An experiment

[Pierre]

Not true my dear boy. He was the only person who was kind enough, and could actually be bothered, to answer your question; one to which you already knew the answer you wanted.

The suggestion that the word might be "judges" was made long before you joined this forum. I think Nina Brown suggested it way back in 2009, as posted at the time on JTR Forums.

First you try to belittle me by talking about kindness and being bothered.

Then you try to say that the idea is not worth anything since it is not new.

I do not care about anything of this, David. I am truly sorry for you that you are not able to discuss the issue at hand without belittling people and without struggling for social value.

I do understand that there is some reason in your own life for this.

I have also noted that you do it often, and that this strategy is one of your most usual ones.

Perhaps you should do something about it, so you could manage to discuss matters without this problem in the future. It would of course help the case and it would also help you.

[Pierre]

In which case the phrase "the judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" would be tautological and would be better expressed as "Judges will not be blamed for nothing".

David, perhaps you have something to add to this question:

What are the differences between a judge and a man?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[David Orsam]

First you try to belittle me by talking about kindness and being bothered.

Then you try to say that the idea is not worth anything since it is not new.

I do not care about anything of this, David. I am truly sorry for you that you are not able to discuss the issue at hand without belittling people and without struggling for social value.

I do understand that there is some reason in your own life for this.

I have also noted that you do it often, and that this strategy is one of your most usual ones.

Perhaps you should do something about it, so you could manage to discuss matters without this problem in the future. It would of course help the case and it would also help you.

Oh my dear boy, I fail to see where the "belittling" of you can be found in my post.

You asked a question in this thread to which it was perfectly obvious that you knew the answer you wanted; Steve very kindly played your game and could actually be bothered to post the answer for you that you wanted. That's all just factual stuff.

It's also a matter of record that it was suggested online as far back as 2009 that the second word in the CSG might be "judges".

Now my dear boy it's utterly charming that you suggest that I might be "struggling for social value" but I'm simply stating facts.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, I fail to see where the "belittling" of you can be found in my post.

You asked a question in this thread to which it was perfectly obvious that you knew the answer you wanted; Steve very kindly played your game and could actually be bothered to post the answer for you that you wanted. That's all just factual stuff.

It's also a matter of record that it was suggested online as far back as 2009 that the second word in the CSG might be "judges".

Now my dear boy it's utterly charming that you suggest that I might be "struggling for social value" but I'm simply stating facts.

Enjoy your opinion about facts, David.

[David Orsam]

David, perhaps you have something to add to this question:

What are the differences between a judge and a man?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

My dear boy, it's charming that you ask me the question, but I have no thoughts on it at all...other than that judges in 1888 were all men so that the words "are the men" would have been wholly unnecessary in the CSG had they been proceeded by the word "judges".

[Pierre]

In which case the phrase "the judges are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" would be tautological and would be better expressed as "Judges will not be blamed for nothing".

Perhaps you have something to add to this question:

What are the differences between a judge and a man?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[David Orsam]

Enjoy your opinion about facts, David.

My dear boy, which of the facts stated in my post do you suggest are mere opinion?

Do you, for example, dispute that it was suggested as long ago as 2009 that the word was "judges"?

Do you dispute that you already knew the answer you wanted when you started this thread posing as an "experiment"?

Do you dispute that Steve was the only person who could be bothered to answer your question?

[David Orsam]

Perhaps you have something to add to this question:

What are the differences between a judge and a man?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

My dear boy, are you alright? You appear to have asked me the same questions twice.

#917 and #921.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, are you alright? You appear to have asked me the same questions twice.

And you have not answered and if you choose not to answer that is no problem.

But it would be interesting to hear your opinion since you say...what was it, that it is a tautology?

[David Orsam]

And you have not answered and if you choose not to answer that is no problem.

But it would be interesting to hear your opinion since you say...what was it, that it is a tautology?

But my dear boy, I already told you this in #920. Judges in 1888 were all men so the words "are the men" in the CSG are redundant when preceded by "judges".

"The Judges will not be blamed for nothing" means exactly the same thing. Adding in "are the men who" is tautology.

[Pierre]

But my dear boy, I already told you this in #920. Judges in 1888 were all men so the words "are the men" in the CSG are redundant when preceded by "judges".

"The Judges will not be blamed for nothing" means exactly the same thing. Adding in "are the men who" is tautology.

OK. I will help you.

Firstly, not all men were judges in the British Empire in 1888.

Secondly, there were many types of men.

Thirdly, the judge was a particular type of man.

Ask these sociological and historical questions about men in the British Empire in Victorian times:

1. The judge - what type of man was he compared to other types of men ?

2. The judge - what type of man was he not compared to other types of men?

What type = from a perspective now of masculinity:

What characterized a judge?

What class did he belong to?

What was his duties?

What did not characterize a judge?

What class(es) did he not belong to?

Use this: http://www.berghahnjournals.com/view...dfVersion=true

[David Orsam]

OK. I will help you.

Firstly, not all men were judges in the British Empire in 1888.

Secondly, there were many types of men.

Thirdly, the judge was a particular type of man.

Ask these sociological and historical questions about men in the British Empire in Victorian times:

1. The judge - what type of man was he compared to other types of men ?

2. The judge - what type of man was he not compared to other types of men?

What type = from a perspective now of masculinity:

What characterized a judge?

What class did he belong to?

What was his duties?

What did not characterize a judge?

What class(es) did he not belong to?

Use this: http://www.berghahnjournals.com/view...dfVersion=true

My dear boy, as usual I find myself not understanding a word you are talking about.

And you appear to have misunderstood my post.

For example, you say that "not all men were judges". Well I know that my dear boy.

Are you trying to tell me something different, namely that not all judges were men in the British Empire in 1888?

As for your waffling about class, my dear boy I can't see the relevance.

The CSG didn't say "The judges are a particular type of man who will not be blamed for nothing." It just said "are the men". As all judges were men, and everyone knew it, this was unnecessary.

Do you see the issue my dear boy?

[Henry Flower]

Perhaps one reason Pierre's approach is yielding so little, other than exasperation or hostility, is that he consistently comes to the boards in the spirit of a teacher. He asks us questions and frames things as 'experiments' to shepherd people towards those answers upon which he has already decided.

As though we were students, and he the great guide, the teacher.

Which of course he is not. Not a teacher. Not a historian. Not an academic. And every single aspect of his theory that he has somehow found the occasional courage to reveal has turned out to be comically weak and contrived.

Pitiable stuff.

[Paddy]

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

I agree with Abbey
I am a londoner and Cockney and I took it as

The jews are the men that we cant blame for anything
or The Jews wont admit to any blame. Either way it seems to be an accusation directed at Jews,

Well that is from a cockney londoner view anyway

Pat....

[Observer]

I agree with Abbey
I am a londoner and Cockney and I took it as

The jews are the men that we cant blame for anything
or The Jews wont admit to any blame. Either way it seems to be an accusation directed at Jews,

Well that is from a cockney londoner view anyway

Pat....

So you're saying that if the killer wrote the graffiti, then he was a non Jew. A local person of British descent.