Original sentence: Harlow claims to base his account on material from some other eyewitnesses such as Emile Boirac and Gaston Moch and with other source documentation (such as Zamenhof's correspondence with Couturat and others during the period), to which Jespersen (he says) did not have access.However, most Ido partisans argue that Harlow's history is polemical and does not jibe with all the eyewitness accounts, such as those reported by Jespersen
Edited sentence: A quote from Harlow in the early '90s goes as follows:.However, most Ido partisans argue that Harlow's history does not jibe with all the eyewitness accounts, such as those reported by Jespersen, although it is based on material from some other eyewitnesses such as Emile Boirac and Gaston Moch and with some source documentation, to which Harlow claims Jespersen did not have access (such as Zamenhof's correspondence with Couturat and others during the period).It is fairly apparent that the problem of communication was of little interest to Prof.Louis Couturat, Louis de Beaugront (sp), and Major Charles Lemaire, the primary motors behind the development of Ido; they were more concerned with what they saw as Esperanto's linguistic blemishes.This	is hardly surprising; the pleasant little conspiracy into which they entered for the purpose of replacing that Russian Jewish eye-doctor (referring to the profession and ethnicity of L.Zamenhof, the creator of Esperanto) as the guiding force in the international language movement shows in them an ethical blind spot that would not fit well with a genuine concern for the	communications needs of	ordinary people