Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[John G]

So, I can't help it. I just want you to know what you are arguing.

I'm a genius. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee, but I am. I'm sure many people here are. Certainly there are several world class thinkers I admire, and hey, I'm a genius.

You want to know how many other names my full name spells out?

No idea. Not an effing clue. And I'm a genius so in theory if anyone was going to know how many other names my name spells out, it would be me.

Yes. I could sit down and devote a couple of days to making a list. But I haven't yet, and don't foresee doing it. It's not that its hard, it's that its a completely pointless task with little to no reward.

So you are arguing, in essence that either a genius or a psychotically dedicated individual actually sat down and Voldemort-ed his name rather that simply come up with a random alias. Not something a genius would do by the way, since a genius is smart enough to realize how much easier making **** up is.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I'm not kidding. Evil psychopath self obsessed to the point of compulsively playing Boggle with his own name, using it for nefarious undercover purposes in order to protect his real identity while still maintaining the sanctity of his own name in scrambled form. Such a singular form of narcissism that it became a major plot point in a fantasy book and movie for kids. For kids, because every adult wondered why he didn't just go with John Parker or something equally easy.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I just want to make that clear. How likely is it that some guy was actually pulling a Voldemort and got away with it?

I think this is a brilliant post. In fact, one of the best I've read on Casebook.

[John G]

Sssssh! You're not supposed to mention "he-who-must-not-be-named". But you're probably right - certainly Pierre seems reluctant to name him!

It's been so long since Pierre's original post, and he seems to have invested so little time in researching his "suspect" since, he's possibly forgotten who he is!

[Mayerling]

English use inquiry

So, I can't help it. I just want you to know what you are arguing.

I'm a genius. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee...

So you are arguing, in essence that either a genius or a psychotically dedicated individual actually sat down and Voldemort-ed his name rather that simply come up with a random alias. Not something a genius would do by the way, since a genius is smart enough to realize how much easier making **** up is.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I'm not kidding. Evil psychopath self obsessed to the point of compulsively playing Boggle with his own name, using it for nefarious undercover purposes in order to protect his real identity while still maintaining the sanctity of his own name in scrambled form. Such a singular form of narcissism that it became a major plot point in a fantasy book and movie for kids. For kids, because every adult wondered why he didn't just go with John Parker or something equally easy.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I just want to make that clear. How likely is it that some guy was actually pulling a Voldemort and got away with it?

Hi Errata,

I'm not a genius, but I do try to learn as much as I can. Outside of specialty donut shops (read "Dunkin' Donuts" and "Starbucks" you don't have to spend $5.00 on a cup of coffee. In fact, if I had visitors who wanted coffee I'd make it and not charge anything.

But I am curious (really) about the term you used. I know who "Lord Voldemort" is in the "Harry Potter" stories. But has it now emerged as a new English language verb, to "voldemort", meaning to use one's name's letters in various ways to send a secret code to followers or allies that you (the manipulator of the method) are involved? If so I'm amazed at the speed this has happened. I don't think the Rowling novels have been in circulation for more than two decades.

Jeff

[John G]

Perhaps the English language is becoming less formalized, as indeed it was in the Elizabethan era, which might not be a bad thing. In fact, there wasn't even an English dictionary until 1538, when a basic workbook was published. And the next effort didn't appear until 1583. Shakespeare, of course, didn't write in formal English (there was no such thing at the time) and actually made up many words. And, as I recall, he was a fairly respected writer!

Unfortunately, I haven't read Harry Potter, however, I enjoy the Robert Galbraith crime fiction stories.

[GUT]

It's been so long since Pierre's original post, and he seems to have invested so little time in researching his "suspect" since, he's possibly forgotten who he is!

Do you believe he had one when he first posted?

I doubt it myself.

And that last piece of data he was so close to getting that would solve it all..... Well not much seems to have come from that.

[GUT]

So, I can't help it. I just want you to know what you are arguing.

I'm a genius. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee, but I am. I'm sure many people here are. Certainly there are several world class thinkers I admire, and hey, I'm a genius.

You want to know how many other names my full name spells out?

No idea. Not an effing clue. And I'm a genius so in theory if anyone was going to know how many other names my name spells out, it would be me.

Yes. I could sit down and devote a couple of days to making a list. But I haven't yet, and don't foresee doing it. It's not that its hard, it's that its a completely pointless task with little to no reward.

So you are arguing, in essence that either a genius or a psychotically dedicated individual actually sat down and Voldemort-ed his name rather that simply come up with a random alias. Not something a genius would do by the way, since a genius is smart enough to realize how much easier making **** up is.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I'm not kidding. Evil psychopath self obsessed to the point of compulsively playing Boggle with his own name, using it for nefarious undercover purposes in order to protect his real identity while still maintaining the sanctity of his own name in scrambled form. Such a singular form of narcissism that it became a major plot point in a fantasy book and movie for kids. For kids, because every adult wondered why he didn't just go with John Parker or something equally easy.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I just want to make that clear. How likely is it that some guy was actually pulling a Voldemort and got away with it?

Well I've always known I could get Geoff and Geoffrey out of mine, but other than that never even thought about it.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I'm not a genius, but I do try to learn as much as I can. Outside of specialty donut shops (read "Dunkin' Donuts" and "Starbucks" you don't have to spend $5.00 on a cup of coffee. In fact, if I had visitors who wanted coffee I'd make it and not charge anything.

But I am curious (really) about the term you used. I know who "Lord Voldemort" is in the "Harry Potter" stories. But has it now emerged as a new English language verb, to "voldemort", meaning to use one's name's letters in various ways to send a secret code to followers or allies that you (the manipulator of the method) are involved? If so I'm amazed at the speed this has happened. I don't think the Rowling novels have been in circulation for more than two decades.

Jeff

Haha when a set of behaviors has no other single name, it is traditional to name that set of behaviors after a person engaging in those behaviors. Bowdlerize springs to mind as an example.

And if said person happens to be both modern and fictional, then so be it.

Or alternative explanation, I don't mind making up words as long as my intended meaning is clear. After all, all words have to start somewhere, and why not with me when it all boils down to it. I'm just as able as the guy who coined the term "infarct" which is both slightly incorrect and incredibly silly sounding. Though really much more serious in content than "Voldemort-ed". So perhaps I shouldn't poke fun.

[John G]

Do you believe he had one when he first posted?

I doubt it myself.

And that last piece of data he was so close to getting that would solve it all..... Well not much seems to have come from that.

Well, it's several months now since he apparently discovered another vital piece of information, leading him to conclude "I must have found him", and stating there was now hardly any doubt about it. But since then...nada.

Mind you, concerning the negative feedback for his method of approach, which is certainly non conventional and probably unique (not conforming to that of a mainstream historian or even a postmodernist) I'm not surprised he doesn't want to reveal a name; and, for my part, I very much doubt that such a method is destined to solve anything. And perhaps joining the forums was simply a means of "testing the waters" in respect of his suspect, and they have now got a little too icy for his liking!

Also, somewhat unusually for a academic historian, he doesn't seem to have published anything!

[Mayerling]

Haha when a set of behaviors has no other single name, it is traditional to name that set of behaviors after a person engaging in those behaviors. Bowdlerize springs to mind as an example.

And if said person happens to be both modern and fictional, then so be it.

Or alternative explanation, I don't mind making up words as long as my intended meaning is clear. After all, all words have to start somewhere, and why not with me when it all boils down to it. I'm just as able as the guy who coined the term "infarct" which is both slightly incorrect and incredibly silly sounding. Though really much more serious in content than "Voldemort-ed". So perhaps I shouldn't poke fun.

Hi Errata,

I am aware of names becoming part of the language (i.e., to Bowdlerize, wearing a Cardigan sweater, having a Raglan sleeve, growing Burnsides (or sideburns) on one's face), but I never saw this with the speed involved in Rowlings' creation of the series of books, and some attempt to use the villain's name. My interest stems from being my father's son - he was a linguist.

Closest I ever saw to it was how the image of Professor Moriarty was picked up (after 1893) as the symbol of a brilliant criminal leader, but even when it was it would be somebody saying something like "Capone was the Moriarty of the mob in Chicago), not "Quickly, Capone's actions in taking over the city "moriartized" the mob power there."

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Perhaps the English language is becoming less formalized, as indeed it was in the Elizabethan era, which might not be a bad thing. In fact, there wasn't even an English dictionary until 1538, when a basic workbook was published. And the next effort didn't appear until 1583. Shakespeare, of course, didn't write in formal English (there was no such thing at the time) and actually made up many words. And, as I recall, he was a fairly respected writer!

Unfortunately, I haven't read Harry Potter, however, I enjoy the Robert Galbraith crime fiction stories.

Hi John G.

Actually a language's ability to adapt new words to express new ideas makes that language living - which is why ancient Etruscan is no longer on our tongues. The Elizabethan period certainly caused a definite explosion in the power of the language (till then considered by most a kind of twisted off-shoot of French). Shakespeare wasn't alone in this explosion. Marlowe, Jonson, Spencer, Sidney, all contributed to it as well, but Shakespeare led the pack. A good way to recall how many people were involved is to mention John Lily (spelling there?), who created, in his work "Euphews", the word play called "euphemisms". That was before the first works of Shakespeare.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Well I've always known I could get Geoff and Geoffrey out of mine, but other than that never even thought about it.

G'Day GUT,

Funny, I can frequently get Jeff out of mine, but when my mother was mad at me (as a kid) she'd start calling me "Jefferson", which had nothing to do with my name!

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Well, it's several months now since he apparently discovered another vital piece of information, leading him to conclude "I must have found him", and stating there was now hardly any doubt about it. But since then...nada.

Mind you, concerning the negative feedback for his method of approach, which is certainly non conventional and probably unique (not conforming to that of a mainstream historian or even a postmodernist) I'm not surprised he doesn't want to reveal a name; and, for my part, I very much doubt that such a method is destined to solve anything. And perhaps joining the forums was simply a means of "testing the waters" in respect of his suspect, and they have now got a little too icy for his liking!

Also, somewhat unusually for a academic historian, he doesn't seem to have published anything!

I have followed Pierre's various postings and threads for nearly the full year now. If he had an idea of a targeted suspect, I suspect it is one he may have altered since he started.

The image I have gotten from Pierre is someone who is grasping at a set of ideas that when he thought them up sounded perfect - on paper - but that had to be tested. Hence he came to this website. And he found that many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) got more than negative in their objections to his ideas. However (and I guess he will reject this and say I have no business saying it), he appears to have an inflated sense of his own mental abilities - to the point that he gets into absurd (not to him, but to most of us) arguments not as much on substance (which his arguments allow him to by-pass) but semantics or language. That may explain this recent curiosity I've shown on Errata's use of Lord Vortemond's name as a noun. It actually was a lingual problem that intrigued me. Not like Pierre straining to explain what he meant that David or some other critic won't accept (and which I find hard to swallow when reading the explinations).

Still, if he could restrain the attack mode he shows, Pierre might actually prove a worthy addition to this board. He certainly opened up some issues (how important they are, or how one could adequately discuss or handle them are other matters) that few of us considered. I had read of Eddowes' murder several times, and I never considered the issue of the pawn tickets.
For that thank you for bringing them up.

Jeff

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I am aware of names becoming part of the language (i.e., to Bowdlerize, wearing a Cardigan sweater, having a Raglan sleeve, growing Burnsides (or sideburns) on one's face), but I never saw this with the speed involved in Rowlings' creation of the series of books, and some attempt to use the villain's name. My interest stems from being my father's son - he was a linguist.

Closest I ever saw to it was how the image of Professor Moriarty was picked up (after 1893) as the symbol of a brilliant criminal leader, but even when it was it would be somebody saying something like "Capone was the Moriarty of the mob in Chicago), not "Quickly, Capone's actions in taking over the city "moriartized" the mob power there."

Jeff

I just make up words sometimes. especially in situations like this where a behavior is being described that almost perfectly lines up with a person or character. Especially Muppets. Because I have a long standing love of Muppets. Things get "Muppety", some guy is always getting "Beakered", Throwing a "Kermit", "Muppet" arms is a thing... also a lot of Star Wars references. Clearly I'm a nerd, and that is reflected in my illustrations and comparisons.

The English language is not sufficiently absurd or fantastic to keep up with my life. So I make stuff up. Sometimes it sticks in my peer group. Sometimes not.

So when someone describes a set of behaviors most recently seen in JK Rowlings villain, yeah. Can't help it. I love language. But I want to play with things I love.

[Pierre]

I have followed Pierre's various postings and threads for nearly the full year now. If he had an idea of a targeted suspect, I suspect it is one he may have altered since he started.

The image I have gotten from Pierre is someone who is grasping at a set of ideas that when he thought them up sounded perfect - on paper - but that had to be tested. Hence he came to this website. And he found that many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) got more than negative in their objections to his ideas. However (and I guess he will reject this and say I have no business saying it), he appears to have an inflated sense of his own mental abilities - to the point that he gets into absurd (not to him, but to most of us) arguments not as much on substance (which his arguments allow him to by-pass) but semantics or language. That may explain this recent curiosity I've shown on Errata's use of Lord Vortemond's name as a noun. It actually was a lingual problem that intrigued me. Not like Pierre straining to explain what he meant that David or some other critic won't accept (and which I find hard to swallow when reading the explinations).

Still, if he could restrain the attack mode he shows, Pierre might actually prove a worthy addition to this board. He certainly opened up some issues (how important they are, or how one could adequately discuss or handle them are other matters) that few of us considered. I had read of Eddowes' murder several times, and I never considered the issue of the pawn tickets.
For that thank you for bringing them up.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks. I would have had no reason for worrying about the pawn tickets were it not for the names they contain.

And you canīt test things from 1888 against a website. You need data from the past.

I have a really big problem now, and that is the collection of sources pointing in a direction I do not wish them to point. Nothing has changed. On the contrary.

Here is an interesting book on serial killerīs communications by the way:

Clues From Killers: Serial Murder And Crime Scene Messages, Dirk C. Gibson.

Best wishes, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John G.

Actually a language's ability to adapt new words to express new ideas makes that language living - which is why ancient Etruscan is no longer on our tongues. The Elizabethan period certainly caused a definite explosion in the power of the language (till then considered by most a kind of twisted off-shoot of French). Shakespeare wasn't alone in this explosion. Marlowe, Jonson, Spencer, Sidney, all contributed to it as well, but Shakespeare led the pack. A good way to recall how many people were involved is to mention John Lily (spelling there?), who created, in his work "Euphews", the word play called "euphemisms". That was before the first works of Shakespeare.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for this. Of course, the Elizabethan period was a golden era for English drama and poetry, and was only matched by the Romantic Poets of the early eighteenth century: Wandsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Byron, Blake, Scott...

My personal favourite of this period? Percy Bysshe Shelley.