An experiment

[Elamarna]

Well, Steve, as I have tried to explain to you before, the past is not a shop where you go in and buy what you like. And it is not Xmas. And I´m not Santa.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

A truly illumanting reply, which says more in 1 line than the last 9 months


Do you have such a source as I asked?

That reply suggests you do not, but do not wish to say so.



The attitude displayed:

" I'm not santa "

Is not what I expect from an academic, whose only goal is the truth!

That is a statement of secrecy and ownership.

And of course completely avoiding the point that there is no moral dimension, that which you have used as a shield, if such a document exists.



regards

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

A truly illumanting reply, which says more in 1 line than the last 9 months


Do you have such a source as I asked?

That reply suggests you do not, but do not wish to say so.



The attitude displayed:

" I'm not santa "

Is not what I expect from an academic, whose only goal is the truth!

That is a statement of secrecy and ownership.

And of course completely avoiding the point that there is no moral dimension, that which you have used as a shield, if such a document exists.



regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

The mistake you make is that you construct a source in your mind and then wish that the source will exist . The past does not function like that. The sources that are left to us are not there because we want them to be there. They are there for radically different reasons.

For instance, I do not ask you or anybody else: "Do you have a source that says Jack the Ripper wrote a note saying "I killed Mary Jane Kelly and my real name is X". Because I would never come to think about such a source, since I do not dictate the existence of sources of the past.

And also, you can not dictate what sources are needed for some hypothesis. The past is not a servant to your need of sources.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Steve,

The mistake you make is that you construct a source in your mind and then wish that the source will exist .

I must say, Pierre, that I read him as asking you if you had a source.

If you don't, why not just say "No"?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

The mistake you make is that you construct a source in your mind and then wish that the source will exist . The past does not function like that. The sources that are left to us are not there because we want them to be there. They are there for radically different reasons.

For instance, I do not ask you or anybody else: "Do you have a source that says Jack the Ripper wrote a note saying "I killed Mary Jane Kelly and my real name is X". Because I would never come to think about such a source, since I do not dictate the existence of sources of the past.

And also, you can not dictate what sources are needed for some hypothesis. The past is not a servant to your need of sources.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre no mistake I constructed no such source, You did.

In post 689 I asked the question

"How did he do this? Did he discover some ground breaking document?"




In post 696 the reply to that question was:

Yes.

That answer suggested there was a source which gave this information!

Of course I followed up with a request for a confirmation.
To answer, a simple yes or no would do; however a reply is given which avoids answering and attempts to besmirch the person asking the question, by suggesting not for the first time a lack of basic historical understanding.

The final lines in the above reply are extremely interesting

"And also, you can not dictate what sources are needed for some hypothesis. The past is not a servant to your need of sources."


This hints, no more, that the source asked about does not exist, and some other source is being extrapolated to give an answer on the GSG.

However Pierre, no amount of hiding behind the comments in the above post can change this very clear point, given there are no surviving forensics of any sort, that unless there is a data source from the writer of the GSG which says he wrote such and its meaning, there is no way of being conclusively sure what was meant or indeed whom wrote it.

This is your mistake, in presenting ideas as facts. Indeed here having said that a document had been found, there appears to be backtracking.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383454]

Pierre no mistake I constructed no such source, You did.

Steve,

do not accuse me of doing things I have not done. You were the one who wrote:

"Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?"

So that was your construction in the form of a question. Not mine.

How come you accuse me of doing something you did yourself? I don´t really recognize you here.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Steve,

do not accuse me of doing things I have not done. You were the one who wrote:

"Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?"

So that was your construction in the form of a question. Not mine.

How come you accuse me of doing something you did yourself? I don´t really recognize you here.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Firstly you replied "yes" before I asked that question.
The question was asking for clarification on your reply that you had indeed found a ground breaking document

No it was not a theory or construct it was a question. The line ended with ?

That is called a question.

There are only 2 possible answers yes or no.

If there is none just say no.

You chose to respond by attacking a reasonable question.

So for the purpose of clarification have you found a ground breaking document which supports the reading of the word as judges?

Go on simple yes or no

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383459]Pierre

Firstly you replied "yes" before I asked that question.
The question was asking for clarification on your reply that you had indeed found a ground breaking document

No it was not a theory or construct it was a question. The line ended with ?

That is called a question.

There are only 2 possible answers yes or no.

If there is none just say no.

You chose to respond by attacking a reasonable question.

No, I just object to being Santa.

So for the purpose of clarification have you found a ground breaking document which supports the reading of the word as judges?

Go on simple yes or no

Steve

I have already answered that question.

And another thing. How many people have confessed to being "Jack the Ripper" and how many of them were?
Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,
If you have answered I seem to have missed the yes or no amongst all the other.


I asked if he had admitted writing the GSG, not to being the killer in that last question.

Also you have told the forums that you have a confession yourself.


S




[QUOTE=Pierre;383460]

Pierre

Firstly you replied "yes" before I asked that question.
The question was asking for clarification on your reply that you had indeed found a ground breaking document

No it was not a theory or construct it was a question. The line ended with ?

That is called a question.

There are only 2 possible answers yes or no.

If there is none just say no.



No, I just object to being Santa.



I have already answered that question.

And another thing. How many people have confessed to being "Jack the Ripper" and how many of them were?
Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383468]

Pierre,
If you have answered I seem to have missed the yes or no amongst all the other.

I asked if he had admitted writing the GSG, not to being the killer in that last question.

Also you have told the forums that you have a confession yourself.

S

OK. So now it is Xmas again. Happy Holidays!

Pierre

[Pierre]

All you have done here, Pierre, is avoid answering a very simple question by stringing together a large number of words in a way that not only has no meaning but doesn't deal with the question you were asked or address the point I made in my post.

The short point is that it doesn't make any sense to say that the word "Justices" in the CSG on 30 September (if that word was in there) would have any particular application to the Lord Mayor, which was the only point I was querying with you.

Hi David,

The answer is there.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383470]

OK. So now it is Xmas again. Happy Holidays!

Pierre

Pierre

Another non response . How very predicable.

All I have done is ask the very same type of questions I asked Fisherman last week which you liked.

All you needed to do was say no. But somehow that is hard is it

S

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The answer is there.

With all due respect Pierre: no it isn't.

[MysterySinger]

Jacob Levy - Butcher of 36 Middlesex Street, relative of Joseph Hyam Levy. Tried at the Old Bailey - case presided over by the (then) Mayor of London.

[MysterySinger]

continued

[Elamarna]

Confused by reply

No, I just object to being Santa.

Pierre ,

I am confused by that reply.


Does it mean you object to answering a simple question which was merely to clarify your reply of "yes".

If so may I respectfully ask way?



Alternatively does the reply mean you object to giving any information at all?

It could be viewed, whether you mean it to or not, that information is seen as some form of present which is awarded to others when it is felt they deserve it. (Xmas when good children get presents).

I was under the impression you were an academic historian, who had spent many years in a university, surely one of the principle ethoses of such a background is the passing on of information freely to others. That therefore seems to be an unlikely explanation.

So hope you can see why I am confused by the reply, I truly do not know what you mean?

I am truly saddened by your overall response to an innocuous question, to your initial reply of "yes" in relation to a question asking if a new document had been found, which proven "Juwes" was wrong and "Judges" correct, as your response of "yes" strongly implied


regards

Steve