Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Sam Flynn 8 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why Buck's Row? - by Elamarna 18 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why Buck's Row? - by Elamarna 28 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Abby Normal 30 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by caz 42 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why Buck's Row? - by Herlock Sholmes 46 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Why Buck's Row? - (74 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - (14 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (13 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (9 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (5 posts)
Rippercast: Index of Rippercast Podcasts - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #471  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:41 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Was PC Neil the source of the Star's comment about blood flowing profusely from the wound, as Fisherman argues, or can we put it down to some journalistic invention?

Well let's just look at what the Globe published in its second edition of 31 August 1888, timed at 12.30pm, based on a Central News agency report:

"SECOND EDITION
GLOBE OFFICE, 367, Strand, 12.30 p.m.
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY
BRUTAL MURDER OF A WOMAN
The Central News says: - Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible. The affair up to the present is enveloped in mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the outrage. The facts are that as constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o’clock this morning he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim is a woman 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl
."

Now compare that to what appears to have been a story based on that exact same agency report which appeared in the Star that same afternoon (almost certainly in a later edition):

"Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Let's go through them and compare the wording side by side:

Globe: Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible.
Star: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking.

Globe: Body found "lying at the side of the street" by "constable John Neil" as he was "walking down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel" at about quarter to four o'clock and her throat was cut "from ear to ear".
Star: "As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear"

Globe: woman was "between 35 and 40 years of age"
Star: The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age.

Globe: wound about two inches wide.
Star: The wound was about two inches wide.

Globe: the woman was lying in a pool of blood.
Star: blood was flowing profusely.

Globe: She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated.
Star: She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding.

Globe: injuries were of a sickening nature having been inflicted with a large knife.
Star: The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

Globe: victim is 5ft 2 in. in height.
Star: victim measures 5ft. 2in. in height.

Globe: hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in severe struggle.
Star: The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle.

Globe: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.
Star: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.

Globe: Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured.

Globe: The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.

Globe: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.
Star: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.

Globe: The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen.
Star: Not mentioned

Globe: In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.
Star: Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Star's source was the Central News Agency report which was circulating at just after midday on 31 August. The two stories are virtually identical in their facts and wording, although the Star has changed the order around slightly, tinkered with a few words and presented it as its own report.

There are only two significant differences between the reports. Whereas the Star says that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", for reasons of taste, to protect the sensibilities of its readers, the Globe appears to have modified this, or used a modified version of the report, to simply say that the lower part was "shockingly mutilated".

But the most interesting difference is that the original Central News report only speaks of Nichols lying in a pool of blood. This must at least create the suspicion that the Star has modified this for journalistic effect to say that the blood was flowing profusely, which is what many have suspected all along.
Do you really mean to say that you do not trust journalists?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:43 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Do you really mean to say that you do not trust journalists?
About as much as I trust you my dear boy.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:45 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
David, great work. I await a rebuttal based on the two sources rather than personal belief.
Thanks Steve.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:57 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Had any of them been summoned to attend an ongoing inquest into a murder that had happened barely a week previously, and went on to commit yet another murder whilst the inquest was in full swing?

Edit: I see John G has made the same point. Great minds...
I understand the point, and its a good one. However, Fisherman will supply some example and he'll contend that it "proves his point" because, well, if you dig long and hard you'll find an example - obscure as it may be - that you can at least bend to fit almost any narrative.

I contend that it's a point that needn't even be discussed because rational judgment tells you that Charles Lechmere did not kill Polly Nichols or anyone else for that matter. Thus, he certainly didn't also kill Annie Chapman during the Nichols inquest. We could say the same for Robert Paul, Jonas Mizen, Thain, Henry Tompkins, et al. They participated in the Nichols inquest, as well. Thus, when Fisherman finds the curious case of Sven Nordenblatter who in 1756 killed his landlady and while testifying at her inquest killed his laundress, he'll tell us that this example further points the finger of guilt at Lechmere. Yet the only difference between Lechmere and all the names I listed is that Fisherman thinks he was Jack the Ripper because he gave a "false name"....along with his genuine address, his actual employer.....as well as appearing in person...... GOD! The number of absurdities boggles the mind. If you wanted to conceal your identity by giving a false name.....WHY SHOW UP AND GIVE THE FALSE NAME IN PERSON!?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 05-18-2017, 01:17 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 7,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Thus, when Fisherman finds the curious case of Sven Nordenblatter who in 1756 killed his landlady and while testifying at her inquest killed his laundress, he'll tell us that this example further points the finger of guilt at Lechmere.
I know. The "Argument From Precedence" fallacy (for want of a better term) is a device commonly used in suspect-centric ripperology, and not just in the Lechmere context, to be fair to Christer.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:43 AM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 913
Default

>>My point was that fisherman said probably for which I see no support.<<

Certainly, no probably, just a possibly. If that sentence makes sense;-)

My guess is Llewellyn, came out, did a quick recce of the scene pronounced her dead, told them it was ok to move the body to the mortuary and went home again, as quick as he could. Meanwhile, the police waited for Mizen to come back with the ambulance.

Re: Secombe, we don't have any eyewitness confirming his presence, but that snippet I posted does seem to suggest he was there, but who knows?

It's all a bit hazy, Christer could be right, but he could just as easily be wrong.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 05-19-2017, 01:07 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drstrange169 View Post
>>My point was that fisherman said probably for which I see no support.<<

Certainly, no probably, just a possibly. If that sentence makes sense;-)

My guess is Llewellyn, came out, did a quick recce of the scene pronounced her dead, told them it was ok to move the body to the mortuary and went home again, as quick as he could. Meanwhile, the police waited for Mizen to come back with the ambulance.

Re: Secombe, we don't have any eyewitness confirming his presence, but that snippet I posted does seem to suggest he was there, but who knows?

It's all a bit hazy, Christer could be right, but he could just as easily be wrong.

On the balance of probability I would say not, but new evidence could push that the other way.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 05-20-2017, 09:37 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
David, great work. I await a rebuttal based on the two sources rather than personal belief.

Steve
This is a very useful post. Ot will enable me to clarify things.

Steve awaits a "rebuttal" of Davids post. A rebuttal is a denial.

Steve also implies that there is a risk that I would put personal belief before facts.

That is how Steve reasons.

Of course, Davids post is quite clear in deminstrating the source for the Star article. The other papers who had the term profusely were seemingly building on the same source.

That means that the probable thing is that the term profusely was added by a reporter. The odd thing is that there is such a discrepancy between the two wordings, one says that the body was lying in a pool of blood and the other that the blood flowed profuselt from the wound. To me, that means that there is an outside chance that the term profusely did originate with Neil or the police, and came about after a question had been asked. But it has to be an outside chance only, and the better bid is that profusely was not used by either Neil or the police.

Before this find, I said that pur best guess was that profusely originated with Neil or the police, and that it would stand until evidence to the contrary surfaced.

It has surfaced now. And therefore, the term profusely should be regarded as having been added by a journalist.

That is how I work, Steve. There is no rebuttal, because denying the obvious would be outright silly.

There is, though, personal belief on my behalf - personal belief that David is correct on this score. I hope you are okay with me going with THAT personal belief?

What does it do the to the question of the blood evidence? Does it establish Neils "oozing" as a description of a very small bloodflow? No, it does not. It still applies that the term "oozing profusely" was used back then as well as now, so oozing could involve a relatively large amount of blood exiting the body.
And we still have Mizen saying that as he saw the blood, it was still running into the pool under Nichols´ neck. The only logical deduction we can make is that there was not less bleeding going on when Neil saw her.

And we still have Payne-James opting for three or five minutes being a more realistic bleeding time than seven, meaning that he was uninclined to believe in longer bleeding times than so, although he was not categorically ruling them out.

Logically, we are therefore left with Lechmere being the realistic bid. And we are left with there being no obvious other bid - Paul is the only other confirmed person at the murder site, and he arrived after Lechmere.

So there is nothing much new going on. And Lechmere´s viability is not diminished in any shape or form.

That is the calm and collected picture that emerges. But who wants calm and collected when I can be described as the Wicked witch of the East?

A swarmful of munchkins can´t be wrong about that, can they?

Now I really don´t need much more of the kind of "great minds" offered out here. I have go better things to do, but I thought I´d point out to you how not to debate.
Then again, you already knew how not to debate, so it may all have been a waste of time.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 05-20-2017, 10:32 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,256
Default

[quote=Fisherman;415532]

This is a very useful post. Ot will enable me to clarify things.

Steve awaits a "rebuttal" of Davids post. A rebuttal is a denial.

Quote:
Steve also implies that there is a risk that I would put personal belief before facts.

That is how Steve reasons.

That is not only how Steve reasons but a fundamental problem within science. Therefore we learn to analyze our own ideas and bias when we do research.

And the most important reason for this is that we try to generate knowledge - i.e. scientific knowledge - instead of pure opinions.

Now, scientific knowledge can also be an opinion but an opinion is never per definition scientific knowledge.

No wonder these points are relevant for ripperology, a field of study where anyone can say anything anytime since there is money to make or attention to get from non scientific writing about a serial killer.


Quote:
Of course, Davids post is quite clear in deminstrating the source for the Star article. The other papers who had the term profusely were seemingly building on the same source.

That means that the probable thing is that the term profusely was added by a reporter. The odd thing is that there is such a discrepancy between the two wordings, one says that the body was lying in a pool of blood and the other that the blood flowed profuselt from the wound. To me, that means that there is an outside chance that the term profusely did originate with Neil or the police, and came about after a question had been asked. But it has to be an outside chance only, and the better bid is that profusely was not used by either Neil or the police.
The substantial significance you try to create by being very precise or by using strong expressions from articles is pointless - since there are NO SOURCES connecting Lechmere to the other murders. Therefore, you can try to create weight for your statements by overinterpretation or exactness: that does not show that Lechmere was at any of the other murder sites.

Quote:
Before this find, I said that pur best guess was that profusely originated with Neil or the police, and that it would stand until evidence to the contrary surfaced.

It has surfaced now. And therefore, the term profusely should be regarded as having been added by a journalist.

That is how I work, Steve. There is no rebuttal, because denying the obvious would be outright silly.
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT LECHMERE FOUND A VICTIM: THE ONE CLOSEST TO HIS OWN HOME!

Quote:
There is, though, personal belief on my behalf - personal belief that David is correct on this score. I hope you are okay with me going with THAT personal belief?

What does it do the to the question of the blood evidence? Does it establish Neils "oozing" as a description of a very small bloodflow? No, it does not. It still applies that the term "oozing profusely" was used back then as well as now, so oozing could involve a relatively large amount of blood exiting the body.
People saw blood oozing more than an hour after death. THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN THIS CONCEPT. Therefore it is useless.

Quote:
And we still have Mizen saying that as he saw the blood, it was still running into the pool under Nichols´ neck. The only logical deduction we can make is that there was not less bleeding going on when Neil saw her.
Same type of problem here: "running" can be resultative since "flowing" was used like that. So the concept has very low validity.

Quote:
And we still have Payne-James opting for three or five minutes being a more realistic bleeding time than seven, meaning that he was uninclined to believe in longer bleeding times than so, although he was not categorically ruling them out.
The man with the time travel machine: Payne-James. That is how you treat his talk. YOU APPLY IT ON USELESS DATA. It is like applying Christianity on the Big Bang.
Quote:
Logically, we are therefore left with Lechmere being the realistic bid.
Two very difficult philosophical concepts in one meaning: 1. "LOGICALLY": Logic is a part of philosophy and a big one. WHICH LOGIC DO YOU MEAN? 2. "REALISTIC": Same problem: WHAT SORT OF REALISM DO YOU MEAN?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPTS. BUT YOU USE THEM. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE THINKING OF P-J. BUT YOU APPLY IT.

You are like a church father who try to apply the Bible on the creation of the world.

Quote:
And we are left with there being no obvious other bid - Paul is the only other confirmed person at the murder site, and he arrived after Lechmere.
HALLELUJAH! ONE RELIGION! ONE CHURCH! ONE HISTORICAL PERSON: LECHMERE! AND ONE PRIEST: YOU!

Quote:
So there is nothing much new going on. And Lechmere´s viability is not diminished in any shape or form.
Poor poor Lechmere. A worker on his way to work an early morning in 1888.

Why do you have to raise him from the dead? Let the man rest in peace.

Quote:
That is the calm and collected picture that emerges.
In four Gospels soon, I am sure. You are Paul. You never saw him but on your way to Damascus...suddenly, there he is: Jack the Ripper!

Quote:
But who wants calm and collected when I can be described as the Wicked witch of the East?
Oh, yes! We can recognize that too from the new, small society of THOSE IN THE KNOW. They are blamed, they are misunderstood, they are threatened! Any one who contradicts them will be accused of being witch hunters! Oh, these martyrs! All they have left now is Scobie and Payne-James!

Quote:
A swarmful of munchkins can´t be wrong about that, can they?
Reduction in absurdum.

Quote:
Now I really don´t need much more of the kind of "great minds" offered out here. I have go better things to do, but I thought I´d point out to you how not to debate.
Thank you. Thank you so much.

Quote:
Then again, you already knew how not to debate, so it may all have been a waste of time.

How can it be a waste of time when you want to enlighten the masses? Go ahead and do it! Lechmere is already sacrificed!


Best wishes, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 05-20-2017 at 10:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 05-20-2017, 12:21 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

[quote=Pierre;415546]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

This is a very useful post. Ot will enable me to clarify things.

Steve awaits a "rebuttal" of Davids post. A rebuttal is a denial.



That is not only how Steve reasons but a fundamental problem within science. Therefore we learn to analyze our own ideas and bias when we do research.

And the most important reason for this is that we try to generate knowledge - i.e. scientific knowledge - instead of pure opinions.

Now, scientific knowledge can also be an opinion but an opinion is never per definition scientific knowledge.

No wonder these points are relevant for ripperology, a field of study where anyone can say anything anytime since there is money to make or attention to get from non scientific writing about a serial killer.




The substantial significance you try to create by being very precise or by using strong expressions from articles is pointless - since there are NO SOURCES connecting Lechmere to the other murders. Therefore, you can try to create weight for your statements by overinterpretation or exactness: that does not show that Lechmere was at any of the other murder sites.



IT IS OBVIOUS THAT LECHMERE FOUND A VICTIM: THE ONE CLOSEST TO HIS OWN HOME!



People saw blood oozing more than an hour after death. THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN THIS CONCEPT. Therefore it is useless.



Same type of problem here: "running" can be resultative since "flowing" was used like that. So the concept has very low validity.



The man with the time travel machine: Payne-James. That is how you treat his talk. YOU APPLY IT ON USELESS DATA. It is like applying Christianity on the Big Bang.


Two very difficult philosophical concepts in one meaning: 1. "LOGICALLY": Logic is a part of philosophy and a big one. WHICH LOGIC DO YOU MEAN? 2. "REALISTIC": Same problem: WHAT SORT OF REALISM DO YOU MEAN?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPTS. BUT YOU USE THEM. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE THINKING OF P-J. BUT YOU APPLY IT.

You are like a church father who try to apply the Bible on the creation of the world.



HALLELUJAH! ONE RELIGION! ONE CHURCH! ONE HISTORICAL PERSON: LECHMERE! AND ONE PRIEST: YOU!



Poor poor Lechmere. A worker on his way to work an early morning in 1888.

Why do you have to raise him from the dead? Let the man rest in peace.



In four Gospels soon, I am sure. You are Paul. You never saw him but on your way to Damascus...suddenly, there he is: Jack the Ripper!



Oh, yes! We can recognize that too from the new, small society of THOSE IN THE KNOW. They are blamed, they are misunderstood, they are threatened! Any one who contradicts them will be accused of being witch hunters! Oh, these martyrs! All they have left now is Scobie and Payne-James!



Reduction in absurdum.



Thank you. Thank you so much.



How can it be a waste of time when you want to enlighten the masses? Go ahead and do it! Lechmere is already sacrificed!


Best wishes, Pierre
Say again...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.