An experiment

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Flower and Dean;415797]

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.

When I write something I mean what I say and say what I mean.

As a judge (Steve´s interpretation) you are not the type of man that will be treated unjustly.

If you are blamed when you have done nothing you must do something to be treated justly.

[David Orsam]

When I write something I mean what I say and say what I mean.

Once again, my dear boy, you have brought clarity to where there was confusion and hope to where there was despair.

[Pierre]

Once again, my dear boy, you have brought clarity to where there was confusion and hope to where there was despair.

How comforting for you.

[Bridewell]

Hi
Pierre also thinks that Juwes was actually judges and mis read.

I've heard from an expert on cockney that it should be read as-the Jews wont take the blame for anything.

I've always taken it that the use of a double negative means a positive. Having said that, "I ain't done nuffink!" is also a double negative but would generally be interpreted as being simply an emphatic denial. On balance I'd go with your cockney expert's interpretation.

[Abby Normal]

I've always taken it that the use of a double negative means a positive. Having said that, "I ain't done nuffink!" is also a double negative but would generally be interpreted as being simply an emphatic denial. On balance I'd go with your cockney expert's interpretation.

Hi Bridewell
The American equivalent is I don't know nothen.

[Flower and Dean]

[QUOTE=Pierre;415850]

When I write something I mean what I say and say what I mean.

As a judge (Steve´s interpretation) you are not the type of man that will be treated unjustly.

If you are blamed when you have done nothing you must do something to be treated justly.

Maybe, but you don't say it very clearly or straightforwardly... do you?

Do you mean that a judge wrote it? That it was a message for judges?

You yourself acknowledged that even the specific wording you're working with could be interpreted in multiple ways (leaving aside different versions, discussions about Cockney, etc.) -- so surely that degree of ambiguity would still be present whether "Juwes" was supposed to be "Jews" or "judges". Care to clear that up?

[MysterySinger]

I have a few thoughts regarding the graffito which generally involve thinking outside the box as it were. Here's one.

In one of Tom Wescott's books we are told that in the case of the Polly Nichols murder, the three horse slaughtermen were subject to accusations daubed on a wall if I remember correctly.

The message on the wall at Goulston Street following the Eddowes murder was recorded by the Police in different ways, but there does seem to be some peculiar capitalisation going on which could suggest codification maybe.

Attached is one version and I'm unclear where this originated but there are three lines of text. The lines begin with the following letters T, M, B. The names of the slaughtermen were Tomkins, Mumford and Britten. They are not the murderers. Spooky.

My spelling of the names here may not be perfect and I present this here as a remote possibility with apologies if it has been presented by anyone else before.

[Pierre]

I have a few thoughts regarding the graffito which generally involve thinking outside the box as it were. Here's one.

In one of Tom Wescott's books we are told that in the case of the Polly Nichols murder, the three horse slaughtermen were subject to accusations daubed on a wall if I remember correctly.

The message on the wall at Goulston Street following the Eddowes murder was recorded by the Police in different ways, but there does seem to be some peculiar capitalisation going on which could suggest codification maybe.

Attached is one version and I'm unclear where this originated but there are three lines of text. The lines begin with the following letters T, M, B. The names of the slaughtermen were Tomkins, Mumford and Britten. They are not the murderers. Spooky.

My spelling of the names here may not be perfect and I present this here as a remote possibility with apologies if it has been presented by anyone else before.

Hi MysterySinger,

I do not agree that there is a code in this message. I think that the letter w was blurred and therefore not perfectly legible.

W is one letter originally composed of two v:s.

There is one word in the dictionary where two letters can give one word with the same beginning, Ju-, and end, -es, when you take out w (v+v).

That is the word that Steve suggested.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi MysterySinger,

I do not agree that there is a code in this message. I think that the letter w was blurred and therefore not perfectly legible.

W is one letter originally composed of two v:s.

There is one word in the dictionary where two letters can give one word with the same beginning, Ju-, and end, -es, when you take out w (v+v).

That is the word that Steve suggested.

Cheers, Pierre

And the word Steve suggested was "Judges". So let us ask what sort of men they are:

a person who is in charge of a trial in a court and decides how a person who is guilty of a crime should be punished, or who makes decisions on legal matters

(Cambridge online dictionary)

A public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court.

(Oxford online dictionary)

They decide the punishment.

They will not be punished for having done nothing. I.e. especially not the judges.

If they are punished anyway, they will not be punished for nothing.

So they decide the punishment and put it into practise.

The punishment they have experienced when having been punished for nothing is not legal. So the punishment they decide will not be legal.

When they have prectised the punishment(s), they have done something for which they can be punished.

Then the punishment is justified.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

And the word Steve suggested was "Judges".

Oh my dear boy, your memory has led you badly astray.

Steve did not "suggest" the word "Judges" at all.

What happened is that you asked a question to which, as usual, in your charming way, you already knew the answer. That question was:

"Is there any word in the English dictionary that starts with the root Ju-, ends with the plural -es (since it refers to "the men") and has 1-2 letters (for w = v+v) in the middle for the, with high probability misread word "Juwes""

Having consulted the dictionary, Steve said that such a word was "Judges".

So he simply answered your question while, at the same time, pointing out that he did not understand why the letter "w" was seen in your mind as two letters (or "1-2 letters") when it is a single letter of the alphabet.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, your memory has led you badly astray.

Steve did not "suggest" the word "Judges" at all.

What happened is that you asked a question to which, as usual, in your charming way, you already knew the answer. That question was:

"Is there any word in the English dictionary that starts with the root Ju-, ends with the plural -es (since it refers to "the men") and has 1-2 letters (for w = v+v) in the middle for the, with high probability misread word "Juwes""

Having consulted the dictionary, Steve said that such a word was "Judges".

So he simply answered your question while, at the same time, pointing out that he did not understand why the letter "w" was seen in your mind as two letters (or "1-2 letters") when it is a single letter of the alphabet.

You are entitled to your opinions as everyone else here.

[David Orsam]

You are entitled to your opinions as everyone else here.

My dear boy, there is a difference between opinion and fact and I was stating a fact.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, there is a difference between opinion and fact and I was stating a fact.

Your opinion is that you are stating a fact. You are entitled to your opinions like everyone else here.

[David Orsam]

Your opinion is that you are stating a fact. You are entitled to your opinions like everyone else here.

I'm afraid you are mistaken again, my dear boy, because it was a fact that I was stating a fact.

[Pierre]

I'm afraid you are mistaken again, my dear boy, because it was a fact that I was stating a fact.

Well, you are frequently posting your opinions here and you are, as I said, entitled to it.