Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An experiment

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
    Wow. 86 pages.

    Pierre's latest gullibility experiment has proved to be a tremendous success. Well done everyone who took part!
    In fairness, this thread is entitled "An experiment" so we all knew what we were getting into.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      I can spell his first name correctly but simply couldn't be bothered.....
      David,

      Makes you wonder which policeman COULD be "bothered" to write down the exact spelling....



      Phil
      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


      Justice for the 96 = achieved
      Accountability? ....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
        Makes you wonder which policeman COULD be "bothered" to write down the exact spelling....
        It doesn't make me wonder that. No doubt they were all doing their best to record what they saw.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Hi DJA,

          And here is PC Long's rendition from his 6th November report.

          Spot the difference.

          [ATTACH]17622[/ATTACH]

          Regards,

          Simon
          Another step away from the original GSG.

          Regards, Pierre

          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            Why not just say "The judges will not be blamed for nothing"?

            They could only have been men, so writing " are the men who" was superfluous wasn't it?
            This is very interesting.

            Firstly, the statement by detective officer Daniel Halse as recorded at the inquest was:

            "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing".

            There we see the negation.

            Secondly, the use of "men" is not "superfluous". It points to the gender described in the sentence. The sentence thereby contains not only a professional type but also a gender type.

            This means that there are two types of human beings described in the text. These two types are also categories, i.e. groups where people belong.

            One single person can of course belong to both of these categories.

            But, when writing a sentence, if both categories are chosen, they are both important since they have different meanings. The meanings are very different in these two words even though the two categories can overlap and did (perfectly).

            One therefore has to ask why the author pointed out the two specific categories in one sentence.

            One also has to ask why the author pointed out the first category as not being a category of "men" to be blamed: Was it particular for that category?

            This analysis shows that the "Ju**es" were NOT that type of men, they were not included in the category who would be blamed "for nothing".

            Compare the GSG to the sentence "They died for nothing".

            This means they died in vain.

            But the Ju**es were NOT the men that would be blamed in vain.

            Also, note the future tense: "WILL not be blamed". The act of blaming is directed towards the future. It is an act lying in the future, of which the author has knowledge at the moment of the writing of the text.

            This type of man, from the group of Judges as Steve hypothesized earlier WILL not be blamed in vain. He WILL therefore act against the blame expected against him.

            And naturally, the word "men" points to one category of men who are different from another category of men:

            the men that will be blamed without doing anything about it.

            Finally, "for nothing" also means "without having done anything to deserve it". This meaning is of course connected to "blamed".

            So: they are not the type of men that will be blamed in the future without having done anything to deserve it and without doing anything about it.

            Pierre
            Last edited by Pierre; 05-22-2017, 09:28 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              This is very interesting.

              Firstly, the statement by detective officer Daniel Halse as recorded at the inquest was:

              "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing".

              There we see the negation.

              Secondly, the use of "men" is not "superfluous". It points to the gender described in the sentence. The sentence thereby contains not only a professional type but also a gender type.

              This means that there are two types of human beings described in the test. These two types are also categories, i.e. groups where people belong.

              One single person can of course belong to both of these categories.

              But, when writing a sentence, if both categories are chosen, they are both important in the sence since they have different meanings. The meanings are very different in these two words even though the two categories can overlap and did (perfectly).

              One therefore has to ask why the author pointed out the two specific categories in one sentence.

              One also has to ask why the author pointed out the first category as not being a category of "men" to be blamed: Was it particular for that category?

              This analysis shows that the "Ju**es" were NOT that type of men, they were not included in the category who would be blamed "for nothing".

              Compare the GSG to the sentence "They died for nothing".

              This means they died in vain.

              But the Ju**es were NOT the men that would be blamed in vain.

              Also, note the future tense: "WILL not be blamed". The act of blaming is directed towards the future. It is an act lying in the future, of which the author has knowledge at the moment of the writing of the text.

              This type of man, from the group of Judges as Steve hypothesized earlier WILL not be blamed in vain. He WILL therefore act against the blame expected against him.

              And naturally, the word "men" points to one category of men who are different from another category of men:

              the men that will be blamed without doing anything about it.

              Finally, "for nothing" also means "without having done anything to deserve it". This meaning is of course connected to "blamed".

              So: they are not the type of men that will be blamed in the future without having done anything to deserve it and without doing anything about it.

              Pierre


              Pierre

              Do I sense a connection between this thread beingg reopened and the knowing thread? Or am I seeing something which is not there?

              Steve

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                This analysis shows that the "Ju**es" were NOT that type of men, they were not included in the category who would be blamed "for nothing".

                Compare the GSG to the sentence "They died for nothing".

                This means they died in vain.

                But the Ju**es were NOT the men that would be blamed in vain.
                There are multiple versions of the GSG. Assuming that the one you're working with was the correct one, there could still be more than one way to interpret it.

                We read "nothing" in at least two different ways.

                "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they didn't do anything but will be blamed.

                or

                "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they did do something to be blamed for.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                  Pierre

                  Do I sense a connection between this thread beingg reopened and the knowing thread? Or am I seeing something which is not there?

                  Steve
                  Hi Steve,

                  well, I dont know what you mean. What is it that you think you see?

                  Cheers, Pierre

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Flower and Dean View Post
                    There are multiple versions of the GSG. Assuming that the one you're working with was the correct one, there could still be more than one way to interpret it.

                    We read "nothing" in at least two different ways.

                    "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they didn't do anything but will be blamed.

                    or

                    "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed [in vain]" -- they won't be blamed for something they didn't do, i.e. they did do something to be blamed for.
                    But the source I use is the most reliable, you see. It is first and it is produced by the authorities at the inquest.

                    Yes, the first and second interpretation is also correct.

                    Cheers, Pierre
                    Last edited by Pierre; 05-22-2017, 11:00 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      But the source I use is the most reliable, you see. It is first and it is produced by the authorities at the inquest.
                      Long's version was produced at the inquest too.

                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      Yes, the first and second interpretation is also correct.
                      I know, which is why I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove here. Even discarding all alternate versions we still have more than one way to interpret what was written, and that's not even counting the intention of whoever wrote it (were they lying? telling the truth? were they even talking about the Ripper?) which gives us even more possible interpretations.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Flower and Dean View Post
                        Long's version was produced at the inquest too.



                        I know, which is why I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove here. Even discarding all alternate versions we still have more than one way to interpret what was written, and that's not even counting the intention of whoever wrote it (were they lying? telling the truth? were they even talking about the Ripper?) which gives us even more possible interpretations.
                        Hi
                        Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

                        ive heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=Flower and Dean;415773]

                          Long's version was produced at the inquest too.
                          Yes, but Halse said he had the "exact spelling".

                          I know, which is why I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove here. Even discarding all alternate versions we still have more than one way to interpret what was written, and that's not even counting the intention of whoever wrote it (were they lying? telling the truth? were they even talking about the Ripper?) which gives us even more possible interpretations.
                          I am not trying to prove anything at all. Im not working in a court room. I am an historian and do history.

                          Cheers, Pierre

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Hi
                            Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

                            ive heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything.
                            Hi Abby,

                            But it was not an expert on cockney who wrote it you see.

                            Cheers, Pierre

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                              But it was not an expert on cockney who wrote it you see.
                              Oh my dear boy, I feel I should point out to you that no-one knows who actually wrote it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                Hi
                                Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

                                ive heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything.
                                I've seen someone posting that before I joined, when I was just a lurker. So that was Pierre! Anyway, that doesn't make much sense to me.

                                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                                I am not trying to prove anything at all. Im not working in a court room. I am an historian and do history.

                                Cheers, Pierre
                                Right, but what did you want to accomplish with your post? That's what I'm trying to figure out. It sounded as though you were trying to make a point but I don't know what it is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X