You do not know what arguments I am going to present, or if I will use the terms you say are unacceptable. Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.
And it is not for you to say what arguments we may make or which words we use. Something's never change do they my friend such has your elitism.
You are now reducing methodological problems to "who is to say what arguments we use" and to "elitism".
Whatever you think about my comments, they are relevant. It is a matter of methodology. So, if you think methodology is not relevant, just say so.
Your view of 31st August from what one can tell is based on accepting Mizen told the truth.
I will explain why I feel this is a false premise, not based on "if" or "what" or the testimony of Paul and certainly nothing to do with Thain and the slaughter men.
I will however give the alternative theories, such as the classic scam and your take on it too.
It will then be left for the reader to make up their mind. I suspect that probably appalls you, as the readers are not historians.
I see. It is "entertainment" again. OK. So it is now clear that you have not chosen "real science" which you told us you would. OK.
So perhaps Fisherman is better than you? At least he does no claim to use "science" without doing just that. Actually, I think he is looking better and better as a ripperologist!
And No the 19th September Report is signed by both Swanson and Abberline, not just Swanson has you have now twice said.
Which page are you speaking about in the sourcebook, Steve?
We disagree over the interpretation my friend accept such and live with it.
I guess you can tell my patient is wearing thin.
I have no issue with this sort of attack
Ah! So now the questions posed and the criticism is an "attack"!
Very telling, Steve. One is no allowed to discuss your "methods", then one is accused of attacking.
when I present my Hypothesis, indeed I expect far worse. However I did specifically ask that we did not descend to this before that point. And you have disrespected that request.
"Disrespected" Steve? In this very post you say:
Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.
And now you have this debate, you have encouraged me - and you tell me it is wrong?