Not for nothing

[Henry Flower]

Sorry, I have a natural aversion to graffiti so I used a pencil and paper. The 'g' that I used was a capital (though 'curled' one, I don't know how to explain it any better than that.) JuGes. With the 'g' more rounded and slightly tilted. It helps to join it to the 'e'. Not particularly convincing.
I haven't read all of this thread to be honest but I saw the word 'judges' and wondered if a translation could be made to look like Juwes. We all recall the 'juives,' thing in connection with D'Onstan. Perhaps if the wall was corrugated and Jack had advanced Parkinson's? Who knows.

Regards
Herlock

Nice work Herlock. Are you suggesting Parkinsons as Pierre's "biological explanatory variable"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
Did you use chalk on a brick wall or did you use pencil and paper?
This is vital to our understanding!
Cheers
Albert

Sorry, I have a natural aversion to graffiti so I used a pencil and paper. The 'g' that I used was a capital (though 'curled' one, I don't know how to explain it any better than that.) JuGes. With the 'g' more rounded and slightly tilted. It helps to join it to the 'e'. Not particularly convincing.
I haven't read all of this thread to be honest but I saw the word 'judges' and wondered if a translation could be made to look like Juwes. We all recall the 'juives,' thing in connection with D'Onstan. Perhaps if the wall was corrugated and Jack had advanced Parkinson's? Who knows.

Regards
Herlock

[Henry Flower]

Hi Herlock
Did you use chalk on a brick wall or did you use pencil and paper?
This is vital to our understanding!
Cheers
Albert

And also, it sounds as though you were trying to make the French word for judges look a bit like Juwes. Why would you do that?

Surely the thing is, when writing the full message on a wall using chalk, clearly enough that every other word is completely legible, how many times out of a hundred would the word 'judges' alone be so badly written as to be misread as juwes, jewes, or juws?

This seems to me to be another flaw (as if another were needed) in Pierre's case. He makes great play of the fact that every other word was spelled correctly, and that therefore the misspelling of 'Jews' is in fact NOT a misspelling of 'Jews' but a mistranscription of 'Judges'. But the corollary of that is this: if every other word in the message was written clearly and legibly enough to be read ably and accurately by witnesses, why would the writer write 'judges' so badly that everybody who saw it thought it was a misspelling of 'Jews'?

If he could spell 'nothing' he should've been able to spell 'Jews'. Sure. But by the same token, if he could WRITE 'nothing' clearly enough that it could be read as 'nothing' and not 'frothing' (what a GSG that would have been!), then why couldn't he WRITE 'judges' clearly enough that a single person who saw it thought it said 'Judges'?

Pierre is hoist with his own petard, it seems.

[Albert]

I don't want to fan the flames of madness here but, using a 'curly?!' letter 'g' I've managed to make the French word for Judges -Juges, look like the word Juwes.. (a bit). I can almost see the rotten tomatoes heading my way!

I don't believe in the 'hidden message' theory at all. Just for the record.

Regards

Herlock

Hi Herlock
Did you use chalk on a brick wall or did you use pencil and paper?
This is vital to our understanding!
Cheers
Albert

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't want to fan the flames of madness here but, using a 'curly?!' letter 'g' I've managed to make the French word for Judges -Juges, look like the word Juwes.. (a bit). I can almost see the rotten tomatoes heading my way!

I don't believe in the 'hidden message' theory at all. Just for the record.

Regards

Herlock

[GUT]

My goodness you're right. And as a historian, Pierre has such a close relationship with the the sources that he is entitled to determine what the sources were really trying to say.

Two coppers both wrote 'Juwes' but messed up the order of a couple of other words? A third witness wrote the word as 'Juws'? Swanson's summary had it as 'Jewes'?

Clearly, the trained and honest historian cannot but deduce the word must have been 'judges'.

I lost track, by the way: was this revelation Pierre's fabled Christmas present? Or was that another phantom pregnancy?

Pretty sure the Chrissy present wasn't, judging by the results of the elusive last bit of data, i as a famed socio-scientific-historian (of the academic variety) have found.

[Henry Flower]

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.

My goodness you're right. And as a historian, Pierre has such a close relationship with the the sources that he is entitled to determine what the sources were really trying to say.

Two coppers both wrote 'Juwes' but messed up the order of a couple of other words? A third witness wrote the word as 'Juws'? Swanson's summary had it as 'Jewes'?

Clearly, the trained and honest historian cannot but deduce the word must have been 'judges'.

I lost track, by the way: was this revelation Pierre's fabled Christmas present? Or was that another phantom pregnancy?

[GUT]

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.

Well more sense than most if what Pierre posts anyway.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.