We have just received a message via our secure contact form, and whilst we must emphasize its absolute security, and would not usually refer to the content of any message received (unless it were intended that we should), this one intrigued us.
Apparently it was sent by one of our former and more vituperative online critics, ‘Liz’ and they apologized for the tenor of their earlier criticisms of us on various public sites; most interestingly, they declared that they also now recognized Jim Perrin as the individual we have been describing throughout.
It is a measure of the multiple and disordered online personalities that we believe Jim Perrin has created, and which we have detailed in our posts, that we feel unable to take this contact entirely at face value or to respond via the email address provided in it.
The criticisms referred to by this person were, we know — in their sentiments, style, vocabulary (including literary quotes and recommendations) — hardly distinguishable from similar posts known to have been made by Jim Perrin under other, now familiar, aliases; and we have to consider the possibility that this latest message was actually sent by him, either in person or, as we believe to have happened before, by proxy (involving an innocently compliant individual).
We may be mistaken, and this contact may truly represent an extraordinary volte-face by one who was genuinely an independent, if strident, critic. But if we are not, then the implicit invitation in the message to make email contact may be only another of Jim Perrin’s deceitful ploys.
We assume that he/our correspondent will read this; whether they are one and the same person must remain — pending further convincing evidence to set the record straight — a matter for conjecture…
NB: As of 26/06/2018 (four years later) we have received no confirmation that the message referred to in this post was genuine. Therefore we feel, given all the circumstances, that it was indeed a deception, and — as we have written elsewhere — ‘Who else but HE would care, or would be sufficiently interested, or would have the motive?’
However, there has been another message recently; one which we also regard with the utmost suspicion… (Apart from this ‘nod’ to it, we are doing nothing about it.)