Hate

[Pierre]

I think it's important to remember this authoritative instruction:

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

The murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly, and the resignation letter dated 8th November was the resignation letter dated 8th November. The discourse does not hide a mechanism, there is no point inventing an explanation.

Is that simple enough, Pierre? Or do the rules you impose on others change when you need them to?

Did you not see the word "sometimes"?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil, I quite agree. I have nothing to say on the identity of the various cuts of meat found strewn around in Miller's Court; my point was merely to point out to Pierre, and anyone else playing his game, that the proscriptions and prescriptions he always imposes on the reasoning of others he is happy to push to one side in his own work, when it suits his theory. That's all.

A year of hypocrisy and arrogance, in the service of a theory that sounds more comical with each hint he lets himself reveal.

What a farce. How long will this bollocks continue?

Hello Henry,

I agree entirely.
There are theories..snd theorists.

Then there are time wasters.


Phil

[Mayerling]

So Jeff, if your reading is correct then this is yet another thread that is rendered an absolute waste of time by Pierre's cowardly refusal to divulge his sources.

How long can this game continue?

For what it's worth I don't agree; I would bet on his having no specific sources indicating a problem with the dating of the letter. I think the evolution of this thread indicates a man who didn't initially realise quite how definitive the dating was, and who has subsequently resorted to vagueness and bluster in an effort to extricate himself from his own error.

Hello Henry,

This game will continue until Pierre commits some real blunder that either permanently gets him kicked off the website, or reveals (accidentally) who he really is, and enables us to get after him for annoying most of us. Because it is impossible to time limit either of those events, your guess is as good as mine as to how long this game of idiocy will continue.

You may be right - he may be floundering around having opened himself up to possible theory (not likely truth) and finds he misjudged everything due to his own ego. But such an ego is not likely to ever admit it was wrong - it was simply misunderstood by the rest of us.

As for myself, aside from minor comments I have absented myself from deeply contesting every point. Just as well, as I can't abide the debates that are going on about Pierre's dross.

Jeff

[Henry Flower]

Hello Henry,

Like others, I have considered the possibility that MJK was not the victim's real name.
Proving it is another matter entirely..and on a par with proving that it was "MJK" found in that room. Historical fact, bona fida fact..is missing each way.
The chance of a pseudonym being used is pretty high I'd say..looking at the amount people in this case that have more than one known name.

That said..Pierre is scratching around trying to fit theory into fact. Theory is fine. It has to have factual merit though.


Phil

Hello Phil, I quite agree. I have nothing to say on the identity of the various cuts of meat found strewn around in Miller's Court; my point was merely to point out to Pierre, and anyone else playing his game, that the proscriptions and prescriptions he always imposes on the reasoning of others he is happy to push to one side in his own work, when it suits his theory. That's all.

A year of hypocrisy and arrogance, in the service of a theory that sounds more comical with each hint he lets himself reveal.

What a farce. How long will this bollocks continue?

[Phil Carter]

I think it's important to remember this authoritative instruction:

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

The murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly, and the resignation letter dated 8th November was the resignation letter dated 8th November. The discourse does not hide a mechanism, there is no point inventing an explanation.

Is that simple enough, Pierre? Or do the rules you impose on others change when you need them to?

Hello Henry,

Like others, I have considered the possibility that MJK was not the victim's real name.
Proving it is another matter entirely..and on a par with proving that it was "MJK" found in that room. Historical fact, bona fida fact..is missing each way.
The chance of a pseudonym being used is pretty high I'd say..looking at the amount people in this case that have more than one known name.

That said..Pierre is scratching around trying to fit theory into fact. Theory is fine. It has to have factual merit though.


Phil

[Henry Flower]

I think it's important to remember this authoritative instruction:

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

The murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly, and the resignation letter dated 8th November was the resignation letter dated 8th November. The discourse does not hide a mechanism, there is no point inventing an explanation.

Is that simple enough, Pierre? Or do the rules you impose on others change when you need them to?

[Henry Flower]

So Jeff, if your reading is correct then this is yet another thread that is rendered an absolute waste of time by Pierre's cowardly refusal to divulge his sources.

How long can this game continue?

For what it's worth I don't agree; I would bet on his having no specific sources indicating a problem with the dating of the letter. I think the evolution of this thread indicates a man who didn't initially realise quite how definitive the dating was, and who has subsequently resorted to vagueness and bluster in an effort to extricate himself from his own error.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I donīt know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warrenīs resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Look...don't get me wrong here...I'm all for looking at things differently..as many here know. But..

If I resign from my job, and date my resignation letter 15/11/2016...then that date is a fact.
if my boss then tells the world a few days later that I resigned on the 15th then it confirms the fact of the date.
Now..
if my boss issues a comment about and referring to me..a rap over the knuckles, publically on the 15th..during the day please note, it is still possible for me to write my letter of resignation on the 15th..in the evening.

I think Warren resigned in a fit of pique after hearing of the public rap over the knuckles earlier in the day on the 8th.

You don't NEED another source date to confirm something that has already been confirmed by another.


Phil

[Mayerling]

In the back of my thoughts I'm beginning to see what Pierre is trying to do here.

1) Historical fact: Warren resigned in November 1888.
2) Historical fact: The date on the letter that Warren decided to put down is November 8, 1888.
3) Historical fact: According to Hansard, the member from Bethnal Green questioned Home Secretary Matthews regarding the resignation of Warren and it's cause.
4) Historical fact: Matthews explained in Parliament on November 10 (the date of his being questioned) that the resignation did not have anything to do with the Whitechapel killings, and was from a letter from Warren dated November 8, 1888.

Inquiry from Pierre: Are we certain Warren resigned on November 8th, or on another day, but chose to put November 8 on the letter to make it seem unrelated to the horror discovered on November 9? In short did he pre-date the letter? Or for that reason, did Sir Charles actually resign earlier than November 8th (November 7th, for that matter) and post-date the letter?

Pierre is claiming again to have wonderful sources that knock the November 8th date into the ashcan of history. He still refuses to produce them yet.

Until he does, we're "stuck" with the fact the letter, and the discussion in Parliament, make the resignation of Warren as occurring on November 8th, 1888.

Now, let us look calmly at a point I passed through just before: that it is not the Pre-dating of the letter by Warren, to avoid connecting his resignation with the failure of the police in Whitechapel, but a Post-dating of the letter - that for some reason Warren was worried that something was due to happen on November 9, 1888 that would be part of the murderer's schemes, and that the killer had sent a coded message that Warren and a few others in the Police were aware of. Therefore if he resigned just before the killing, perhaps the event of November 9, 1888 would prove to be the last - it could not be (for some unknown reason to all but Pierre) stopped by Scotland Yard and the Government of Great Britain, but the killer would be aware of his "victory" over those forces and might abandon further killings.

Such a complicated, and convoluted set of ideas is so revolting to consider seriously that I have to admit being ashamed of putting them down on this thread in an attempt to try to figure out what this "November 8th" dating question is all about.

Again my apologies to all - except Pierre!

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Steve,

You should read some Max Weber. You would like it.

Regards, Pierre

I have, probably not enough.

I tend to broadly agree with much he suggested about social stratification.



Steve

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

I admit the murder of MJK may have pushed the "reprimand" into a "resignation" but IIRC even Warren admitted he resigned on the 8th in a news report. My point with Pierre was there is historical data stating what the "supposed" reason of the resignation was over. There is nothing to the contrary in historical record. We can guess and I am up for that as much as the next guy. It's just that Pierre is always preaching that you can't change history.

[Elamarna]

How about testing it against the source above to start with?

I have alluded to that in a reply to Simon, and briefly give more below.

I do not believe in the supernatural.

I hope not in this case

spellcheck let me down, was meant to be superposition!

Relax, Steve. There is always some data. For example the sources that Simon refers to.

yes and I believe that gives a good and completely believable reason for the resignation on the 8th.

Having been reprimanded in private, Matthews made this public, Warren from my reading on his life, appears to be a proud man.
The humiliation of being Publicly rebuked could have been enough to make him resign on its own.

Steve

[Pierre]

Simon,

Yes something obviously happened between the statement on the 8th, and the resignation.

It is possible that after the statement, Warren resigned, not being prepared to accept the public rebuke, on top of a private one.

Matthews in effect humiliated Warren to an extent by that statement.

No reason to think it could not have happened that way, on the 8th.

Steve

Steve,

You should read some Max Weber. You would like it.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400431]

Yes of course

Thank you.

Other sources indicate he did this in response to a rebuke from Matthews.

Interesting.

How is this idea testable?

There is no source or data to test it against,

How about testing it against the source above to start with?

only what appears to be unsupported superstition.

I do not believe in the supernatural.

There is only the single source.
That source says the 8th. there is no data to suggest anything else!

Relax, Steve. There is always some data. For example the sources that Simon refers to.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Yes something obviously happened between the statement on the 8th, and the resignation.

It is possible that after the statement, Warren resigned, not being prepared to accept the public rebuke, on top of a private one.

Matthews in effect humiliated Warren to an extent by that statement.

No reason to think it could not have happened that way, on the 8th.




Steve