An experiment

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;416220]

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

Things exist even when you do not understand them.

And you appear to have misunderstood my post.

Not at all.

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

And the consequence of that statement is that other men were not judges but they belonged to other professional classes and other social classes.*

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

I am pointing out to you that there were different types of masculinities in the British Empire in 1888.

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

The relevance for what?

The CSG didn't say "The judges are a particular type of man who will not be blamed for nothing."

It said "The ju-es are NOT the men..."

What types of men would be blamed for nothing then? Since the judges can be hypothesized as being an exclusive category of men in the GSG.

It just said "are the men".

NOT the men, David.

As all judges were men, and everyone knew it, this was unnecessary.

The costermongers are the men that will be blamed for nothing.
The butlers are the men that will be blamed for nothing.
The school teachers are the men that will be blamed for nothing.
The blacksmiths are the men that will be blamed for nothing.
The priests are the men that will be blamed for nothing.*

But the judges are NOT the men who will be blamed for nothing.

Why, David?

[Hercule Poirot]

This is becoming a complete and ridiculous nonsense.

Any historian whatever the school of thought he may be part of would start with a literal understanding of any word written or spoken by someone unless there would be a serious reason to go beyond the first level or degree of what would have been said or written and proceed with a contextual interpretation.

As we know, there has been an original transcription of the GSG and even in the presence of alternative and potentially different understanding of what may have been written, we must fall back on the original GSG transcription. Whatever others may one thinks has been written is irrelevant.

The same goes for the substitution of any word of the GSG with any other one.

If one has a serious piece of evidence allowing for any specific interpretation of the GSG, he should bring it out and stop playing ridiculous mind games with others.

In other words, Pierre, if you have a valid reason to transform what has been written in the GSG, show it or shut up. Otherwise, you're simply wasting everybody's time and seek only to play a game of chess with David where nobody wins while every observer becomes aware of your next move.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

[MrBarnett]

This is becoming a complete and ridiculous nonsense.

Any historian whatever the school of thought he may be part of would start with a literal understanding of any word written or spoken by someone unless there would be a serious reason to go beyond the first level or degree of what would have been said or written and proceed with a contextual interpretation.

As we know, there has been an original transcription of the GSG and even in the presence of alternative and potentially different understanding of what may have been written, we must fall back on the original GSG transcription. Whatever others may one thinks has been written is irrelevant.

The same goes for the substitution of any word of the GSG with any other one.

If one has a serious piece of evidence allowing for any specific interpretation of the GSG, he should bring it out and stop playing ridiculous mind games with others.

In other words, Pierre, if you have a valid reason to transform what has been written in the GSG, show it or shut up. Otherwise, you're simply wasting everybody's time and seek only to play a game of chess with David where nobody wins while every observer becomes aware of your next move.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

I used to enjoy CB, but since 'Pierre' arrived, I try to avoid it. I can't imagine How on JTRF putting up with such a twat.

[GUT]

The fact that each version has it as "Juwes" one (Long's if I recall correctly) being corrected from "Jewes" to "u" doesn't seem to carry much weight with someone here.

[Henry Flower]

Commisioner GUT don't be overconfident - remember, we already know from the GOGMAGOG LETTER thread that we are dealing with a master of textual analysis.

[Henry Flower]

I used to enjoy CB, but since 'Pierre' arrived, I try to avoid it.

My thoughts exactly.

[GUT]

Commisioner GUT don't be overconfident - remember, we already know from the GOGMAGOG LETTER thread that we are dealing with a master of textual analysis.

Yeah master of something anyway.

[Abby Normal]

Well as George Hutchinson is my favored suspect I think the gsg said---the grooms are the men that won't be blamed for nothing.

Oh and I think the dear boss letter was really signed off as George the Ripper.

[GUT]

This is becoming a complete and ridiculous nonsense.

Any historian whatever the school of thought he may be part of would start with a literal understanding of any word written or spoken by someone unless there would be a serious reason to go beyond the first level or degree of what would have been said or written and proceed with a contextual interpretation.

As we know, there has been an original transcription of the GSG and even in the presence of alternative and potentially different understanding of what may have been written, we must fall back on the original GSG transcription. Whatever others may one thinks has been written is irrelevant.

The same goes for the substitution of any word of the GSG with any other one.

If one has a serious piece of evidence allowing for any specific interpretation of the GSG, he should bring it out and stop playing ridiculous mind games with others.

In other words, Pierre, if you have a valid reason to transform what has been written in the GSG, show it or shut up. Otherwise, you're simply wasting everybody's time and seek only to play a game of chess with David where nobody wins while every observer becomes aware of your next move.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

Yeah but no sign he is an historian at all.

[MysterySinger]

There wasn't a universally agreed version of the GSG though. According to Wiki (the capitalisation of words is my own) -

Long told an inquest that it read
"The JUWES are the men THAT WILL NOT BE blamed for nothing"
Superintendent Arnold wrote a report which agrees with his account.
A copy according with Long's version of the message was attached to a report from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office.

Detective Constable Daniel Halse of the City of London Police, arrived a short time later, and took down a different version
"The JUWES are NOT the men WHO WILL BE blamed for nothing."

A third version was recorded by City surveyor, Frederick William Foster
"The JUWS are NOT the men TO BE blamed for nothing"

A summary report on the writing by Chief Inspector Swanson rendered it as "The JEWES are NOT the men TO BE blamed for nothing."
(did Swanson even see the writing?)

Whilst there is a clear favourite candidate in the above, the writing on the wall would likely have been unclear to start with, a handwritten letter could look like another letter, this also applies to the hand writing of the people who recorded it who could also have put their own interpretation on it.

There have always been different interpretations of what was written so if folks want to discuss the matter on these boards why not?

[MysterySinger]

p.s. but I still don't think the word was judges.

[Wickerman]

Well as George Hutchinson is my favored suspect I think the gsg said---the grooms are the men that won't be blamed for nothing.

Oh and I think the dear boss letter was really signed off as George the Ripper.

Yeh, didn't the Dear Boss letter say something about:
"...I came to town on a horse, and I shan't quit riding them till my shoes get buckled..." or something like that?

It's easy to miss simple clues like that.....

[David Orsam]

Things exist even when you do not understand them.

I don't doubt that my dear boy but if I don't not understand what you are not saying it makes it rather difficult to not have or not to have a conversation with you, do you not follow?

While your posts are always charming and delightful, they frequently appear to have been written by a faulty computer program with random words strung together in a way which makes no sense.

If I could ask you to aim for clarity of meaning my dear boy we might be able to move matters along rather more quickly than is currently occurring.

[David Orsam]

It said "The ju-es are NOT the men..."

NOT the men, David.

But the judges are NOT the men who will be blamed for nothing.

Why, David?

My dear boy, might I refer you to the OP in this thread - that is post #1 - written by a person with the exact same username as yourself in which it is stated:

"The general understanding of the text

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

is that it had to do with jews. "

Are you saying that the charming person called "Pierre" who posted that statement made a mistake? Should he have reproduced the text as "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"?

I have always thought he was correct, based on the official version of the CSG as reproduced by Sir Charles Warren in, if memory serves me correctly, both the Home Office and Metropolitan Police files.

Do you have a reliable, first hand and official source which you rely on for your new understanding of what the CSG said?

[David Orsam]

And the consequence of that statement is that other men were not judges but they belonged to other professional classes and other social classes.*

I am pointing out to you that there were different types of masculinities in the British Empire in 1888.

The relevance for what?

What types of men would be blamed for nothing then? Since the judges can be hypothesized as being an exclusive category of men in the GSG.

My dear boy, I'm afraid I am unable to comprehend the questions which you appear to be directing me, hence am quite unable to answer them, much as I would like to be able to.

I am a mere humble member of this forum seeking enlightenment.

Rather than asking me a string of incomprehensible questions, therefore, why do you not tell me what the writer of the CSG meant when using the word "judges" because you seem to have some kind of clear idea what it is.

I do not.

Therefore I am asking you to tell me.