The GOGMAGOG-letter

[Elamarna]

Pierre

This is a one off.

Hands up I miss read the report. We all do that and as you know when I am wrong I always accept it and aknowedge it. No need for your arrogant reply.

It is obvious then that the comment is a sarcastic comment by the paper.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered..
And that the police in London would be reading a provincial paper 8 months after the last killing..

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are you scientific qualifications?

[Pierre]

Pierre

This is a one off.

Hands up I miss read the report. We all do that . No need for your arrogant reply.

It is obvious then that the comment is a sarcastic comment by the paper.

Sure, it might be. That could be a hypothesis as well.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered..

That is only your own thinking.

And that the police in London would be reading a provincial paper 8 months after the last killing..

Was it? "8 months after the last killing"?

"On June 4, part of a female torso was fished out of the Thames at Horselydown, while at about the same time; a left leg to the body was plucked from under the Albert-bridge, Chelsea. Within the next week, numerous other parts of the same body were recovered in or near the Thames.

The London Times on June 11, reported that the remains found so far "are as follows: Tuesday, left leg and thigh off Battersea, lower part of the abdomen at Horselydown; Thursday, the liver near Nine Elms, upper part of the body in Battersea-Park, neck and shoulders off Battersea; Friday, right foot and part of leg at Wandsworth, left leg and foot at Limehouse; Saturday, left arm and hand at Bankside, buttocks and pelvis off Battersea, right thigh at Chelsea Embankment, yesterday, right arm and hand at Bankside."

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are you scientific qualificatio?

Regards Pierre

[Bridewell]

HI GUT,

The writer is using the same structure in both letters.

GML = GOGMAGOG-letter. OSL = Old Subscriber letter.

1.
Addressing “SIR”, asking him to let him/allow him to speak:

GML SIR, - Let me, in the interest of “the children”,
OSL SIR, - Allow me, through your valuable paper,

2.
Giving recommendations:

GML say a few words
OSL recommend

3.
Ironically predicting future events given that they take his advice:

GML I can promise them a pleasant one
OSL and then, I think, this wholesale murderer, will be caught


Regards, Pierre

Two different late Victorian letter writers wrote letters in the same, formally structured letter-writing style that was prevalent in the Late Victorian Period.

The words 'straws' and 'clutching at' spring to mind.

[Bridewell]

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are your scientific qualifications?

Pierre,

Your last post didn't answer one of Elamarna's questions. Presumably an oversight but, just to clarify, what are your scientific qualifications?

[Elamarna]

in response to Pierre’s post


"Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered.."

"That is only your own thinking. "

what is my thinking?

if the paper were serious in their suggestion they must have had a reason for such.
Pierre has not provided anything to back up that suggestion since he raised this letter in the thread. Therefore it is not only "my thinking"

If the Paper believed this was a communication from the killer or the letter was of any importance at all, can the poster suggest any reason why the paper would recommend in print the police contacted the writer rather than supplying the evidence directly to the police.

Pierre has presented no evidence that the torso murders are connected to the killings in Whitechapel, just his belief that they are, that is not even an hypothesis because without evidence it can not be tested. Until he presents an evidence back hypothesis it is a personal opinion no more no less!

I note that once again he does not comment on his training other than to tell the world he is a scientist.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Sherlock Holmes, I believe! However, I feel it is my duty, in order to avoid the possibility of distorting your own independent data analysis, to confirm the fact that I do not possess a pipe.

Absolutely John G. The great man himself would sit in contemplation for hours (according to Watson) just smoking and considering the situation. But don't feel bad. I don't smoke either.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Pierre

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are you scientific qualifications?

Interesting oversight by you Pierre. You did your typical "blackening" comments back on all of Steve's remarks except this last one. Afraid to admit you don't really qualify as a scientist or thinker?? Again, what exactly are your qualifications and the names and publications of your vast scientifically researched papers and such that prove you have "scientific qualifications"???

Jeff

Sorry Bridewell, I didn't notice you made the same comment. Great minds think alike - non-metaphysically or non-metaphorically that is.

[Bridewell]

Sorry Bridewell, I didn't notice you made the same comment.

Not a problem, Jeff. The more people who highlight the issue, the more glaring will be any failure to explain what, if any, scientific qualifications he holds.

[Pierre]

Interesting oversight by you Pierre. You did your typical "blackening" comments back on all of Steve's remarks except this last one. Afraid to admit you don't really qualify as a scientist or thinker?? Again, what exactly are your qualifications and the names and publications of your vast scientifically researched papers and such that prove you have "scientific qualifications"???

Jeff

Sorry Bridewell, I didn't notice you made the same comment. Great minds think alike - non-metaphysically or non-metaphorically that is.

Great minds, yes indeed. Was Socrates a scientist? Was Descartes a scientist? Was Sartre a scientist? Have they been peer-reviewed? Is the scientist a scientist because of his name, because of his titles or because of his education or methods?

Regards, Pierre

[SuspectZero]

Great minds, yes indeed. Was Socrates a scientist? Was Descartes a scientist? Was Sartre a scientist? Have they been peer-reviewed? Is the scientist a scientist because of his name, because of his titles or because of his education or methods?

Regards, Pierre

I believe you said you were a scientist. No?

[Pierre]

in response to Pierre’s post


"Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered.."

"That is only your own thinking. "

what is my thinking?

That the paper should have the ID and address of the writer.

if the paper were serious in their suggestion they must have had a reason for such.

Pierre has not provided anything to back up that suggestion since he raised this letter in the thread. Therefore it is not only "my thinking"

If the Paper believed this was a communication from the killer or the letter was of any importance at all, can the poster suggest any reason why the paper would recommend in print the police contacted the writer rather than supplying the evidence directly to the police.

They could have believed so without having evidence.

Pierre has presented no evidence that the torso murders are connected to the killings in Whitechapel, just his belief that they are, that is not even an hypothesis because without evidence it can not be tested. Until he presents an evidence back hypothesis it is a personal opinion no more no less!

And who cares if you call everything "he" says "a personal opinion"?

I note that once again he does not comment on his training other than to tell the world he is a scientist.

Yes. Do note that. That is his personal opinion.

Kind regards from him

[SuspectZero]

Kind regards from him

"I note that once again he does not comment on his training other than to tell the world he is a scientist.
Yes. Do note that. That is his personal opinion."

So then your personal opinion is that you are a scientist per your response. Do you have the credentials to label yourself a scientist professionally?

[GUT]

Great minds, yes indeed. Was Socrates a scientist? Was Descartes a scientist? Was Sartre a scientist? Have they been peer-reviewed? Is the scientist a scientist because of his name, because of his titles or because of his education or methods?

Regards, Pierre

There's the answer folks, he ain't one.

[GUT]

Great minds, yes indeed. Was Socrates a scientist? Was Descartes a scientist? Was Sartre a scientist? Have they been peer-reviewed? Is the scientist a scientist because of his name, because of his titles or because of his education or methods?

Regards, Pierre

And just look at the ego.

[Bridewell]

Great minds, yes indeed. Was Socrates a scientist? Was Descartes a scientist? Was Sartre a scientist? Have they been peer-reviewed? Is the scientist a scientist because of his name, because of his titles or because of his education or methods?

Regards, Pierre

Several questions there, Pierre, but no answers. I'll draw the obvious conclusion. I note that others have very sensibly done the same.