GSG xmas present

[David Orsam]

Yes, a child of six can understand what you have written here.

Only in PierreWorld would there be a problem with this.

In PierreWorld, of course, the objective is to write posts that no-one of any age can understand.

[Fisherman]

Well why do you think Pierre would understand it?

Reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line:

Ha! A child of four could do that. Get me a child of four, somebody!

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404335]

Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how




And now you are making a new mistake. You do not "prove a fact" in historical work. You establish a fact. Again David: What is your definition of "prove it" - and now, also, what is your definition of a "fact", and how do you estblish it?

Please Pierre not back to this nonsense approach of arguing over what is a fact.
Last time it ended up with the suggestion that gravity would not exist if there was no one to report it.

You are arguing concepts rather the the universal constants.

Your argument with David is truly about semantics. You know fully well when he said prove it he meant to use your terms to establish it as a historical fact by the use of supporting and disclosure sources and data.

He even explain what he meant why such games? Are we back to evasion again!


With regards to the present, there was none.
What we had was the equivalent of a trailer for a film; however it gives the briefest synopsis possible, is purely audio, no pictures or film and gives no idea who stars in it.

See: title somone lied about being a judge.

Story: he was wronged but decided to stop the threat by killing unknowns.

Staring: can't tell you its a secret

Director: Pierre




My offer still stands



Steve

[GUT]

Having carried out some new research over the last five minutes, I have now resolved the huge problems that historians and social scientists have been having with the concept of "truth".

If we look at this statement posted on this forum by Pierre on 20 September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who."

Was that the truth, or was that false?

My research has established that this was false.

So if we take the statement: The person who wrote a letter signed "Gogmagog" was not Jack the Ripper.

We now have the truth.

And, hey, it wasn't even difficult. A child of six can understand it.

Well why do you think Pierre would understand it?

[Pierre]

Having carried out some new research over the last five minutes, I have now resolved the huge problems that historians and social scientists have been having with the concept of "truth".

If we look at this statement posted on this forum by Pierre on 20 September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who."

Was that the truth, or was that false?

My research has established that this was false.

So if we take the statement: The person who wrote a letter signed "Gogmagog" was not Jack the Ripper.

We now have the truth.

And, hey, it wasn't even difficult. A child of six can understand it.

Yes, a child of six can understand what you have written here.

[David Orsam]

Research has shown that there are huge problems with the concept of "truth".

Having carried out some new research over the last five minutes, I have now resolved the huge problems that historians and social scientists have been having with the concept of "truth".

If we look at this statement posted on this forum by Pierre on 20 September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who."

Was that the truth, or was that false?

My research has established that this was false.

So if we take the statement: The person who wrote a letter signed "Gogmagog" was not Jack the Ripper.

We now have the truth.

And, hey, it wasn't even difficult. A child of six can understand it.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Henry Flower;404336

If you're so concerned about definitions all of a sudden, tell us oh great one, what did the word mean when you used it, "scientifically". Such a little crapweasel.

Hi Henry,

Yes, the little crapweasel will tell you.

To "prove it" you must be able to establish "it" as an historical fact. And to be able to do this, you must:

1. Have many independent reliable and valid sources.

2. Be able to construct valid and reliable causal explanations, motive explanations and functional explanations from these sources.

3. Establish a coherent explanatory history on these sources.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

You have no academic knowledge, David. You have no education within history or any social science. But in spite of this, you use concepts when you accuse people here, which have been heavily criticized by historians and social science.

Research has shown that there are huge problems with the concept of "truth".

But when I ask you what you mean by "prove it", you can only refer to a dictionary using the concept of "truth".

When you accuse people here you must have support for your arguments.

Now: WHAT do you mean by "prove it"?

1. Is it a judicial concept?
2. Is it an historical concept?
3. Is it a scientific concept?

No. It is the unscientific concept of David, based on a dictionary.

Classic Pierre buII5h1t. Pierre, as David has already stated, in a post to which you are understandably reluctant to respond, we can assume that what David means by "prove" corresponds broadly to what YOU meant by "prove" when you wrote, a year and a quarter ago that you needed one or two bits of sparse data to "prove" your hypothesis.

If you're so concerned about definitions all of a sudden, tell us oh great one, what did the word mean when you used it, "scientifically". Such a little crapweasel.

Typically, having presented as a "present" a detail from your hypothesis that convinces no-one, that is roundly rejected as being risible, you resort to once again asserting your academic superiority over your detractors and arguing over precise definitions of "proof". What a sad fool you are.

I've got news for you, fool: if this Juwes/judges gibberish is representative of your standards as a "historian", the exact definition of "proof" is going to be the least of your problems. If I were you I would instead be worrying about the meanings of words such as "derision", "farcical", "laughing-stock", and "amateurish".

Christmas greetings to all genuine students of the case, from the wintery beauty of the city of Gdansk.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;404333]Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how

to prove a fact, because he seems to be having difficulty with that simple concept.

And now you are making a new mistake. You do not "prove a fact" in historical work. You establish a fact. Again David: What is your definition of "prove it" - and now, also, what is your definition of a "fact", and how do you estblish it?

[Pierre]

Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how to prove a fact, because he seems to be having difficulty with that simple concept.

I very seldom mention French philosophers. The problem that you have, David, is that the French philosophers have defined the word you are using without you knowing why you use it or how to use it.

[David Orsam]

Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how to prove a fact, because he seems to be having difficulty with that simple concept.

[Pierre]

It's a little known fact that I provide a service to members of the forum by defining simple English words, with the help of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Prove, v. "To establish as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument."

You have no academic knowledge, David. You have no education within history or any social science. But in spite of this, you use concepts when you accuse people here, which have been heavily criticized by historians and social science.

Research has shown that there are huge problems with the concept of "truth".

But when I ask you what you mean by "prove it", you can only refer to a dictionary using the concept of "truth".

When you accuse people here you must have support for your arguments.

Now: WHAT do you mean by "prove it"?

1. Is it a judicial concept?
2. Is it an historical concept?
3. Is it a scientific concept?

No. It is the unscientific concept of David, based on a dictionary.

[GUT]

Pierre, believe me, I'm not waiting for anything from you!

Just as well. You'd die waiting for sensible from that one.

[Henry Flower]

128 years of speculations and when it is almost finished you can not wait.

Pierre, believe me, I'm not waiting for anything from you!

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;403918

The only thing missing is a reference to "Helen" who ever she was!

Helen was a symbol for purity and honour.

Regards, Pierre