" you will find lots of Ebonics slang: "Wen I pick up my han' I mos turn pale. I ketch wun mo king en two jack. Sambo he lay low, bekase he em bline. I bet fibe cent, en Washinton he liff me fibe mo." "You ain't been tole me nuttin' 'bout 'em. What kine er narrer scape you mek?", as well as German slang: "Vell, I dell you how it is," said he. "I dinks de way to pluff is to vait undil you gets apout dree aces, and den sock it to dem."
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 2, 2018 12:15PM)
Are you saying that "longitudinal", 'axiom", and "contrivances" are not rare and unusual words? Even you don't believe that. Who are you kidding here?

You claim that Gallaway is Eugene Edwards but you have no evidence whatsoever. Nothing! Zero! For the time being--all this vernacular speech you posted could be from anybody. Anybody!

Here are more unusual words and phrases that Sanders and Erdnase share:

CULLED:

Erdnase: These examples of CULLING, if FAIRLY WELL executed. [p81]
Sanders: FAIRLY WELL filled with data CULLED in a measure from geologic reports...

DALLIANCE:

Erdnase: If DALLIANCE with the deck is allowed [p60]
Erdnase: when the company will stand for DALLIANCE at all [p62]
Sanders: to tread the primrose paths of DALLIANCE and joyance.

ARCHEOLOGY:

Erdnase: It is a fact well known to ARCHAEOLOGISTS that many very wonderful arts which were possessed by the ancients have, through the course of ages, been completely lost to modern civilization. [p175]

Sanders: the various objects which might serve to enlighten us upon the ARCHAEOLOGY and Ethnology of the Northwest; and such narratives and relics as would be of future interest...

ON THE SQUARE:

Erdnase: it is generally dealt ON THE SQUARE in gambling rooms that are run openly [p18]
Sanders: Is not the western game I yearn To see played ON THE SQUARE

COUPS:

Erdnase: Two or three COUPS in the course of an evening will not flush the quarry [p19]
Sanders: In fact, we're in a precious mess through all their COUPS des main

Also distinctive distinctive/unusual UN-words. ----
Erdnase: with the sublimest UNCONCERN [p10]
Sanders: with UNWHISPERED request that tears and other paraphernalia be reserved for future occasion.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 3, 2018 01:09PM)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I can also proof it. Go to the Google Ngram Viewer https://books.google.com/ngrams , which is a tool that allows you to check how frequently a particular word was used during a certain time period, and put in these words.

Longitudinal we can exclude, because both Sanders and Gallaway use it, but you can included it in the comparison. As you can see in the Google Ngram Viewer longitudinal, axiom, and contrivances were not particularly rare around 1900. Axiom and contrivances appear about 3 times every million words. Anything above one-in-a-million isn't considered rare. Compare this to 'subterfuge' and 'misnomer' for example, which are all below 1 in a million. 'Hard luck' and 'end for end' is even rarer than that. In other words, the list of words that Gallaway matches with Erdnase are a lot rarer and therefore a lot more significant than the ones Sanders shares with Erdnase.

[quote]On Jun 2, 2018, Leo H wrote:
You claim that Gallaway is Eugene Edwards but you have no evidence whatsoever. Nothing! Zero![/quote]
I have lots of evidence. I have an entire chapter of evidence in my ebook "The Hunt for Erdnase" https://www.lybrary.com/the-hunt-for-erdnase-and-the-path-to-edward-gallaway-p-673843.html
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 3, 2018 05:28PM)
Except that Gallaway doesn't write like Erdnase. Those examples of Gallaway's French you provided are very anemic. Let me know if Gallaway also shares these words with Erdnase as Sanders does:

JOG:

Erdnase: 191 occurrences (card sleight)
Sanders: in this way the JOG can be avoided

COUNTENANCE:

Erdnase: Where the civil authorities COUNTENANCE these institutions [p11]
Sanders: ever at the front to give the light of his COUNTENANCE
Sanders: our friend Page was removing from his COUNTENANCE a week's ragged growth of whiskers

INTERWOVEN:

Erdnase: so that the left hand holds several cards that are not INTERWOVEN at the bottom [p162]
Sanders: so closely INTERWOVEN as to make their undergraduate lives warp and woof of the same fabric

NOWISE:

Erdnase: REVELATIONS are calmly dismissed with the ASSERTION that this or that artifice is employed; in NOWISE attempting to EXPLAIN the process or give the detail of the action mentioned. [p14]
Sanders: are too insignificant for MENTION in this connection, while in other points the DESCRIPTION of the surrounding region in NO WISE tallies therewith.


[quote]On Jun 2, 2018, Chris wrote:I have lots of evidence. I have an entire chapter of evidence in my ebook "The Hunt for Erdnase" https://www.lybrary.com/the-hunt-for-erdnase-and-the-path-to-edward-gallaway-p-673843.html [/quote]

An attempt to get people to purchase your overpriced $45.00 e-book? You fell off your rocker and landed on your head. You need to post your evidence here, otherwise it doesn't exist.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 3, 2018 08:53PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Except that Gallaway doesn't write like Erdnase.[/quote]
Pretty much every linguistic point you have raised I documented here in this thread that Gallaway is a better match. Scare quotes, Gallaway matches better. Rare words and phrases, Gallaway is a much better match. Common contractions Gallaway is a perfect match with Erdnase. Sanders not at all. Let's continue below

[quote]On Jun 3, 2018, Leo H wrote:
JOG:

Erdnase: 191 occurrences (card sleight)
Sanders: in this way the JOG can be avoided[/quote]
Important to note with jog is that Erdnase is the first in the magic and gambling literature to use jog as a verb. Sanders does not do that, but Gallaway uses jog as a verb as in jogged or jogging like Erdnase. Gallaway is a much better match to Erdnase than Sanders.

[quote]On Jun 3, 2018, Leo H wrote:
COUNTENANCE:
INTERWOVEN:[/quote]
As I have shown above, Gallaway matches many more and rarer words than Sanders matches. You have to provide real examples and leave out all the poetry stuff.

[quote]On Jun 3, 2018, Leo H wrote:
NOWISE:

Erdnase: REVELATIONS are calmly dismissed with the ASSERTION that this or that artifice is employed; in NOWISE attempting to EXPLAIN the process or give the detail of the action mentioned. [p14]
Sanders: are too insignificant for MENTION in this connection, while in other points the DESCRIPTION of the surrounding region in NO WISE tallies therewith.[/quote]
Sanders writes it 'no wise'. Erdnase 'nowise'. In other words, Sanders is not Erdnase. Different spelling. Gallaway uses 'lengthwise', 'crosswise' and 'endwise' as does Erdnase. Again Gallaway is a better match than Sanders.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 3, 2018 10:49PM)
Since Gallaway never wrote "nowis" nor "no wise" as Erdnase and Sanders did, which by the way is a less common word than "lengthwise", "crosswise", and "endwise" Sanders would be a much better match. Also there is no published evidence of Gallaway ever using any UN-words at all such as "unconcerned" and "unwhispered" as used by Sanders and Erdnase.

Gallaway is not Erdnase. He never walked into a gambling joint in his life as Sanders did numerous times. There is no evidence he ever gambled for money. This is an important point since Erdnase admitted to losing money at the gaming table. There is no evidence that Gallaway ever gambled. Nothing! There is also no evidence that Gallaway wrote Jackpots. There is also no credible anagram theory for Gallaway other than your ridiculous idea of a nickname, or the malarkey of the great aunt named Andrews.

Another uncanny similarity between Sanders and Erdnase, the use of the word USUAL:

Erdnase: The USUAL METHOD of "forcing" is to bring the particular [p143]
Sanders: when the USUAL METHODS of timbering may be resorted to.

Erdnase: The USUAL PRACTICE is to deal from the bottom. [p83]
Sanders: the USUAL PRACTICE in the West being for each
Sanders: the USUAL PRACTICE being to make the inner faces of the station sets aline with those of...

Erdnase: bring it down IN THE USUAL WAY of shuffling on [p160]
Sanders: are hung IN THE USUAL WAY by lag-screw

Erdnase: card with the thumb in the USUAL MANNER [p56]
Sanders: to afford secure support to the sets by blocking and wedging in the USUAL MANNER.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 6, 2018 05:47PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Also there is no published evidence of Gallaway ever using any UN-words at all such as "unconcerned" and "unwhispered" as used by Sanders and Erdnase.[/quote]
Where exactly does Erdnase use "unwhispered"? And where does Sanders use "unconcerned"? You are fantasizing. Erdnase is ONLY using "unconcerned" and Sanders is ONLY using "unwhispered". That's your similarity? Because they both use a word starting with un- ? Really? That is your linguistic insight? I guess you make statements as they pop into your head without checking the facts. So you end up writing nonsense all the time. "Unconcerned" is not really an unusual un-word. Here is a short sampling of some un-words Gallaway used: uncoated, unfolded, uninterrupted, unmounted, unprinted, unsealed, untrimmed, unwieldy, ... I could go on.

[quote]On Jun 3, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Another uncanny similarity between Sanders and Erdnase, the use of the word USUAL:

Erdnase: The USUAL METHOD of "forcing" is to bring the particular [p143]
Sanders: when the USUAL METHODS of timbering may be resorted to.

Erdnase: The USUAL PRACTICE is to deal from the bottom. [p83]
Sanders: the USUAL PRACTICE in the West being for each
Sanders: the USUAL PRACTICE being to make the inner faces of the station sets aline with those of...

Erdnase: bring it down IN THE USUAL WAY of shuffling on [p160]
Sanders: are hung IN THE USUAL WAY by lag-screw

Erdnase: card with the thumb in the USUAL MANNER [p56]
Sanders: to afford secure support to the sets by blocking and wedging in the USUAL MANNER. [/quote]
Here again you simply take a common expression and pretend it is unique to Erdnase and Sanders, or it is an uncommon phrase. Gallaway uses these, too, USUAL MANNER, USUAL METHOD, USUAL WAY, AS USUAL. But I don't think it is particularly Erdnase like, because many use these phrases.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 6, 2018 07:40PM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2018, Chris wrote:Where exactly does Erdnase use "unwhispered"? And where does Sanders use "unconcerned"? You are fantasizing. Erdnase is ONLY using "unconcerned" and Sanders is ONLY using "unwhispered". That's your similarity? Because they both use a word starting with un- ? Really? That is your linguistic insight? I guess you make statements as they pop into your head without checking the facts. So you end up writing nonsense all the time. "Unconcerned" is not really an unusual un-word. Here is a short sampling of some un-words Gallaway used: uncoated, unfolded, uninterrupted, unmounted, unprinted, unsealed, untrimmed, unwieldy...[/quote]

Those Un-words you posted are not distinctive, nor are they unusual Un-words. In fact they are fairly common. "Unconcern" and "unwhispered" are examples of very unusual and rarely used Un-words, and they happen to be used by Erdnase and Sanders--not Gallaway. You haven't found any unusual Un-word used by Gallaway.

Another relatively uncommon word shared by both Erdnase and Sanders: PROPRIETORS

Erdnase: we do not refer TO THE PROPRIETORS or managers of gaming houses. [p11]
Sanders: both TO THE PROPRIETORS and to the staffs thereof [montLib]

And also the shared use of the word: MISTY

Erdnase: require nothing more than a bare suspicion of skill to immediately seek a less MISTY atmosphere. [p24]
Sanders: As o'er fair stretches MISTY curtains drift
Sanders: Save MISTY years, save through some vagrant rift

And also the shared use of the word: LOFTY

Erdnase: I shall call upon all four Jacks to execute their ground and LOFTY tumbling at the same time [p192]
Sanders: the victim and principal actor in the comedy has found fame and worthily won his way to proud and LOFTY eminence
Sanders: In imagination let us ascend to some LOFTY height from which we may view...

Proprietors, lofty, and misty. I wonder if Gallaway shares these words with Erdnase...
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 6, 2018 08:12PM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Those Un-words you posted are not distinctive, nor are they unusual Un-words. In fact they are fairly common. "Unconcern" and "unwhispered" are examples of very unusual and rarely used Un-words, and they happen to be used by Erdnase and Sanders--not Gallaway. You haven't found any unusual Un-word used by Gallaway.[/quote]
Every sentence you write is blatantly and provably incorrect. Per Google Ngram viewer UNCONCERNED is more frequently used than these un-words Gallaway used: UNCOATED, UNMOUNTED, UNPRINTED, UNSEALED, UNTRIMMED. Only UNWIELDY is slightly more frequently used. So most of the examples I have given are much rarer than "unconcerned". "Unwhispered" is very rare, but Erdnase is not using it. Your argument therefore makes zero sense. You are incorrect in pretty much every linguistic point you tried to make so far.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 6, 2018 10:42PM)
Answer the question! Proprietors, lofty, and misty. Did Gallaway share those words with Erdnase as Sanders did? Never mind--I'll clue you in:

Gallaway never used these three words.

Gallaway never walked into a gambling joint and never wrote Jackpots. Never in his life wrote vernacular speech to create a believable character as Erdnase and Sanders have done. Your examples of Gallaway's French are pitifully anemic and laughable. Most English speakers who have never studied French are already familiar with those few examples you provided.

You have no evidence for any of your outlandish claims--and yet expect/hope? to be paid for your half-baked and overpriced ebook?

Both Erdnase and Sanders share an affinity for the derivation of terms:

Sanders was very interested in the derivation of words and names. While librarian for the Montana Historical Society, he wrote an in-depth article on the derivation of the name Montana. And in his Columbia class reunion bios, he explicates the sources of the nicknames of his classmates. In addition, his mining articles also describe the derivation of terminology.
Sanders: the WORD is an adjective form that is DERIVED from the noun mount or mountain. [MONT]
Sanders: making their way over to the headwaters of the Musselshell river, SO NAMED because of the shells that are to be found along its banks. [MONT]
Sanders: Of Starek we remember the CAUSE which led to the NICKNAME by which he was known to us all, that of "Pop" Starek. [CRbio]
Sanders: ERNEST JULIUS HYACINTH AMY...a name which served the double use of his COGNOMEN and our own mark of affection, for he was never known to us by his FRONT NAME or any of them.
Sanders: This designation is now generally applied to the plates of both the vertical and inclined shafts, although it is probable that the NAME ORIGINATED in connection with the timbering of the latter ...and this SIGNIFICANCE of the TERM was finally EXTENDED TO comprehend the similar longer plates of vertical shafts as well. [MT]

Erdnase displays a similar interest in the derivation of names and other terms. He mentions the likely source of the term "cold deck" and points out that the standard name of a sleight ("back palm") is actually a misnomer. He also takes time to describe the origins of names that he, himself, has invented.
Erdnase: The "Cold Deck" ... The NAME is probably DERIVED from the fact that the deck must await its opportunity long enough to contract a chill in the interim. [p18]
Erdnase: The Back Palm.-- We are afraid the above title is a MISNOMER.
Erdnase:The Longitudinal Shift.-- This shift, for which we have to thank no one, is GIVEN A VERY LONG NAME ... [p135]
Erdnase: The S. W. E. Shift. We have not DUBBED the following process with OUR INITIALS because we wish to appear "big on the bills," but merely to GIVE IT A NAME. [p134]
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 7, 2018 08:16AM)
You really do amuse me. When your earlier 'linguistic' arguments turned out to be flawed you quickly come up with new ones, also flawed.
[quote]On Jun 6, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Answer the question! Proprietors, lofty, and misty. Did Gallaway share those words with Erdnase as Sanders did? Never mind--I'll clue you in:

Gallaway never used these three words.[/quote]

Neither of these three words is rare or uncommon. Look it up. Shared use is therefore not an authorship indicator. But to satisfy your curiosity, Gallaway used "proprietor" several times. Here is one example: "The PROPRIETOR of the office buys a composing machine to enable a man to work at five or six times his speed setting type by hand."


[quote]On Jun 6, 2018, Leo H wrote:
...and yet expect/hope? to be paid for your half-baked and overpriced ebook?[/quote]
I don't need to hope. My ebook has sold well and is funding the ongoing research into Gallaway.

[quote]On Jun 6, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Both Erdnase and Sanders share an affinity for the derivation of terms:[/quote]
You may be interested to learn that Gallaway coined his own terms: copyfitting, square-pica

[quote]On Jun 6, 2018, Leo H wrote:
Erdnase displays a similar interest in the derivation of names and other terms. He mentions the likely source of the term "cold deck" and points out that the standard name of a sleight ("back palm") is actually a MISNOMER.[/quote]
MISNOMER is an interesting word, because it is uncommon, much more uncommon than your lofty, misty, proprietor, longitudinal, unconcerned, etc. How often is Sanders using misnomer? Zero times. Gallaway is using it multiple times.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 7, 2018 07:41PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Chris wrote:Neither of these three words is rare or uncommon. Look it up. Shared use is therefore not an authorship indicator. But to satisfy your curiosity, Gallaway used "proprietor" several times. Here is one example: "The PROPRIETOR of the office buys a composing machine to enable a man to work at five or six times his speed setting type by hand."[/quote]

Oh? So Gallaway did use the word "proprietor" but you still haven't found any examples from Gallaway's writings where he used the words "misty" and "lofty"? One out of three words is not good. If these three words are not rare and uncommon as you claim, then why don't you submit examples of Gallaway using "misty" and "lofty"? There should be examples of Gallaway using these two words then...right?


[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Chris wrote:
I don't need to hope. My ebook has sold well and is funding the ongoing research into Gallaway.[/quote]

If your half-baked and overpriced ebook is selling well, it might be due in part to your aggressive hyping and marketing on magic forum threads where the advertising is free for you.

[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Chris wrote:
You may be interested to learn that Gallaway coined his own terms: copyfitting, square-pica[/quote]

And nothing Erdnasian about "copyfitting" and "square-pica" is there? And I have not seen any evidence of an interest in the origins of words as shown by both Sanders and Erdnase.

Erdnase and Sanders both take delight in pointing out hypocrisy and pretense. In this example, they sarcastically mock so-called "professionals" and their ruses and deceptions. And in doing so, they use identical metaphors (EXHUMING) and alliteration (Wicked/Wiles/Waste).
Erdnase: Self-styled "EX-PROFESSIONALS" have regaled the public with astounding disclosures of their former WILES and WICKEDNESS, and have proven a wonderful knowledge of the subject by EXHUMING some ANTIQUATED moss-covered ruses [p13]

Sanders: certainly in part it is too good to keep, and in a spirit of benevolence and as an offering upon the shrine of professional goodwill toward PROFESSIONAL brethren, the following extracts have been EXHUMED from their OBSCURE place of burial [...] and how many reports presuming to describe mining properties are written that should never have been penned - because of the WICKED WASTE of ink resulting therefrom.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 7, 2018 07:49PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Leo H wrote:
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Chris wrote:Neither of these three words is rare or uncommon. Look it up. Shared use is therefore not an authorship indicator. But to satisfy your curiosity, Gallaway used "proprietor" several times. Here is one example: "The PROPRIETOR of the office buys a composing machine to enable a man to work at five or six times his speed setting type by hand."[/quote]

Oh? So Gallaway did use the word "proprietor" but you still haven't found any examples from Gallaway's writings where he used the words "misty" and "lofty"? One out of three words is not good. If these three words are not rare and uncommon as you claim, then why don't you submit examples of Gallaway using "misty" and "lofty"? There should be examples of Gallaway using these two words then...right?


[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Chris wrote:
I don't need to hope. My ebook has sold well and is funding the ongoing research into Gallaway.[/quote]

If your half-baked and overpriced ebook is selling well, it might be due in part to your aggressive hyping and marketing on magic forum threads where the advertising is free for you.

[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Chris wrote:
You may be interested to learn that Gallaway coined his own terms: copyfitting, square-pica[/quote]

And nothing Erdnasian about "copyfitting" and "square-pica" is there? And I have not seen any evidence of an interest in the origins of words from Gallaway as shown by both Sanders and Erdnase.

Erdnase and Sanders both take delight in pointing out hypocrisy and pretense. In this example, they sarcastically mock so-called "professionals" and their ruses and deceptions. And in doing so, they use identical metaphors (EXHUMING) and alliteration (Wicked/Wiles/Waste).
Erdnase: Self-styled "EX-PROFESSIONALS" have regaled the public with astounding disclosures of their former WILES and WICKEDNESS, and have proven a wonderful knowledge of the subject by EXHUMING some ANTIQUATED moss-covered ruses [p13]

Sanders: certainly in part it is too good to keep, and in a spirit of benevolence and as an offering upon the shrine of professional goodwill toward PROFESSIONAL brethren, the following extracts have been EXHUMED from their OBSCURE place of burial [...] and how many reports presuming to describe mining properties are written that should never have been penned - because of the WICKED WASTE of ink resulting therefrom. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 8, 2018 02:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Leo H wrote:
There should be examples of Gallaway using these two words then...right?[/quote]
No. You should learn statistics.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 8, 2018 06:39PM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2018, Chris wrote:
[quote]On Jun 7, 2018, Leo H wrote:
There should be examples of Gallaway using these two words then...right?[/quote]
No. You should learn statistics. [/quote]

And you should be looking for more evidence on Gallaway, especially in matters of the gaming table. Statistics will not help you.

Bob Coyne recently updated his linguistic analyses between Sanders and Erdnase:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdnase-sanders-use-of-language.html#class-photo
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Jun 11, 2018 05:51PM)
The hours, indeed years, people have been trying to find out who was Erdnase.

The only questions I've ever had on this subject are:

- what does it honestly matter, and
- what are you going to do exactly when you find out? Is it going to be a life-changing revelation (no pun intended)?

An anonymous bloke (or even blokes) wrote a book on card sleights in 1902; indeed, I think it was written (and illustrated) very poorly. Because he/they remain anonymous and let's be honest, nobody will probably EVER know for certain who wrote it, people start arguing the toss and trying to outshine each other with 'their invesitgative knowledge'.

I just don't get the hype - firstly about the actual book; nor the purpose of worrying about who wrote it.

People must surely have a lot of free time in their lives. :hysteric:
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 11, 2018 06:59PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Merc Man wrote:
The hours, indeed years, people have been trying to find out who was Erdnase.

The only questions I've ever had on this subject are:

- what does it honestly matter, and
- what are you going to do exactly when you find out? Is it going to be a life-changing revelation (no pun intended)?

An anonymous bloke (or even blokes) wrote a book on card sleights in 1902; indeed, I think it was written (and illustrated) very poorly. Because he/they remain anonymous and let's be honest, nobody will probably EVER know for certain who wrote it, people start arguing the toss and trying to outshine each other with 'their invesitgative knowledge'.

I just don't get the hype - firstly about the actual book; nor the purpose of worrying about who wrote it.

People must surely have a lot of free time in their lives. :hysteric: [/quote]

People had enough free time on their hands to find a cure for polio and other illnesses. Thanks to those people you survived your childhood fairly well with vaccinations.

If you actually take the time to read the book, you will realize that it is clearly, and concisely written. The illustrations are pretty good as well.

Why does it matter to discover the identity of Erdnase? Because the truth matters. And what will people do with the information if his identity is confirmed? Probably hold symposiums and discuss why he did it.
Message: Posted by: Cleverpaws (Jun 11, 2018 09:49PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2018, Leo H wrote:

People had enough free time on their hands to find a cure for polio and other illnesses. Thanks to those people you survived your childhood fairly well with vaccinations.

[/quote]

Comparing Erdnase to the creators of the polio vaccine is just ridiculous.

The two vaccines have eliminated polio from most of the world and reduced the number of cases reported each year from an estimated 350,000 in 1988 to 22 in 2017.

Can anything erdnase did compare to that?

Jonas Edward Salk (October 28, 1914 – June 23, 1995) was an American medical researcher and virologist. He discovered and developed one of the first successful polio vaccines. Born in New York City, he attended New York University School of Medicine, later choosing to do medical research instead of becoming a practicing physician. In 1939, after earning his medical degree, Salk began an internship as a physician scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital.[1] Two years later he was granted a fellowship at the University of Michigan, where he would study flu viruses with his mentor Thomas Francis, Jr.[2]
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 12, 2018 05:21AM)
In that case--stick with the study of the history of medical science and forget about magic, since you deem it a trivial matter.
Message: Posted by: Chris (Jun 12, 2018 12:04PM)
I agree that it is silly to compare the research into Erdnase with curing diseases or other life changing research. It is certainly not of the same importance, not even close. But that doesn't mean to find out who Erdnase was is useless. Understanding history is a worthwhile pursuit.
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Jun 12, 2018 02:34PM)
Understanding history (sometimes sadly not learning from it) is one thing.

However, I don't think discovering who Erdnase was is going to stop wars, cure cancer, end famine and de-nuclearise the planet.

The funniest scenario of course would be that Erdnase was just some complete random.......causing the Erdnase community to stand, jaws dropped, saying "who the fkkk was he"?

By the way, I've absolutely nothing against older literature. Expert Card Technique was my first bible - and for what its worth, I truly believe its' content and quality to bury some of the utter tripe in EATCT.
Message: Posted by: Leo H (Jun 12, 2018 07:13PM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2018, Merc Man wrote:However, I don't think discovering who Erdnase was is going to stop wars, cure cancer, end famine and de-nuclearise the planet.[/quote]

But nobody ever claimed that discovering Erdnase would stop wars, cure cancer, end famine,disease, and rid the planet of nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean scholars should stop looking for his true identity, or quit looking for that other writer who might have written Shakespeare's plays.

By your logic Merc Man, what is the point in another biography of Winston Churchill? Let the diplomats, doctors, and scientists worry about that other pesky stuff.
Message: Posted by: Cristian Vidrascu (Nov 18, 2019 02:46AM)
What magic books did Gallaway have in his library? I can't think of any serious fan of magic who doesn't have at least a few books on the subject.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Nov 27, 2019 11:14PM)
How much background is there on the folks who did the printing?