The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Supe]

Tom,

I quite agree that Howard came down too hard on you in his initial (pun?)post. I certainly didn't mean my earlier post to sound as Howard interpreted it. But then neither of us is among his favorite folk.

Second, as you know but others may not. I never said you were categorically wrong. It is a clever idea, but because "initialism" does not seem a hallmark of LVP literature or reporting, I think it is less likely that you are right.

Don.

[Ally]

Really? So HRH had a group of PCs run off anyone who used abbreviations back in 1888 A.D.? OK...

I realize that a high falutin editor like you can't be bothered with reading what people actually write (contributes to the current state of events at RN, I imagine). So I am sure that you missed me saying that the Victorians had acronyms, they just weren't commonly used by the general population.

So we're supposed to believe Eisenhower was completely radical when he came up with the WPA, TVA, CWA, FHA and so forth in the 1930s?

That was almost as good as Tom thinking we shared a commono language with the Romans. Not as good, I grant you, but almost.

Nearly every thing he did as president was discussed at the time as an acronym, and it wasn't because he invented the concept. Wherever Don got the info you accepted as gospel, the person making the claim was just plain ignorant.

Now I am sure you are as clueless with decades as you are with Presidents, but allow me to explain timeline Something becomes COMMON after it is introduced and used by the vast majority of the population. Acronyms as a concept didn't even enter into the OED until almost 1900 if my memory serves me correctly. So the concept from that point on, would have gained in popularity so that 40 years later, they would start becoming more popular and start to be used more often. What is used in 1930 is irrelevant when discussing the usage of it half a century prior to that. Once something is INTRODUCED as common usage, it's usage grows until it peaks and dies out. Once again, that's like saying because we use net speak commonly today and people are even using it to write in college essays, then netspeak would have been used in 1970. It doesn't work like that.

Again, I understand why a high-falutin editor such as yourself would have a problem with concepts like "commonly used" but that's okay.

It would be true to say that acronyms became more common past the mid 20th century, but they had been in common usage well before that. Crack open a book sometime and see for yourself.

Which you know, is pretty much what I said. Except for the fact that they were NOT in common usage in Victorian England among the general population.


Heya Tom,

Do you want to address the question as to why a person would think of the Working Men's club society by it's obscure formal title that not even its members used? I mean your boy Dan's busting a gut to defend the ludicrous idea that it was a acronym, and you can't even be bothered to address why a person would use an acronym, which was uncommon for the time, for a name that wasn't even commonly used.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally,

When I can explain why the Ripper would feel obliged to relieve women of their organs on the open street I'll begin work on explaining his thought processes on writing and grammar.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Nice cop out. I'll remind you of that the next time you are arguing with someone that a given scenario is not likely because of inconvenient facts that the theorist of the day doesn't want to address.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally,

We've established that acronyms exists in 1888. That they weren't as commonplace then as they are now is incidental. They were in regular usage, the Ripper had limited space in which to write, and perhaps he wrote this acronym on a regular basis for one reason or another. Now be a good girl and find a pub talk thread to start fights on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

And he just happened to think of the Working Men's club by it's obscure title that not even its members referred to it by? Gee he really was an uncommon wordsmith for his time!

Uh huh. Logic goes right out the window as soon as people get a pet theory. And you are a cutie dear boy, proving you wrong isn't "starting a fight". There's nothing to fight about. You are wrong, you refuse to accept it. Same ol', same ol'.

[Tom_Wescott]

You've in no way 'proved me wrong', although you have managed to assume I know no more than you about the matter. Now please, let the boys talk.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

At least you accept you don't qualify as a man.

The facts are simple: Anagrams as a whole were uncommon.

No one referred to the club by its full name.

It wasn't an anagram of the International Working Men's Educational Society.

[Paddy Goose]

Regardless, the police decision to erase it was prescient. Witness the scene after the sun rose, as described by the local paper:

"The appearance of East London early on the Sunday morning so soon as the news of the murders was known - and, indeed, all day - almost baffles description. At ten o'clock, Aldgate and Leadenhall-street, Duke-street, St. James'-place, and Houndsditch were all literally packed with human beings - packed so thick that it was a matter of utter impossibility to pass through. The babel of tongues as each inquired of the other the latest particulars, or the exact locality of the Aldgate murder, or speculated on the character or whereabouts of the murder, was simply deafening. Every window of every inhabited room in the vicinity was thrown open, for the better view of the inmates; and seats at these windows were being openly sold and eagerly bought. On the outskirts of this vast chattering, excited assemblage of humanity, costermongers, who sold everything in the way of edibles, from fish and bread to fruits and sweets, and newspaper vendors whose hoarse cries only added to the confusion of sounds heard on every hand, were doing exceedingly large trades. Entrance to the square was strictly forbidden by the police, who jealously guarded all the three entrances; and yet, that great multitude seemed to derive a kind of morbid satisfaction in standing even so near the scene of the tragedy of a few hours before, and in gazing with a kind of awe upon so much of the dull flagstones of the square as they could see. As the day wore on the crowds increased, considerably diminished between two and four o'clock, and increased again in the evening. In Berner-street, existed a scene of similar excitement. Some thousands of people had gathered about the streets, and stood watching with the same morbid curiosity that distinguished the crowds at Aldgate, what little there was to be seen of the scene of the murder. And all that could be seen was the big wooden gate inside which the woman Watts had met her death, guarded also by a large force of police. Here too, windows were in great demand, and costermongers and newsvendors as they brought out numerous "special editions," which existed only in their own imagination, did a wonderful trade. Large crowds gathered at Mitre-square and Berner-street, on Monday and Tuesday also, and remained discussing together during the day. Apparently too, the denizens of West London have begun to take a lively interest in the doings of the Whitechapel murderer, for since Sunday a very large number of cabs and private carriages containing sightseers have visited the scenes of the tragedies."

So at least the police did not have a third scene to control.

Just looking on the bright side of things,
Paddy

[JSchmidt]

Another more or less linguistic question: the double negation, was it a common occurrence in the local dialect? And if so, has it been remarked upon or mocked at the time of the murders?
I just wonder if this might say something about the author, whether he was local at least acquainted with the district.

[Tom_Wescott]

Another more or less linguistic question: the double negation, was it a common occurrence in the local dialect?

Yes, it was very common. It wasn't commented upon too much in 1888. It's worth noting that the author did not need to phonetically render 'nothing' as so many did (i.e. nuffink, like Suzi mentioned), therefore I would find it even more remarkable if 'Juwes' had been the result of bad phonetics.

I certainly didn't mean my earlier post to sound as Howard interpreted it.

It's all good. We can't help the haters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Paul Emmet writes:

"...one of the "marks" of the psychopath is the need to feel that he is pulling the wool over the eyes of others, being too clever for them"

May well be, Paul, even if we should not let us be convinced that all psychopaths work along the same lines.
My take on such an action, had Jack written the GSG, though, is that he would try to pull that wool over our eyes by claiming the killings in a very obvious manner, but TRY TO STAY UNDETECTED HIMSELF.
To write something that there was no need for nobody to recognize as his work would be strange in the extreme, since it would open up for the possibility that the game he may have been playing would not evoke any interest.
More often than not, when a psychopath killer communicates with society, he does so out of a feeling that he is invincible and more clever than those wo try to catch him. That will make him prone to go further and further in his hinting.
A message like the GSG does not have the elements that are very often evinced in such cases; a mocking boldness and a desperate need for recognition.
In short; much as I think that you are to a significant extent right in your description of many psychopaths, I think you are wrong in seeing the GSG as typical for the kind of message these characters would produce.

The best,
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hi Fisherman. I am sorry. I am no tech guy, and my responses here got all screwed up. Your original statements are regular; my responses are in CAPS. I'm too embarrassed to tell you what I was trying to do.

[QUOTE=Fisherman;19880]
To write something that there was no need for nobody to recognize as his work would be strange in the extreme, since it would open up for the possibility that the game he may have been playing would not evoke any interest.

HENCE, THE APRON--AND DEBATE AFTER 120 YEARS. AND IF THERE HAD BEEN NO INTEREST, HE COULD DISMISS IT WITH, "STUPID--UNLIKE ME--BASTARDS."




More often than not, when a psychopath killer communicates with society, he does so out of a feeling that he is invincible and more clever than those wo try to catch him. That will make him prone to go further and further in his hinting.

I AGREE WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE HERE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A TENSION BETWEEN "INVINCIBLE" AND "CLEVER." I DON'T THINK THAT "INVINCIBLE" LEADS TO DIRECT AND OBVIOUS, AND I THINK THAT "CLEVER" CAN TAKE PRECEDENCE. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE SECOND SENTENCE HERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT--LIKE YOU--DOES GIVE PRECEDENCE TO INVINCIBLE AND RECOGNIZED. I THINK THAT LETTER AFTER LETTER, GRAFFITO AFTER GRAFFITO, A PSYCHOPATH COULD BE LAUGHING HIS ASS OFF AT THE OBTUSE MORONS WHO WERE UNABLE TO GRASP HIS SUBTLTIES.

[perrymason]

By the lack of any documentation to suggest otherwise JS, I believe the double negative was simply viewed as sign of a semi literate author, I have never seen anything that suggests they explored the use of double negatives in literate dialog. Of which there are many occurrences, one of which is in connection with sarcasm, another being an indicator of perhaps an attempt at clarification.

Best regards.

[Monty]

Double negative

Double Negative is more of a working class trait than regional.

Monty