“A Concern Of Power”

Refutation and comments on the Addie Hoyt Fargo blog dated March 23, 2012

I spent some time over the last two weekends watching WIAA boys and girls State Basketball Tournaments.  You can't beat high school basketball for drama and raw emotion.  It's amazing  and rewarding to see these young folks give everthing they have for pride in school and love of team.

And it beats the hell out of reading the rubbish Rosemary keeps piling up.

I thought I might offer a few comments on the Addie blogs  'Take me out to the ball game' and 'A concern of power'.  I think the 'Did Enoch's swift kick end baseball in Lake Mills' got deleted.  I guess that one was so far out in the weeds that Rosemary had to do something.  In these blog entries she reports the same information over and over again ad nauseam in an effort to convince her audience she is actually writing something truthful.  Of course, truth and objective reporting are strangers to Rosemary.

As I read through these last few blogs I knew the conclusion that Rosemary was shooting for and was wondering why she just didn't say it.  The Desperate Housewive of Norfolk (Bunco Squad of Oklahoma included) can't be expected to arrive at the conclusion Rosemary wants the to after they've waded through all the muck and mire along the way to the end.

Finally, at the end "Mark" helps her out so she can make a definitive statement.  Rosemary responds as follows:

I respectfully disagree. I think it establishes that Enoch was prone to outbursts of temper, at the very least. He also “used the law” to get back at W. W. Ingram, which is pretty ugly.

In all my reading of 20+ years of newspapers, there were very few instances of grown men being arrested for assault and battery *UNLESS* they were a couple of drunks who’d gotten into an ugly brawl in front of the local saloon.

We can’t use today’s standards to judge yesterday’s history. In 1885, sober, respectful, business-owning men didn’t go around kicking and hitting one another.

This case is important because it establishes that Enoch could not control his temper, and that he was willing to use the law (and the law was apparently willing to be used) to get his desired outcome.

The interesting part of Rosemary response is the part about 'We can't use today's standards.....etc".  Rosemary's been doing this since the beginning and claims that's fair over and over again.  In the same sentence she makes a definitive statement about business men in 1885 and she wasn't there but she is levying a perceived standard for behavior in this sentence.

The last paragraph is where Rosemary sums up her case that E J could not control his temper.  This is the launching pad for more stories and another approach to Addie's death.  Just like Rosemary has failed to prove her case here she will fail to prove any other case that states that Addie died at the hands of her husband.

I would also like to point out again that Rosemary knows a lot about court cases, bringing the full impact of the law, suit and counter suit and out of court settlements as evidenced by this newspaper story.  I'm sure Laurie Flori can tell you more.  This proves that Rosemay has anger management issues and cannot control her temper.

http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/flori-2537-thornton-sears.html

Here is a partial list of some of the facts and suggestions to help the confused understand the last two or three blogs:

First off, the competition and/or animosity between the Jefferson Banner and the LM Leader is not relevant.  Hubbs (LML) was part of the same society as the Fargos, still doesn't make those articles relevant.  And it's one article.  There could have been a long history of the Jeff Banner not playing nicely with the people of Lake Mills

The physical location of the LM Leader press is completeley irrelevant although I find it interesting that Rosemary uses the LM Leader as an accurate source when it helps her (fail) to make a case but discounts it when it doesn't.

F B Fargo (not E J Fargo) was in business with W. W. Ingram.  They owned the hotel together.

F B landed the first punches at the baseball game.

E J was hauled to Jefferson to pay a fine and costs for allegedly kicking Ingram.  Perhaps the judge was prejudiced......like that *never* happens.

E J was exonerated of all wrong doing by a jury of his peers.  That means after hearing all evidence a jury found him "not guilty".

F B was found guilty (he confessed) and was fined some minimal amount.

Ingram paid the court costs.

F B intitiated legal action against Ingram after Ingram sued him...not before.  Any role that E J had was to be supportive of his brother.

All indications of the outcome of the trial suggest F B bought out Ingram's business interests and, without a future in Lake Mills, Ingram moved back to Chicago....where he came from.  Ingram, contrary to Rosemary's contention, was not a long term Lake Mills resident.  In the 1880 census he is listed as a "boarder".

In summary:
E J was found not guilty of kicking Ingram by a jury of his peers.  Quite the contrary...it sounds like Ingram had doctored up his body to look like bruises.  (I think this is in the blog that Rosemary removed).

That makes the number of violent acts E J committed equal to zero.  That's right...not a single act of violence.

All the rest of the legal activity was, as I've stated before,  Quid Pro Quo.  Two business men came to a disagreement and one bought out the other......pretty simple.  Those two business men are F B Fargo and W W Ingram.

In one of the blogs Rosemary displays an article asking for cooler heads to determine proper management of the hotel....F B's hotel, not E J's.

So go back to Rosemary's blog entries and insert F B Fargo where it's appropriate and they have a completely different meaning...  and the assertion that either one of the "boys" has temper control problems is not proven by Rosemary and cannot be substantiated by a single act committed by F B.

The trivia question for people that read this blog is:
How many times does Rosemary try to assign responsibility to E J when the person should be F B....or Ingram.........or nobody?
Far too many to count(?)

Mark is right.......these few blogs don't prove anything......