An experiment

[David Orsam]

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.

[Phil Carter]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[Pierre]

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

[Pierre]

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

[Elamarna]

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

[Flower and Dean]

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.

[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

Hi Steve,

well, I don´t know what you mean. What is it that you think you see?

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

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

[Flower and Dean]

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.

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Pierre]

[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. I´m not working in a court room. I am an historian and do history.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[Flower and Dean]

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.

I am not trying to prove anything at all. I´m 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.