Hate

[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.

[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]

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]

[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 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]

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 itīs 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

[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 itīs 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]

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 itīs 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.

[Henry Flower]

That real historical methodology, I don't think.

Priceless!

[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.

[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

[Phil Carter]

Hi Steve,

Warren resigned after Kelly. Monro must have known it to be able to do things about it. There is evidence things were done. Those things were best done by Monro. The messages was meant for a very important person which I can not name yet.

Regards, 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

[Henry Flower]

Steve, why are you feeding the ego?

"The problem was a very complex one. That is also the reason why the sources must be interpreted the way they are interpreted."

With respect, you're being played.

[Pierre]

Pierre,
Can i just clarify, you have made it clear in the past that you believed that Monro and Warren were aware of who he was, is that not correct?

However the messages were meant for someone else? Was that person a police official or not?

If he was, of the high ranking involved with the case few are left, Anderson, Bruce and Smith being the only ones with anything like direct involvement.

if not we are back at who?

Steve

Hi Steve,

Warren resigned after Kelly. Monro must have known it to be able to do things about it. There is evidence things were done. Those things were best done by Monro. The messages was meant for a very important person which I can not name yet.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Robert,

OK.

The focus was not anyone of those.

And she wasnīt procured.

Pierre,
Can i just clarify, you have made it clear in the past that you believed that Monro and Warren were aware of who he was, is that not correct?

However the messages were meant for someone else? Was that person a police official or not?

If he was, of the high ranking involved with the case few are left, Anderson, Bruce and Smith being the only ones with anything like direct involvement.

if not we are back at who?

Steve