The "Invisible Man" effect.

[Fisherman]

It was a JOKE, Fisherman.

Believe what you will.

Phil

I always do, Phil. Always.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

It was a JOKE, Fisherman.

Believe what you will.

Phil

[Fisherman]

You mean to opt for saying that the police MAY have suspected one of theri own, instead of claiming that this must have been so ...? Or do you recommend even more caution?

In your case, Fisherman, and to preserve your reputation, I would recommend silence. But I know you would never accept my advice.

Phil

That would depend on the quality of the advice, Phil. It always boils down to that.

Otherwise, it is a very straightforward affair - there is a very obvious possibility that the police accepted that a man, either a PC or somebody masquerading as such, was in place in Buck´s Row before Neil arrived. The known facts postulate this possibility. And my reputation has nothing at all to do with it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

The meeting of The Society to Preserve the Literal meaning of "Literally," is the third Thursday of every month, except months with five Thursdays, when it's the fourth Thursday, unless that day is a national holiday, in which case it is still the third Thursday, at 7:30 Eastern time, at a location to be determined, but you will notified by the first of the month, if you sign up for the email list.

I think that might conflict with my Society to Abolish Nounification and Verbifying meetings, but I will check.

[RivkahChaya]

You'll just have to learn to control your peeves. This was common terminology in the 19th century, and that was a direct 'cut-n-paste' from the source. Inst. just like ult. was always abbreviated.

I know it was a common 19th century thing. I've even seen it mid 20th century. I was certainly not accusing you of gilding the lily so to speak. I just don't understand the convention of using it at all. A newspaper on the 20th reports on something happening on the 16th. A daily paper. If someone is reading it and says "The 16th of WHAT??" without the understanding that had it been the 16th of any other month they would have mentioned said month... like say "The 16th of August" (if not reported it sooner than November) then that person leads a very complicated life without the ability to use referential time. And you can't cater to those people.

In fairness to the original C&P, it included the date, so at least we did know what was meant. I've seen people quote it who didn't know what it meant, and didn't include either enough of the quote, or some parenthetical information to make it clear.

Drives me nuts. And if I could control peeves, I would choose to be highly irritated by something noble, rather than the vagaries of the English language. Like when people use "literally" wrong, or mix up the words "itch" and "scratch".

Maybe it wasn't clear, and that's why people don't say it anymore. Have you ever said something was happening "Next Friday," and then gotten into an argument about whether that meant the very next Friday, or the Friday of the following week? Or worse, whether you can say "this Tuesday" to mean the Tuesday of the current week, even if that day has already passed.

The meeting of The Society to Preserve the Literal meaning of "Literally," is the third Thursday of every month, except months with five Thursdays, when it's the fourth Thursday, unless that day is a national holiday, in which case it is still the third Thursday, at 7:30 Eastern time, at a location to be determined, but you will notified by the first of the month, if you sign up for the email list.

[Errata]

You'll just have to learn to control your peeves. This was common terminology in the 19th century, and that was a direct 'cut-n-paste' from the source. Inst. just like ult. was always abbreviated.

Read, and you shall learn how he came by the revolver...
http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

I know it was a common 19th century thing. I've even seen it mid 20th century. I was certainly not accusing you of gilding the lily so to speak. I just don't understand the convention of using it at all. A newspaper on the 20th reports on something happening on the 16th. A daily paper. If someone is reading it and says "The 16th of WHAT??" without the understanding that had it been the 16th of any other month they would have mentioned said month... like say "The 16th of August" (if not reported it sooner than November) then that person leads a very complicated life without the ability to use referential time. And you can't cater to those people.

Drives me nuts. And if I could control peeves, I would choose to be highly irritated by something noble, rather than the vagaries of the English language. Like when people use "literally" wrong, or mix up the words "itch" and "scratch".

[Phil H]

You mean to opt for saying that the police MAY have suspected one of theri own, instead of claiming that this must have been so ...? Or do you recommend even more caution?

In your case, Fisherman, and to preserve your reputation, I would recommend silence. But I know you would never accept my advice.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Am I the only one who finds "inst" pretentious? Drop it, or spell it out but don't use a vague abbreviation. It's one of my linguistic peeves.

Why would a constable have a revolver? I wouldn't think that was a profession that earned enough to buy a handgun.

Also... Troutbeck? What an awesome name.

You'll just have to learn to control your peeves. This was common terminology in the 19th century, and that was a direct 'cut-n-paste' from the source. Inst. just like ult. was always abbreviated.

Read, and you shall learn how he came by the revolver...

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881120.html?printer=true

[Errata]

Am I the only one who finds "inst" pretentious? Drop it, or spell it out but don't use a vague abbreviation. It's one of my linguistic peeves.

Why would a constable have a revolver? I wouldn't think that was a profession that earned enough to buy a handgun.

Also... Troutbeck? What an awesome name.

[Wickerman]

THE SUICIDE OF A POLICEMAN IN HYDE PARK.-Last evening Mr. Troutbeck, the coroner for Westminster, held an inquiry at the St. George's Hospital into the circumstances attending the death of Richard Brown, aged 36 years, until recently a constable in the Metropolitan police, stationed in the E division at Hunter-street, who committed suicide by shooting himself with a revolver in Hyde-park on the 16th inst.
Daily News, 20 Nov. 1888.

Aside from the above, I do believe the killer was a familiar face in Whitechapel, he may have lived there, or been a frequent visitor. Whatever the case, clearly neither his appearance nor demeanor caused alarm, even among those who must surely have had cause to be suspicious.

He was the proverbial, "invisible man".

[RivkahChaya]

One thing is clear already about this pope - he is a master of gesture and non-verbal communication.

BTW: people who are big fans of the saint of Assisi do not find it whimsical when you suggest that he was the first person to say "It's a blessing and a curse."

Also, Catholics in general don't think it's funny if you say you didn't expect the most recent pope to work out, because it was clearly a rebound relationship after JPII.

Learn from my fail.

[Wickerman]

There was a police suicide just after the murders, I believe Chris G. researched into that. I can't for the life of me remember the name.

[Fisherman]

I think the cautious approach is more professionally secure.

Phil

You mean to opt for saying that the police MAY have suspected one of theri own, instead of claiming that this must have been so ...?

Or do you recommend even more caution?

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Perhaps a separate thread is required.

Phil

[Wickerman]

It's a difficult balance, but I think he has made a good enough start not to warrant cynicism - yet!!

Phil

Certainly Phil, time will tell.

The cynicism is aimed at the traditional role, not the person of the present Pope himself.
Whatever this Pope chooses to do, it will be nothing more than a token gesture. He will always have comfort, three square meals a day, and servants for his every needs. The facade may promote the image of St. Francis but underneath the icing there is no cake.

The Pope is a product of the system, it is the system that is at fault.

The Catholic church will still take the last penny from the poor to enlarge their coffers, they always have.
It isn't so much what the Church will do on any singular occasion, it's what they could do, but choose not to.

But anyway, we're off on a tangent here