Misty
This site pops up when you google Susan Stine. Go figure.
The confusion is caused in part by the multiplicity of Pat/Patsy/Patricias and Sue/Susans wandering around in this case. There are also a gazillion hats flapping in the wind.
Misty emailed me back in the early spring of 2000 to help her look at these letters. She wanted my linguistic opinion as to their authorship. Initially I agreed, but within days I was inundated with text messages from Misty and thoroughly confused as to her purpose. Eventually, I withdrew.
She also contacted an individual named Delmar England that she claimed was also a linguist. I asked her for Delmars linguistic background the perspective he was coming from or the field he worked in. She informed me that she could not give me this information because it would compromise my analysis. That is utter rot. Linguists always readily identify their theoretical perspective. There is nothing secret or even revealing about this.
For instance, Donald Foster is a literary analyst. His expertise is in Shakespearean text. Other analysts might come from a Chomskian perspective. Or as in my case, a Hallidayian perspective. Some are Summer Institute, which is normally anthropological in nature. Or you have philosophers who look at language and are rooted in Austin and Searle and speech acts, or you have forensic linguists who can simply look at the language used in courts and possible methods of updating some of the terminology. Lets see, then there are pragmatists, and phonologists, and people who study rhetoric. There are systemic functionalists, presciptionists, descriptionists and on, and on, and on. This doesnt tell you anything about the text they analyse, but simply outlines the approach they take to the analysis. An analysis without theory is
NOTHING. It is simply someones opinion.
Failure to identify Delmars credentials led me to believe that he was not a linguist. He does not appear on any of my lists, and no legit linguist would publish work without their name on it. To retain your rights, you must publish as who you are even on the Internet. So, I stand behind my claim there is no Delmar England. This is not inflammatory this is opinion based on knowledge of my field. If he wished to stand up and take a bow name his credentials and explain his perspective Im all ears (or should I say eyes!)
It quickly became apparent that Misty had an agenda and that agenda was to assign blame for these letters to Jameson. She started sending me proof that Jameson was the guilty party. I tried to slow her down, as some of her proof was suspect. It fell on deaf ears, or more correctly deaf eyes. (I have a whole binder full of emails on this topic that I can quote if need be...but my fingers are aching already...).
At about that point, she spun off in a wild direction attempting to identify and conquer pedophiles. She launched a campaign to reclaim the JBR chat room by sending posters anonymously to a candlelight chat. When questioned as to her rational she became very defensive and angry and subsequently left the Websleuths forum. She constantly ricocheted back and forth between Webbsleuths and Websleuths anyway, but when she left this time she started her own forum since defunct, I believe. But I could be wrong.
Last I heard was earlier this year when she popped in here to announce that she had cancer. I sympathize, but I still say that Delmar England was no linguist and Misty seemed to have a few issues with Jameson that interfered with her objectivity in the matter of the Patricia letters.
Yes, they are mentioned in DOI, but for the life of me I cant see how they are relevant or even important. Ive kept the four Patricia letters that Misty sent to me. I didnt ever get around to looking at them properly. I dont really think theyre worth the effort.