FBI pulls the plug on Colin Wilson

[Ashkenaz]

Sorry, you've just done it again. As soon as the word "groin" is mentioned, you "correct" it to "vaginal area", in order to bolster the argument that the wound was sexual in intent.

At post 44 when I entered this thread, I referred to the vaginal area. Go and see for yourself, and I've been saying it ever since. I am not "correcting" this point.

And unless you have a vested interest in convincing us that the focus of your comment was actually about Birmingham, you'd say "Coventry" instead of "Birmingham area".

But if someone asked me where Coventry was, I would probably say that it was in the Birmingham area in anticipation of them having some knowledge of the location of the larger of the two cities.

Likewise unless you were trying to "connect" the wound to the vagina, you would simply say "groin" instead of repeatedly insisting that it was the "vaginal area".

You may infer whatever you please.

Answer me this. How far would you say the groin was from the vagina ? I would say about 1", maybe 2". Therefore, it is correct to say that the groin is in the vaginal area.

Don't try to cause confusion by your inference, just answer the question.

[Ally]

Oh my freaking god. I cannot believe that a week has gone by, and this is still being argued. Page after page over the definition of " a few" and "groin" . Furthermore I cannot believe I am actually going to get sucked into joining.

Ashk.
You are flat out wrong. In english the smallest quantity that can be defined as a few is "3". Two is defined as a couple. Period. If you are using standard acceptance of english, No everyone will not admit that two can be a few. While the upper limit of a "few" might be debatable the lower limit is strictly defined as being more than 2.


As for the groin/whatever debate, people just end it. You cannot argue with people who refuse to accept their theory is wrong. In the end, reason cannot sway blind faith and fervent devotion. If you don't believe me, I have a few podcasts you can listen to.....

[Magpie]

No, I have not equated injuries to the groin with injuries to the vagina. I said the victim had several knife wounds to the vaginal area - I did not say to the vagina.

Sorry, you've just done it again. As soon as the word "groin" is mentioned, you "correct" it to "vaginal area", in order to bolster the argument that the wound was sexual in intent.

If I say that Coventry is in the Birmingham area, I am not equating Coventry with Birmingham. I would be spatially linking them. Coventry is not equal to Birmingham, anymore than 2 is equal to 3. They are different cities !

And unless you have a vested interest in convincing us that the focus of your comment was actually about Birmingham, you'd say "Coventry" instead of "Birmingham area".

Likewise unless you were trying to "connect" the wound to the vagina, you would simply say "groin" instead of repeatedly insisting that it was the "vaginal area".

[Cap'n Jack]

In the Yuletide spirit I will withdraw my reference to a large sea-diving bird of the northern hemisphere; and simply replace it with 'turkeys'.

[Ashkenaz]

Ashkanaz,

Instead of "argument" would you perhaps accept advancing an interpretation of an event, as per: I think that the jtr murders were sexually based. JTR did not just attack women. He was clearly interested in the female reproductive organs. He also stabbed at least one victim several times in the vaginal area. Possible more victims were mutilated thus. Surely you can see this act simulates penetrative sex between men and women, and hence has sexual connotations rather than argument?

We all write infelicitously and inaccurately at times but when pointed out that needn't be the basis for long-winded exercises in exculpation. Get on with your interpretation that it simulated sexual activity.

Don.

I was not prosecuting an argument. I was identifying myself as one who believes that some of the mutilations were sexually motivated.

What I was doing, was trying to get someone to see that there is no need to call me and others loons because he thinks differently.

[Supe]

Ashkanaz,

Instead of "argument" would you perhaps accept advancing an interpretation of an event, as per: I think that the jtr murders were sexually based. JTR did not just attack women. He was clearly interested in the female reproductive organs. He also stabbed at least one victim several times in the vaginal area. Possible more victims were mutilated thus. Surely you can see this act simulates penetrative sex between men and women, and hence has sexual connotations rather than argument?

We all write infelicitously and inaccurately at times but when pointed out that needn't be the basis for long-winded exercises in exculpation. Get on with your interpretation that it simulated sexual activity.

Don.

[dmcdonald@onwight.net]

Hi Deborah,

I couldn't agree with you more.

I made mention of Mr. Wilson going for Maybrick not to denigrate him in any way, simply to point it out. It caught me off gaurd, coming at the tail end of the chapter he wrote which was actually one of the high points of the compilation by Jakubrowski and Braund. In very enjoyable style, Colin Wilson told of his years as a sounding board for many others in Ripperdom. Doing just what he did with you, hearing out your ideas, giving encouragement.

Congratulations again on getting your book published, Deborah,

Roy

Thanks Roy bit of a miracle really - it is not easy getting books published. Has been well received as well which is even more gratifying.

Regards
Deborah

[Ashkenaz]

Ashkenaz,

Why can't you just admit you made a mistake.

Because I have not made a mistake.

It is correct to say, that the victim had several knife wounds in the vaginal area.



,

just as you did about the location of Aztecx ruins, and get on with your actual argument?

Don.

I was not arguing for anything.

[Supe]

Ashkenaz,

Why can't you just admit you made a mistake, just as you did about the location of Aztecx ruins, and get on with your actual argument?

Don.

[Ashkenaz]

and slackening the rules of standard English in order to accommodate them.
?

I have not slackened the rules of standard English.

I have offered proof, that a few can be several. And anyone would agree that two are a few. You are too pig headed to admit that you are wrong.

[Ashkenaz]

I'm sorry, but this is an disingenuous argument for two reasons.

1) Every time that Sam has pointed out that the groin encompassed an area much larger than the vagina, you have countered by replacing "groin" with "vaginal area". While you have not explicitly said that groin=vagina, you have repeatedly equated injuries to the groin with injuries to the vagina.
2) Your initial proposition was that the injuries caused by the Ripper were sexual in nature because they were directed at the vagina. Although you've since acknowledged that the wounds were not directed at the the specific orafice (vagina), your intitial proposition has not changed--so while semantically you are now saying "groin", substantively you are still saying "vagina".

Next, a word on "several"

No, I have not equated injuries to the groin with injuries to the vagina. I said the victim had several knife wounds to the vaginal area - I did not say to the vagina.

If I say that Coventry is in the Birmingham area, I am not equating Coventry with Birmingham. I would be spatially linking them. Coventry is not equal to Birmingham, anymore than 2 is equal to 3. They are different cities !

The mons is not a part of the vagina, but it is in the vaginal area. The same can be said of the groin. These things are in the vaginal area, thats all I'm saying.

Groin is to vaginal area, as wrist is to hand area.

Our friend also seems unable to agree, that two and few are interchangeable in usage, and also that one of the meanings for the word several is few. This is in spite of me offering proof.

I believe I am quite correct in saying that a victim had several knife wounds to the vaginal area. I also believe that it would be correct to say that there were no obvious knife injuries to the vagina. Both statements are correct. I also believe, that I could have been more specific. But I do not believe that either statement above is incorrect in any way.

I was not of course, expecting all this pointless nit picking.

[Magpie]

The hairsplitting argument over the meaning of "several" is pretty much pointless in the context of the overall argument.

The original assertion was that the Ripper "targeted" the sexual organs, and that the wounds being debated were evidence of this. Clearly they are not.

Pointing out two (whether you consider that "several" or not) injuries in the appoximate region of the vagina doesn't remotely equate to "focussing" on the sexual organs. It's even less significant when placed in the context of the total number of wounds.

If Eddowes had been stabbed once in the heart and twice in the vagina, you could possibly have a case. If the only wound other than the slit throat were the groinal/vaginal/genital ones, you might have a point. But two wounds amongst all the carnage? Hardly a blip.

To put it in perspective, Eddowes suffered a greater number of knife wounds to her face than to her vagina.

[Magpie]

Once again you misquote me. I did not assert as you say I did,that the groin = the vagina. Listen carefully, this is what I said - the groin is in the vaginal area. Anyone would agree with that.

I'm sorry, but this is an disingenuous argument for two reasons.

1) Every time that Sam has pointed out that the groin encompasses an area much larger than the vagina, you have countered by replacing "groin" with "vaginal area". While you have not explicitly said that groin=vagina, you have repeatedly equated injuries to the groin with injuries to the vagina.

2) Your initial proposition was that the injuries caused by the Ripper were sexual in nature because they were directed at the vagina. Although you've since acknowledged that the wounds were not directed at the the specific orafice (vagina), your intitial proposition has not changed--so while semantically you are now saying "groin", substantively you are still saying "vagina".

Next, a word on "several"


addendum: rather than "the groin is in the vaginal area", it would be far more accurate to say "The vagina is in the groinal area".

[Ashkenaz]

In post 44 you turned a groin into a vagina, Ash.
I would suggest a long period in bed with some sort of Santa Claus on your head, no worries, with your knowledge of anatomy you'll be able to breathe out of your arse.

You clearly have not read post44

[Roy Corduroy]

Lets not make the forum a slanging match. Not much point really is there? It gets us nowhere.

Hi Deborah,

I couldn't agree with you more.

I made mention of Mr. Wilson going for Maybrick not to denigrate him in any way, simply to point it out. It caught me off gaurd, coming at the tail end of the chapter he wrote which was actually one of the high points of the compilation by Jakubrowski and Braund. In very enjoyable style, Colin Wilson told of his years as a sounding board for many others in Ripperdom. Doing just what he did with you, hearing out your ideas, giving encouragement.

Congratulations again on getting your book published, Deborah,

Roy