Hate

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

I believe you are in err.?
Sir Charles Warren resigned before the murder of the lady known as "Mary Kelly". His resignation occurred a day or two before, I believe?

Phil

Hi Phil,

I have chosen to think that it was back dated to the 8th since it was just one day. I may be wrong but I may also be right.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Hi Phil,

I have chosen to think that it was back dated to the 8th since it was just one day. I may be wrong but I may also be right.

Regards, Pierre

That real historical methodology, I don't think.

[Henry Flower]

That real historical methodology, I don't think.

Priceless!

[Pierre]

That real historical methodology, I don't think.

As I say, "I have chosen". I have reasons for it, and as long as I can not disprove a set of sources, this source will be interpreted in the chosen way due to it´s relation to the other sources.

I KNOW that I may overinterpet the source(s).

I KNOW that I may do the wrong interpretation(s).

Therefore I say that I may be wrong.

But I may also be right.

[Mayerling]

As I say, "I have chosen". I have reasons for it, and as long as I can not disprove a set of sources, this source will be interpreted in the chosen way due to it´s relation to the other sources.

I KNOW that I may overinterpet the source(s).

I KNOW that I may do the wrong interpretation(s).

Therefore I say that I may be wrong.

But I may also be right.

You do have a right! Also a left. Just look at your two hands.

[Pierre]

As I say, "I have chosen". I have reasons for it, and as long as I can not disprove a set of sources, this source will be interpreted in the chosen way due to it´s relation to the other sources.

I KNOW that I may overinterpet the source(s).

I KNOW that I may do the wrong interpretation(s).

Therefore I say that I may be wrong.

But I may also be right.

Hi David! Making progress?

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

I KNOW that I may overinterpet the source(s).

I KNOW that I may do the wrong interpretation(s).

Therefore I say that I may be wrong.

But I may also be right.

Ah Pierre. That would all be just fine... if you had not spent the past year denying other researchers the same freedom of possible overinterpretation.

Any time you see anyone else possibly overinterpreting their sources you jump in and tell them they are doing it all wrong and only you have the correct rigorous methodology, Pierre the great historian.

Now it turns out that what you constantly chastise others for, you allow yourself, and try to make a virtue of the fact that you 'KNOW' you are possibly doing it.

I've called you a hypocrite many times, and you seem to dislike it. I repeat the accusation again because it is now abundantly clear that you are indeed hypocritical.

How is this NOT hypocrisy? Why on earth would we suppose that the overinterpretaton of sources is ONLY acceptable when Pierre does it? I wonder how many elements of your fantastical theory are premised on just such overinterpretations, which you justify on the basis that they chime with your other overinterpretations of your other sources?

Hypocrite.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;399663]

Ah Pierre. That would all be just fine... if you had not spent the past year denying other researchers the same freedom of possible overinterpretation.

I deny myself the overinterpretation when I am aware of it. But in some cases I do not know if I am overinterpreting a source. That is a constant historical problem and one which you always work to eliminate. Others, on the other hand, constantly work to strenghten their ideas by not admitting their own overinterpretations. I instead prefer to ask questions and to say I may be right or wrong.

[Henry Flower]

I deny myself the overinterpretation when I am aware of it. But in some cases I do not know if I am overinterpreting a source.

I have a solution: when others on the boards overinterpret, you always helpfully point it out to them, in no uncertain terms, because you are so kind. Why not allow us to return the favour Pierre? We might be more objective about your suspect and your theory than you can be! Please, we'd be happy to assist you in your search for absolute objectivity! Tell us your theory, show us the sources you've built it on, and we can help you figure out whether you've over/misinterpreted the sources! Happy to help! It's what most of the theorists here do - most except you. Because you're special!

That is a constant historical problem and one which you always work to eliminate. Others, on the other hand, constantly work to strenghten their ideas by not admitting their own overinterpretations. I instead prefer to ask questions and to say I may be right or wrong.

Absolute rubbish. Many, many times I've seen others admit that a suggestion is an interpretation only, that it may be wrong, and you have still leaped straight in to tell them they're doing history wrong, and that every little thing they say must be based only on the most rigorous faithfulness to the sources.

The more you reveal the clearer it becomes that you do not actually hold yourself to the standards you've spent a year beating everyone else over the head with.

And here we see your unshakable conviction: while you are the model of integrity and probity, 'others' take liberties with sources.

I cannot wait to read your theory. If you have one, and if you ever dare release it.

Found your final sliver of confirmatory evidence yet? How much longer Pierre? That one year deadline recedes quickly into the past....

[Pierre]

I have a solution: when others on the boards overinterpret, you always helpfully point it out to them, in no uncertain terms, because you are so kind. Why not allow us to return the favour Pierre? We might be more objective about your suspect and your theory than you can be! Please, we'd be happy to assist you in your search for absolute objectivity! Tell us your theory, show us the sources you've built it on, and we can help you figure out whether you've over/misinterpreted the sources! Happy to help! It's what most of the theorists here do - most except you. Because you're special!

Absolute rubbish. Many, many times I've seen others admit that a suggestion is an interpretation only, that it may be wrong, and you have still leaped straight in to tell them they're doing history wrong, and that every little thing they say must be based only on the most rigorous faithfulness to the sources.

The more you reveal the clearer it becomes that you do not actually hold yourself to the standards you've spent a year beating everyone else over the head with.

And here we see your unshakable conviction: while you are the model of integrity and probity, 'others' take liberties with sources.

I cannot wait to read your theory. If you have one, and if you ever dare release it.

Found your final sliver of confirmatory evidence yet? How much longer Pierre? That one year deadline recedes quickly into the past....

Dear Henry,

There is no point in being rude and aggressive. It does not help the case forward.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Dear Henry,

There is no point in being rude and aggressive.

On the contrary, Pierre, when dealing with certain types, being rude and aggressive becomes almost a moral obligation.

When do you estimate you will find the final sliver of data, and where will you be looking for it?

Again of course you resort to selective hypersensitivity to avoid answering a question. The way others test their interpretation of sources is by putting their cards on the table here, for others to test them to destruction. Why are you not willing to do the same? Why are you afraid of the objectivity that others would bring? Why are you afraid to have others do to your work what you attempt to do to Fisherman's?

Please understand: this is not personal; I have no real interest in you or your amusing theory, and I would not be asking these questions had you not spent a year setting yourself and your methodology up on a pedestal, talking down to others, attempting to make provocative or beguiling statements with nothing to support them, and claiming for yourself a scholarly authority to which you have yet to provide one scintilla of evidence that you are entitled.

[GUT]

On the contrary, Pierre, when dealing with certain types, being rude and aggressive becomes almost a moral obligation.

When do you estimate you will find the final sliver of data, and where will you be looking for it?

Again of course you resort to selective hypersensitivity to avoid answering a question. The way others test their interpretation of sources is by putting their cards on the table here, for others to test them to destruction. Why are you not willing to do the same? Why are you afraid of the objectivity that others would bring? Why are you afraid to have others do to your work what you attempt to do to Fisherman's?

Please understand: this is not personal; I have no real interest in you or your amusing theory, and I would not be asking these questions had you not spent a year setting yourself and your methodology up on a pedestal, talking down to others, attempting to make provocative or beguiling statements with nothing to support them, and claiming for yourself a scholarly authority to which you have yet to provide one scintilla of evidence that you are entitled.

He promised a few times that if he didn't find it he'd go away, if he did find it he'd reveal all, obviously you can't believe a thing he says.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I have chosen to think that it was back dated to the 8th since it was just one day. I may be wrong but I may also be right.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

You are going to gave to supply the source which causes you to "chose" to assume it to have been backdated. .because..quite simply..all known sources that I have come across date his resignation to before said murder.

I may be wrong here, but somewhere I recall his resignation document he himself wrote and dated as being dated before the murder? Perhaps another with a better memory than I can help?

But back to the point. Supply your source and all is then hunky dory. Thanks ☺


Phil

[Mayerling]

He promised a few times that if he didn't find it he'd go away, if he did find it he'd reveal all, obviously you can't believe a thing he says.

Hi GUT,

Remember the story of the "Paige Typesetting" Machine and Mark Twain? It was a remarkable piece of engineering that intrigued Twain (who was the partner in a publishing house). It was supposed to revolutionize how books got printed. Twain invested heavily in this incredible machine, but Mr. Paige kept putting off getting a factory and manufacturing it. Paige always told Twain there were one or two more "tweaks" he had to add to the typesetter before it was ready to be mass produced and marketed. Twain got really mad - madder still more - when one Ottmar Mergenthaler came up with a simpler and better typesetter (the prototype of what is still used by newspapers and publishing houses today) in the late 1880s. End result: if you visit Twain's home in Connecticut the sole remaining working model of the Paige Typesetter is there - it never was manufactured. That and the ruin of the Webster Publishing House (Twain's company) bankrupted the author, and forced him to do a world wide speaking and writing tour, that resulted in his last travel book "Following The Equator" (1897), but Twain did clear his own debts and lived comfortably in his last years.

Something about Paige reminds me of Pierre a bit. More than their two names beginning with the same letter.

Jeff

[Henry Flower]

Thanks Jeff, I never heard that story before. Interesting. Whenever I hear the name Mark Twain I'm reminded of Will Ferrell in an award acceptance speech claiming that he had always confused Mark Twain with Col Sanders. I can certainly believe that if Pierre doesn't publish soon someone else might come up with a simpler and better theory than his melodramatic fantasy.

Which would be a real shame. We all have so much invested in Pierre's work.