Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An experiment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    My dear boy, I'm afraid I am unable to comprehend the questions which you appear to be directing me, hence am quite unable to answer them, much as I would like to be able to.

    I am a mere humble member of this forum seeking enlightenment.

    Rather than asking me a string of incomprehensible questions, therefore, why do you not tell me what the writer of the CSG meant when using the word "judges" because you seem to have some kind of clear idea what it is.

    I do not.

    Therefore I am asking you to tell me.
    All my life I have been asked questions and have been asking questions. It is the best way to learn and to find answers.

    Comment


    • I’ve been reading over (and, at the same time, remembering) the first 40 pages of this thread and an utterly hilarious read it has been too.

      Pierre, having failed to make himself clear in the OP as to what he was attempting to achieve, makes ever more desperate attempts induce us to look in a dictionary to find the word 'judges' for him, so that his so-called 'experiment' could be proved to be a success.

      Thus, in #150 he says:

      "If I had the time I would now look through my dictionary to find the authentic word for these "men". But I don´t (work to do) so perhaps someone else will do it."

      Ah, yes, if only he had the time to look in a dictionary he surely would have found something.

      Then, after that wasn't successful, in #159 he makes it much clearer what he wants his disciples to do:

      "Is there any word in the English dictionary that starts with the root Ju-, ends with the plural -es (since it refers to "the men") and has 1-2 letters (for w = v+v) in the middle for the, with high probability misread word "Juwes" (seeing that this text has a full coherence in its meaning based on the rest of the words in it)?

      If we could find that word, I think we could solve it.

      Perhaps someone could help me. (Those of you who native speakers of English probably have much more extensive dictionaries than I have.)"


      Perhaps someone could help him!!!

      He really did think we were THAT stupid and not be able to work out that he already had a word in mind that he wanted someone to post for him.

      Anyway, the point I want to make here is that in #161, after having followed Pierre’s instructions, Steve posted the word 'judges' to which Pierre, pretending that the word had never previously occurred to him, replied in #171:

      "Judges? Interesting. Judges could lay guilt on people. It ties in with blame, as you say. So with the result of your research the solution would be:

      "The Judges are the men that will not be Blamed for nothing".

      So now we must interpret the results:

      Why would Jack the Ripper blame some men who were judges?

      Why would he at the same time write that the judges are the men that will not take the blame?”


      Note that wording: "The Judges are the men that will not be Blamed for nothing".

      So we see here that over 170 posts into the thread, Pierre still regarded the CSG as saying that the judges "are the men" that will not be blamed for nothing, just as he wrote in the OP.

      Now, in 2017, having revived this thread from the dead, it’s suddenly become "are NOT the men".

      Yet this is something he doesn't seem to want to talk about.

      The other amusing thing is that after his post #171, I pointed out that judges did not "lay guilt on people" because questions of guilt or innocence were for the jury. There then followed the usual protracted sequence of posts, which you might recall, with Pierre trying to pretend that he knew of instances of judges alone deciding guilt but refusing, of course, to identify any.

      Yet, returning to the thread after almost a year’s pause, he wrote in #879 that the role of judges was no more than to "decide the punishment". Gone is the whole notion of "laying guilt". Fancy that!

      Comment


      • [QUOTE=David Orsam;416371]

        I’ve been reading over (and, at the same time, remembering) the first 40 pages of this thread and an utterly hilarious read it has been too.
        Of course, here everyone can see your problem. Congratulations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          My dear boy, I'm afraid I am unable to comprehend the questions which you appear to be directing me, hence am quite unable to answer them, much as I would like to be able to.

          I am a mere humble member of this forum seeking enlightenment.

          Rather than asking me a string of incomprehensible questions, therefore, why do you not tell me what the writer of the CSG meant when using the word "judges" because you seem to have some kind of clear idea what it is.

          I do not.

          Therefore I am asking you to tell me.
          Rather than asking me a string of incomprehensible questions
          The devaluation of other people´s questions.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
            The devaluation of other people´s questions.
            If I was devaluing them my dear boy, it's because I couldn't understand them, as I have already explained.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              Of course, here everyone can see your problem.
              Oh my dear boy, how charming of you to say so but I rather think that "everyone" can see that you have a problem in your understanding of what the CSG said.

              Was it:

              "The Judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing".

              Or

              "The Judges are not the men who will be blamed for nothing".

              Or something else?

              A problem for you, no?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                If I was devaluing them my dear boy, it's because I couldn't understand them, as I have already explained.
                Everyone here can see that you are not able to understand.

                How many times do you want to say it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  Oh my dear boy, how charming of you to say so but I rather think that "everyone" can see that you have a problem in your understanding of what the CSG said.

                  Was it:

                  "The Judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing".

                  Or

                  "The Judges are not the men who will be blamed for nothing".

                  Or something else?

                  A problem for you, no?
                  You can discuss any version you like. When you refer to a specific version you can give the reference.

                  You can also use a generally understood version and write:

                  The general understanding of the text

                  "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"
                  You often become very excited for no reason at all.

                  That is a shame.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    Everyone here can see that you are not able to understand.

                    How many times do you want to say it?
                    Well, my dear boy, I suppose I will say that I'm not able to understand all your questions every time you post that I am devaluing them.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      You can discuss any version you like.
                      Oh that is very kind of you my dear boy.

                      But when, a little earlier, I suggested that "The Judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" was tautological because "are the men" is superfluous you replied that the correct words were "are NOT the men".

                      Comment


                      • The more this exchange moves (if it actually does), the more it reminds me of the early seventies Pong video game but, in this case, the ball never passes through and seemingly will never pass. One day, we will hopefully see a 'GAME OVER' message. LOL

                        Respectfully,
                        Hercule Poirot.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hercule Poirot View Post
                          The more this exchange moves (if it actually does), the more it reminds me of the early seventies Pong video game but, in this case, the ball never passes through and seemingly will never pass. One day, we will hopefully see a 'GAME OVER' message. LOL

                          Respectfully,
                          Hercule Poirot.

                          Pong was way more fun than anything Pierre posts.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • Pierre, I have a genuine question for you, sir.

                            Exactly how many times do you want David Orsam to list in entertaining detail your errors, your hypocrisy, your faulty reasoning, the insufficiency and sloppiness of your goal-oriented research, your woeful self-contradictions?

                            Are you not yet tired of it? You lock horns with him every time you plague the boards, and you haven't yet come away with so much as a single draw. Your arguments are conclusively shown to be bunk, every single time.

                            Think of your profession, old chap. You're giving historians/scientists a bad name. Mere amateurs are - to borrow a phrase from yoof culture - totally owning you.

                            I used to think you tediously arrogant, but in fact it becomes more and more clear that nobody with a modicum of self-respect would continue to beclown himself in this way. Your persistence is grimly entertaining. I keep having to remind myself that you were not put on this earth merely for my amusement.

                            That's not a good sign, Pierre.

                            By the way - have you found your final piece of case-closing evidence yet? It's been a while. Any luck? No?

                            Really?

                            Shame.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hercule Poirot View Post
                              The more this exchange moves (if it actually does), the more it reminds me of the early seventies Pong video game but, in this case, the ball never passes through and seemingly will never pass. One day, we will hopefully see a 'GAME OVER' message. LOL

                              Respectfully,
                              Hercule Poirot.

                              Actually more like pong VS. CAll of Duty
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                Actually more like pong VS. CAll of Duty
                                Now you are off topic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X