Guest writer Tain Bo with his thoughts on Jack Dunn's dissembling about the Boston College controversy.

I can see where some of the serial detractors of the Belfast Project get their cue from. Jack Dunn likes to duck and weave and is content to say he went all 12 rounds and took a bad beating but in his mind hails his own hollow victories. The only thing he makes clear is he is a law abiding man and the Irish terrorists are beneath him. 
So we won a victory for academic research. It wasn’t a full victory but it was a significant victory for the enterprise of academic research.
I am not a professor of English but how do you claim a victory and then cancel it out with not a full victory. Is it a victory or not? I suppose using that logic Brazil could claim a victory by scoring a goal against the Germans. I suppose Hamas could apply the same logic by killing a few IDF soldiers at the expense of innocent civilians.

Dunn’s remark about McIntyre doing a long stretch holds a bit of irony that appears lost to Jack as it would be safe to guess that many if not all the donors done time. Though that is not what Dunn is doing which seems to be the theme separating BC from the project and blaming McIntyre and Moloney. Suggesting that McIntyre’s time inside somehow voids cognitive reasoning or perception but he understood enough for BC to employ him. But I am sure Jack would dispute that by saying Moloney employed him.

The interesting thing Jack points out is the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. This should have been a red flag concern for BC as they were collecting a “terrorist” archive. Why did anyone at BC not join the dots and take a deeper look into the project? Instead Dunn uses this in his own defence, somehow insinuating that if the terrorist had not attacked America the Belfast Project might have had a different outcome.

Dunn refuses to accept the responsibility of BC mishandling the case though he is correct there is no way BC was going to tarnish its image by protecting the archive which to the ordinary person would mean defending “terrorists” especially in a post September 11 American world.

Right out the gate Dunn sets the premise for his not so solid interview with a swipe at Anthony McIntyre. Ed Moloney fairs slightly better as the lofty Jack Dunn couldn’t think of a fitting insult. Shear arrogance continues to spew from Dunn, going on a personal attack instead of a professional reasonable argument on his opinion of BC.

I was expecting something more logical from Dunn after all he has had a few years to come up with something more constructive yet all he does is attempt to paint BC as the victims and blames everything else. Even Kevin Cullen gets rebuked as a matter of contention which Dunn is happy to brush off and not entertain the question on political persecution. He was quick to snap and use the murder of Jean McConville but didn’t acknowledge that is what the PSNI were seeking Adams over. Considering they are both inextricably linked I am unconvinced of Dunn’s legal ignorance. Not that Dunn would give a toss about Jean McConville.

Being evasive on matters of fact did not get in the way of his strange personal attacks on McIntyre and Moloney: from beginning to end, placing blame on McIntyre and to a lesser degree Moloney. I think Dunn should revisit the Donor Contract and the “access to the transcripts shall be restricted until after my death” that reads of a concrete final guarantee. Whilst he can wag the finger of blame he cannot blame Anthony McIntyre and Ed Moloney over the contract(s). That is the sole responsibility of BC.

If anything, Dunn's blame game is suspicious regarding the donor contract: was it worded so carefully by BC as to not raise questions? After all, he is fond of repeating to the extent of American law. It is also strange that he admits no one had any reason to believe at the time that serious problems could arise. Would that not give Moloney and McIntyre the green light to continue as by his own account there was no obvious roadblocks or political minefields?

Though he has that covered by his to the extent of American law so the end game is Moloney and McIntyre fulfilled their contractual obligations yet are somehow responsible for BC’s failure to defend the archive. Both McIntyre and Moloney with very limited resources could also claim the hollow victory Dunn grins about. I would imagine if they had the resources of BC the legal battle would have been fought differently.

I might be biased but his interview is blaming and attacking the researchers, and in the same space defending the prestigious well-manicured college. But that has been the legal strategy all along - defend the college not the archive.

Oh No Jack Dunn It Again



Guest writer Tain Bo with his thoughts on Jack Dunn's dissembling about the Boston College controversy.

I can see where some of the serial detractors of the Belfast Project get their cue from. Jack Dunn likes to duck and weave and is content to say he went all 12 rounds and took a bad beating but in his mind hails his own hollow victories. The only thing he makes clear is he is a law abiding man and the Irish terrorists are beneath him. 
So we won a victory for academic research. It wasn’t a full victory but it was a significant victory for the enterprise of academic research.
I am not a professor of English but how do you claim a victory and then cancel it out with not a full victory. Is it a victory or not? I suppose using that logic Brazil could claim a victory by scoring a goal against the Germans. I suppose Hamas could apply the same logic by killing a few IDF soldiers at the expense of innocent civilians.

Dunn’s remark about McIntyre doing a long stretch holds a bit of irony that appears lost to Jack as it would be safe to guess that many if not all the donors done time. Though that is not what Dunn is doing which seems to be the theme separating BC from the project and blaming McIntyre and Moloney. Suggesting that McIntyre’s time inside somehow voids cognitive reasoning or perception but he understood enough for BC to employ him. But I am sure Jack would dispute that by saying Moloney employed him.

The interesting thing Jack points out is the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. This should have been a red flag concern for BC as they were collecting a “terrorist” archive. Why did anyone at BC not join the dots and take a deeper look into the project? Instead Dunn uses this in his own defence, somehow insinuating that if the terrorist had not attacked America the Belfast Project might have had a different outcome.

Dunn refuses to accept the responsibility of BC mishandling the case though he is correct there is no way BC was going to tarnish its image by protecting the archive which to the ordinary person would mean defending “terrorists” especially in a post September 11 American world.

Right out the gate Dunn sets the premise for his not so solid interview with a swipe at Anthony McIntyre. Ed Moloney fairs slightly better as the lofty Jack Dunn couldn’t think of a fitting insult. Shear arrogance continues to spew from Dunn, going on a personal attack instead of a professional reasonable argument on his opinion of BC.

I was expecting something more logical from Dunn after all he has had a few years to come up with something more constructive yet all he does is attempt to paint BC as the victims and blames everything else. Even Kevin Cullen gets rebuked as a matter of contention which Dunn is happy to brush off and not entertain the question on political persecution. He was quick to snap and use the murder of Jean McConville but didn’t acknowledge that is what the PSNI were seeking Adams over. Considering they are both inextricably linked I am unconvinced of Dunn’s legal ignorance. Not that Dunn would give a toss about Jean McConville.

Being evasive on matters of fact did not get in the way of his strange personal attacks on McIntyre and Moloney: from beginning to end, placing blame on McIntyre and to a lesser degree Moloney. I think Dunn should revisit the Donor Contract and the “access to the transcripts shall be restricted until after my death” that reads of a concrete final guarantee. Whilst he can wag the finger of blame he cannot blame Anthony McIntyre and Ed Moloney over the contract(s). That is the sole responsibility of BC.

If anything, Dunn's blame game is suspicious regarding the donor contract: was it worded so carefully by BC as to not raise questions? After all, he is fond of repeating to the extent of American law. It is also strange that he admits no one had any reason to believe at the time that serious problems could arise. Would that not give Moloney and McIntyre the green light to continue as by his own account there was no obvious roadblocks or political minefields?

Though he has that covered by his to the extent of American law so the end game is Moloney and McIntyre fulfilled their contractual obligations yet are somehow responsible for BC’s failure to defend the archive. Both McIntyre and Moloney with very limited resources could also claim the hollow victory Dunn grins about. I would imagine if they had the resources of BC the legal battle would have been fought differently.

I might be biased but his interview is blaming and attacking the researchers, and in the same space defending the prestigious well-manicured college. But that has been the legal strategy all along - defend the college not the archive.

6 comments:

  1. Táin Bó

    "Honesty is a very expensive gift, don't expect it from cheap people."

    Warren Buffet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Henry,

    I am not following are you saying Jack is untruthful or those involved are "cheap people" honesty is free but I can see why a billionaire would call it expensive.

    I don't believe my opinion is dishonest though Dunn has yet to stick to one story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Táin I haven't said your opinion is dishonest.

    Let me be clear about where I stand in relation to Jack Dunn;
    the spin doctor is doing what he's paid to do.

    Grunts from pigs and all that!

    It seems to me that human nature dictates we're all attached to being right ... to looking good ... or at the very least to not looking bad or not being wrong .
    It's as if we're all preprogrammed, or perhaps conditioned, to fall somewhere along such a continuum.

    It takes some considerable effort to escape such ego driven gravitational pulls. So I disagree with your contention that 'honesty is free'. I concur with Buffet; honesty is indeed a gift, not necessarily 'very expensive' but invariably with some degree of cost.
    As with any gift, expensive or otherwise, they (gifts) may be grudgingly imparted or freely given.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Henry,

    the problem with cryptic quotes being they are open for interpretation and I certainly did not expect to see Warren Buffet referenced on TPQ regarding BC.

    What price would you attach regarding your honesty on Jack Dunn? Would Jack Dunn attach the same value or would his truth be completely opposite.

    I cannot say with any degree of accuracy that Jack Dunn is dishonest as I do not have any personal interaction to base that supposition in.

    I can make a calculated guess on how I read or hear his divergence from accuracy in regards to the BC debate. You sound convinced that is what he is paid to do which in turn would suggest that his financial incentive overrides his ethical responsibilities, the paid to do also provides reason for him to avoid responsibility as that makes it part of his job description.

    If we follow the trail of paid to do and given that at times Dunn is almost reckless with his divergence and his evasive approach would it be safe to assume that those who pay him to do so agree with him which puts them in a corner as he is under contract to weave or avoid firmly fixing responsibly on the college?

    This would imply that his employers might be just as evasive and encourage divergence on the matter unambiguous only comes into play directing “truth” away from the college.
    This in turn might suggest that all were mislead by those in control of the project “the employers?”

    In his recent interview he displayed no interest in staying within the lines of fairness instead he went on the attack even rebuking matter of fact by sidelining it as a matter of contention but to avoid the question he lavished praise on Kevin Cullen.

    I listened to the interview several times and read the transcripts over several times just to be fair.

    Considering Jacks own words when he was not attacking proved shady I assume those whom employed McIntyre and Maloney might be just as shady or in any case they are making sure the proverbial life raft is/was provided for BC whilst the others were forced to fend for their selves.

    This round Dunn made the college look bad so perhaps they should consider finding a replacement. His attacks lend more creditability to those he was intentionally blaming in his condescending remarks.

    In contrast I listed to interviews with Anthony and Ed they didn’t display the same evasiveness or digression and have maintained the same narrative all along.

    I disagree honesty is simple now the opposite of that dishonesty is difficult as to be a good liar you need the good memory to compliment it. I don’t think knowing and understanding the difference between right and wrong is a gift nor expensive in any form of the word.

    Recently the posts on Gaza were varied but honest I doubt ego was/is a factor the overwhelming evidence would support the truth in what had been said on the subject. It takes considerable effort to avoid truths whereas Buffet is undoubtedly and expert on finance it would be simple for him to assign a value on any subject.

    My truth, your truth, and everyone’s truth, will always vary and differ the only one word that we will find agreement on is the word truth. Everything comes at a cost if we did not fail or were never wrong then there would be no reason to learn and progress. I was unintentionally wrong and offended David recently and for that I was sorry so ego sometimes has to concede to honesty.

    I believe the Belfast Project was based in honesty and would have provided future understanding of conflict. Some chose to ignore that and others manipulate it for political purpose and there are those who twist it for more sinister reasons.

    “It will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.” ~Werner Heisenberg, Physics, and Philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think I will stick with what I know but if Buffet has you convinced that arriving at honesty is a gift then who am I to disagree. I would ask Buffet for financial advice but bankers and investors are motivated by profit and practice dishonesty in order to secure profit is made. In fact the whole concept of paper currency is based in trust and the reality it has absolutely no value at all it is just a paper promise and when bust arrives that promise has no value.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another quote from the 'Oracle of Omaha'.

    “What the wise do in the beginning, fools do in the end.”


    Táin, in the BC saga, at the outset, no side took legal advice ... it was remiss, gravely so, of all parties to have failed in this regard ... but they all have spoken to the lawyers since the proverbial hit the fan!

    The spin and blame game is played on (and nearly played out at this stage) by both sides in order to avoid the hard truth of their collective and individual blunders.

    For as long as this continues, for as long as a truthful narrative of 'The Belfast Oral Project' is withheld, history itself looses out yet again.

    What an ironic and sad affair it has turned out to be; I wonder what 'The Dark' would make of it all now.

    ReplyDelete