Not for nothing

[Pierre]

In the opening post of this thread you claimed that it was not about the GSG:-

Either it is or it isn't. If it is about the GSG you should be honest and concede the point. If it is not about the GSG then your references to it are off topic. Make your mind up. You can't have it both ways!

Hi Bridewell

It is not about the GSG but about the people who tried to understand the GSG.

And thanks for the reference to the post with the reference to the Penny Illustrated.

Cheers, Pierre

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell

It is not about the GSG but about the people who tried to understand the GSG.

Okay.

And thanks for the reference to the post with the reference to the Penny Illustrated.

Cheers, Pierre

You're welcome.

[GUT]

Because you can know what people thought about the GSG without knowing about the GSG and even better you can work out what they thought about it by discussing a phrase not even in it.

Sheesh, give us a break.

[Bridewell]

Because you can know what people thought about the GSG without knowing about the GSG and even better you can work out what they thought about it by discussing a phrase not even in it.

Sheesh, give us a break.

I share Pierre's view that a man who can spell "nothing" can probably also spell "Jews". Where we differ is in his believing that two men reading the word "Judges" could both transcribe it without either of them including a 'd' or a 'g'. I think that scenario is as unlikely as anything ever posted on Casebook that didn't relate to Vincent Van Gogh or Toulouse Lautrec.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Bridewell;418501

I share Pierre's view that a man who can spell "nothing" can probably also spell "Jews".

Yes.

Where we differ is in his believing that two men reading the word "Judges" could both transcribe it without either of them including a 'd' or a 'g'.

Compare the versions of Halse and Long. Why where w and e put at these positions?

ju we s
ju ew s

[Henry Flower]

Compare the versions of Halse and Long. Why where w and e put at these positions?

ju we s
ju ew s

Neither version resembles in any way 'dg', one letter of which features an ascender, the other a descending loop. Neither 'e' nor 'w' would be remotely likely to be letters mistakenly recorded in place of 'd', or 'g' or 'dg'.

And what the hell has this question got to do with the phrase 'not for nothing'?

Your mind appears to be falling to pieces, Pierre. Maybe some rest is needed.

[Albert]

Even literate people make mistakes

QUOTE=Bridewell;418501



Yes.



Compare the versions of Halse and Long. Why where w and e put at these positions?

ju we s
ju ew s

Sorry if it appears to be nit picking, Pierre, but you have spelt 'were' with an 'h' in it, making it 'where'.
Doesn't this mean that there is a possibility that the spelling of Juwes could have been intended to be Jews and was just a mistake?
Regards
Albert

[Pierre]

Sorry if it appears to be nit picking, Pierre, but you have spelt 'were' with an 'h' in it, making it 'where'.
Doesn't this mean that there is a possibility that the spelling of Juwes could have been intended to be Jews and was just a mistake?
Regards
Albert

Of course it could. But not because of my h.

[Pierre]

Neither version resembles in any way 'dg', one letter of which features an ascender, the other a descending loop. Neither 'e' nor 'w' would be remotely likely to be letters mistakenly recorded in place of 'd', or 'g' or 'dg'.

And what the hell has this question got to do with the phrase 'not for nothing'?

Your mind appears to be falling to pieces, Pierre. Maybe some rest is needed.

Perhaps you should pour out some of your aggressiveness on those who are trying to convince people that innocent men were serial killers instead of accusing those who are not accusing others of this.

[Albert]

Of course it could. But not because of my h.

Pierre,
But you are literate and you made a mistake, that was my point.
Albert

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,
But you are literate and you made a mistake, that was my point.
Albert

It's hard to work out sometimes whether he's actually as dense as he appears to be, in which case he has no credibility whatsoever, or whether he is simply dishonest in most of his replies, in which case he has no credibility whatsoever.

[Henry Flower]

Perhaps you should pour out some of your aggressiveness on those who are trying to convince people that innocent men were serial killers instead of accusing those who are not accusing others of this.

Pierre you delicate flower, if I were being aggressive you'd notice, (and by the way, student of literature, I think you'll find the word 'aggression' is the one you're looking for; 'aggressiveness' means something slightly more benign).

I think actually I'll continue to happily engage with the oaf who arrived on the forums to his own fanfare, proclaiming his imminent solving of the case, who has spent month after month after month telling some seriously good researchers that he knows best because he, unlike anyone else here, is a True Historian etc, who routinely sets out to destroy Christer's posts whilst invoking some entirely imaginary right to demand that David should not do the same to his, who retreats into abstract terms or side-tracks when confronted with facts or reasoning that destroy his suggestions, and who has never, ever engaged in an honest or scholarly way with these boards.

So thanks for the suggestion. Noted, and ignored.

[David Orsam]

those who are trying to convince people that innocent men were serial killers instead of accusing those who are not accusing others of this.

You mean that innocent men are the men who will not be blamed for nothing?

[Henry Flower]

That's a good point, David. Maybe we can begin to understand something of what people think of Pierre's statement by extracting from it the following words and asking people to cite examples of the phrase we've created, from literature:

those trying men were killers of those who are not others

As you can see, I'm using an heuristic approach. It should prove very useful. It's not a question about Pierre's statement per se, but we will, by some curious intellectual alchemy, learn what people think of Pierre's statement.

In particular, is the phrase 'trying men' merely cockney, or not merely cockney? And what might a trying man be? A judge, perhaps? Fire away folks.

Now don't all reply at once and crash the servers!

[David Orsam]

I'm very much in favour of an heuristic approach to solving these problems, Henry, but we mustn't ignore any syntactic functions and definitions, and this leads me to a Conclusion II, namely that people who read a post by Pierre don't understand much of it, but still they have their opinions about it.

In this case, I can see that the phrase:

those trying men were killers of those who are not others

has been mistranscribed.

It should of course be

those trying men were kidgers of those dgho are not others

When you read it like that, it all suddenly makes sense.