Blurred

[David Orsam]

Erm for the slow ones at the back what is the difference between a 'press report' and a 'newspaper article?'

Surely a press report IS a newspaper article (or vice versa)... sorry for being dumb here...

It's for Pierre to justify his ludicrous statement that there are "no press reports" but there certainly is a difference between a report and an article. To save me the bother of explaining it, and to remove any subjectivity on my part, I'm going to give you the "best answer" from Yahoo (to the question "What is the difference between a newspaper article and a newspaper report?")

It was written by L.E. Grant five years ago as follows:

"Generally, a report is simply a presentation of the facts, with little addition. It can include everything down to the smallest detail, but it is all fact based on observation at the scene, with no 'editorialising'. It has no additions to embellish the details or any moralising. It can be as simple as 'Joe Bloggs died with his boots on while on patrol in Afghanistan when a bomb exploded under his truck."

An article, on the other had, may contain research about the topic, and conclusions that are not directly a statement of the facts. Usually, an article tries to explain what happened and why, rather than the basic facts."

I think that pretty much sums it up reasonably well.

In the case of reports of court proceedings (especially in 1888 when they took these things seriously), you basically have no embellishment or opinion at all, they are usually direct reports of what was said, seen or heard by the reporter, hence it's inappropriate to call such a reports "articles" and I'm sure that no serious historian or media studies expert would do so.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

A rambling response at best, a post of unproven assumptions and misleading statements.

However for the sake of fairness let us look at each point raised:


“And in historical terms they are referred to as historical sources. “


They can be referred to generally has such of course, but they are the newspaper Reports of testimony at Inquests and are specifically termed Court/Inquest Reports



“No. They are not different from other newspaper ARTICLES. They can contain bias just like any other source. Do not use the word "report". It is not a matter of "objective" and "neutral" reporting. It is a matter of written articles. “

First of all Pierre, do not presume to tell me what I may or may not call a document. It is not your place or your right to do so.

They are Reports.

They are indeed different from general newspaper articles.
In general, articles contain ideas, discussion and conclusions.
Reports such as these contain details and fact with little if any additional information include.



“So you have arrived at the same conclusion as I. “


The conclusion I have reached is that there are no studies to suggest that Newspaper Court/Inquest Reports in the 1880’s were unreliable.



“There is DATA, Steve. In my pilot. How come you can not understand this? Do you understand the difference between data, analysis and interpretation? Do you understand what I have done?
But you see, the data is in the study. What you are asking for is other research, the same research that you just told me (after I did the same) was non existent.

If you want to discard everything I write here I will not be able to answer your posts anymore, since they will be biased by you wish to discard everything I write. If you want to discuss with me, at least you should be honest in your comments. “


Pierre, that there is nothing to suggest that these reports are unreliable apart from the many times mentioned Pilot Study.

The claim is that a pilot study has been presented to this forum, however all I see is another hypothesis, followed by the statement that a pilot study has been undertaken.

I can find no details of:

1. What is that data used for the study, and where is it?
2. What methodology was used?
3. What was the sample size?

Surely you are not referring to the lines in post 81, quoting 6 newspapers and selected wording. please tell me it is somewhere else.

Please point me towards the details of the study.

The fact remains until Its methodology and conclusion have not been tested by peer review, it is only an untested and unproven opinion.

That is not an attempt to belittle it, however that is how research, all research works.

I notice the post ignores that point- what a surprise.



Where am dishonest?

Unlike post 172 which said

“(that "courts reports are unreliable" = your hypothesis, not mine”


Which was and is untrue, as I demonstrated in post 177, something I see the post does not address, surprise, surprise!




“Not "reports" but newspaper articles.

They are used here as a symbolic capital by ripperologists and therefore not subjected to the proper source criticism.

Instead there is an illusion among ripperologists that there are certain sources that are "neutral" and "objective".

They are not per definition a class of neutral and objective sources - they are, like any other sources, subjects for source criticism.

IF you do not perform source criticism you can NOT trust the sources, and then you can NOT generate knowledge about the past. “


No they are Reports

The rest of the the above statement is full of the normal psuedo-scientific nonsense, yet another attempt to slur the very forum the post is in.


Pierre in post 172 it was said (note I have underlined certain parts of the following for emphasis.):

“What I have done here is a pilot, i.e. empirical source criticism. This pilot is what I draw the conclusions from. So I do not deduce from later research or, if there is any from the 1880s, I do not draw from it but from the pilot I have presented here.

Such sources could not back the statement that the newspaper articles about the GSG are biased. There is no such research. I have done this empirical pilot and it is the first ever made that I know of.

That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that the newspaper articles about the GSG are not reliable. They have a tendency. “


However when I repeated that below, there was a change of direction and it is now said that the conclusion is actually not based on the pilot study , but is an already known fact.

If that is so why was there a need for a pilot study.

Either the statement above is misleading or the one which follow is, Which is it?

Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study.

“It is not an "opinion" but a scientific fact well known in the world among historians and social scientists that sources have bias. That is just plain common knowledge and there is NOTHING radical about it. “




“What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism. “


All persons in the world are covered by the term anyone!
All using this forum are covered by the term anybody!
Do you consider yourself special and above all others?



“And another thing. 128 years of knowledge of English did not lead to finding the ripper.”

What has that to do with anything being discussed on this thread?

The post has said nothing apart from once again, attempting to tell others what they may say, what words they may use and what they must think.
Once again the post does not address the questions that have been asked many time, it does not even attempt to look at the view of others.
It is a very poor and completely inadequate response to post 177.

Steve

[GUT]

The great historian (he started as the great scientist I seem to recall) likes telling others how they must do things.

[GUT]

Why should anyone even consider, let alone accept, the a Great One's "Pilit Study" when he gives no information about it.


Oh that's right because he says we MUST.

Sheesh this is really getting ridiculous.

But why am I surprised given the Source of the Data.

[Robert St Devil]

Many posts ago, a list of several articles/reports were listed accounting for what term was used in reference to the handwriting. Most of the 12 Oct newspapees accounts of the Eddowes inquest, i found, were the same generic report... like an Associated Press report. No embellishment of details.

However, the 12 Oct Daily Telegraph reported the sequence of dialogue... moreso than the Times.

When Levy responds to a particular question, the reporter mentions that his response drew laughter. Two witnesses later, Halse states that it was a,, good schoolboy round hand,,.

Wouldn t the inclusion of (Laughter) suggest that the reporter was in the same room as the witnesses that day?

[GUT]

Many posts ago, a list of several articles/reports were listed accounting for what term was used in reference to the handwriting. Most of the 12 Oct newspapees accounts of the Eddowes inquest, i found, were the same generic report... like an Associated Press report. No embellishment of details.

However, the 12 Oct Daily Telegraph reported the sequence of dialogue... moreso than the Times.

When Levy responds to a particular question, the reporter mentions that his response drew laughter. Two witnesses later, Halse states that it was a,, good schoolboy round hand,,.

Wouldn t the inclusion of (Laughter) suggest that the reporter was in the same room as the witnesses that day?

Most likely, or else took the report from an agency that had been.

[Elamarna]

Many posts ago, a list of several articles/reports were listed accounting for what term was used in reference to the handwriting. Most of the 12 Oct newspapees accounts of the Eddowes inquest, i found, were the same generic report... like an Associated Press report. No embellishment of details.

However, the 12 Oct Daily Telegraph reported the sequence of dialogue... moreso than the Times.

When Levy responds to a particular question, the reporter mentions that his response drew laughter. Two witnesses later, Halse states that it was a,, good schoolboy round hand,,.

Wouldn t the inclusion of (Laughter) suggest that the reporter was in the same room as the witnesses that day?

Hi Robert,
not chatted to you in ages, hope you are ok?

of course it would, and it actually shows factual based reporting.
That however is not Pierre's point, his view is that the comments the reporters made were based on a preconceived idea they had about the Dear Boss letter.


steve

[Elamarna]

Why should anyone even consider, let alone accept, the a Great One's "Pilit Study" when he gives no information about it.


Oh that's right because he says we MUST.

Sheesh this is really getting ridiculous.

But why am I surprised given the Source of the Data.

Gut,

as a matter of interest, have you seen any other details of what could be called a pilot study other than post 81?

Steve

[GUT]

Gut,

as a matter of interest, have you seen any other details of what could be called a pilot study other than post 81?

Steve

Nope.

[wigngown]

I do hope the irony isn't lost on Pierre, David.

Best regards.

[Elamarna]

I see there is still be no reply to the point raised in post 177 with regards to to the accusation in post 172:


post 172.

(that "courts reports are unreliable" = your hypothesis, not mine,

[/B]

post 177

I just asked you to clarify the point:

"The articles are not reliable."

It is clear the hypothesis, that the articles (Court Report) on Halse's inquest testimony were unreliable was put forward in post 130, and not one which I suggested.

To say it is my hypothesis is intentionally misleading.

Neither has there been any response to the points raised in post 227, including:



1. "Pierre in post 172 it was said (note I have underlined certain parts of the following for emphasis.):

“What I have done here is a pilot, i.e. empirical source criticism. This pilot is what I draw the conclusions from. So I do not deduce from later research or, if there is any from the 1880s, I do not draw from it but from the pilot I have presented here.

Such sources could not back the statement that the newspaper articles about the GSG are biased. There is no such research. I have done this empirical pilot and it is the first ever made that I know of.

That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that the newspaper articles about the GSG are not reliable. They have a tendency. “


However when I repeated that below, there was a change of direction and it is now said that the conclusion is actually not based on the pilot study , but is an already known fact.

If that is so why was there a need for a pilot study.

Either the statement above is misleading or the one which follow is, Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna

"Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study."


“It is not an "opinion" but a scientific fact well known in the world among historians and social scientists that sources have bias. That is just plain common knowledge and there is NOTHING radical about it. “ "


2. “What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism. “


"All persons in the world are covered by the term anyone!
All using this forum are covered by the term anybody!
Do you consider yourself special and above all others?"



3. And a request for the details of the Pilot Study, the silence on this is truly deafening.




And of course there has been no reply at all to post #179, which is reposted below


"Pierre

We have still not had an explanation for the suggestion the the GSG was written by a left hand.

What data did you use to reach the hypothesis ?

If none was used, is not the use of the left hand just a guess?


Did you suggest the GSG was written by a person using their LEFT hand? yes or no?

Do you still hold that opinion? yes or no?

How did you come to this hypothesis?

Is it really that hard to answer and explain?"



To initiate a thread, to make posts on that thread and then to ignore questions, which there is obviously no wish to address is very poor.

I will say no more but allow others to draw whatever conclusion they will.

regards

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378990]I see there is still be no reply to the point raised in post 177 with regards to to the accusation in post 172:

post 172.

post 177

Neither has there been any response to the points raised in post 227, including:

1. "Pierre in post 172 it was said (note I have underlined certain parts of the following for emphasis.):

“What I have done here is a pilot, i.e. empirical source criticism. This pilot is what I draw the conclusions from. So I do not deduce from later research or, if there is any from the 1880s, I do not draw from it but from the pilot I have presented here.

Such sources could not back the statement that the newspaper articles about the GSG are biased. There is no such research. I have done this empirical pilot and it is the first ever made that I know of.

That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that the newspaper articles about the GSG are not reliable. They have a tendency. “

However when I repeated that below, there was a change of direction and it is now said that the conclusion is actually not based on the pilot study , but is an already known fact.

If that is so why was there a need for a pilot study.

No, Steve. You have got this wrong. Go back and read it again. Sorry, byt since you systematically misunderstand, I will not be your teacher and try to correct you. You will have to go back and read what I have actually written to you. The pilot is one separate thing.

Either the statement above is misleading or the one which follow is, Which is it?

Wrong again. You are very rude: I am not "misleading" anyone. Go back and read instead of systematically misinterpreting me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna

"Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study."

“It is not an "opinion" but a scientific fact well known in the world among historians and social scientists that sources have bias. That is just plain common knowledge and there is NOTHING radical about it. “ "

Quoting myself here. Yes, Steve. This is your problem, isnīt it? This is what you do not understand, isnīt it?

2. “What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism. “

"All persons in the world are covered by the term anyone!
All using this forum are covered by the term anybody!
Do you consider yourself special and above all others?"

What is wrong with you? Do you actually not understand the difference between an ex policeman interpreting historical sources and an historian doing it? How come you do not see the difference, but instead you are being rude and say "Do you consider yourself special and above all others"?

It is almost incredible. You do not know anything at all (obviously from your statements here) about how a simple academic historian works and still you think you can tell everyone about it!

3. And a request for the details of the Pilot Study, the silence on this is truly deafening.

Details? What do you mean by this exactly?

And of course there has been no reply at all to post #179, which is reposted below

"Pierre

We have still not had an explanation for the suggestion the the GSG was written by a left hand.

What data did you use to reach the hypothesis ?

Give me one reason why I should give you my data sources?

If none was used, is not the use of the left hand just a guess?

Just because you do not see it doesnīt mean it doesnīt exist.

Did you suggest the GSG was written by a person using their LEFT hand? yes or no?

Why do you need a yes or no on that? Havenīt you read everything I have said?

Do you still hold that opinion? yes or no?

Yes.

How did you come to this hypothesis?

Sources. Plain simple historical work.

Is it really that hard to answer and explain?"

No.

To initiate a thread, to make posts on that thread and then to ignore questions, which there is obviously no wish to address is very poor.

I never ignore questions that are meaningful. But your questions to me are twisted, i.e. they have very little to do with what I am writing here. You constantly try to alter my descriptions of the material and interpretations of them. First you must use my descriptions and not twist them, then you can criticize them. But you can not criticize what I have not written.

I will say no more but allow others to draw whatever conclusion they will.

Very heroic. But you do not understand, Steve. I have NO INTEREST in being anyone, or in arguing for something that I am not finished with. I have just my simple DUTY to history. Nothing else.

Or should I forget everything and let another 128 years pass???

regards

Steve

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I see there is still be no reply to the point raised in post 177 with regards to to the accusation in post 172:


Neither has there been any response to the points raised in post 227, including:

I see still no reply on any of the points!

1. "Pierre in post 172 it was said (note I have underlined certain parts of the following for emphasis.):

“What I have done here is a pilot, i.e. empirical source criticism. This pilot is what I draw the conclusions from. So I do not deduce from later research or, if there is any from the 1880s, I do not draw from it but from the pilot I have presented here.

Such sources could not back the statement that the newspaper articles about the GSG are biased. There is no such research. I have done this empirical pilot and it is the first ever made that I know of.

That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that the newspaper articles about the GSG are not reliable. They have a tendency. “



No, Steve. You have got this wrong. Go back and read it again. Sorry, byt since you systematically misunderstand, I will not be your teacher and try to correct you. You will have to go back and read what I have actually written to you. The pilot is one separate thing.

Pierre I am sure we have all read the comments from the post and we understand what they say.
What pilot, are you talking about? please show it?
The comment about not teaching just confirms that an answer to the points raised cannot be given!

Wrong again. You are very rude: I am not "misleading" anyone. Go back and read instead of systematically misinterpreting me.

How is that rude?
I gave my view that one of two statements posted were misleading, I note the reply does not discuss that point or attempt to counter it and prove the statement described as offensive wrong.

Quoting myself here. Yes, Steve. This is your problem, isnīt it? his is what you do not understand, isnīt it?

What does that mean? Those comments are nonsense and an obvious attempt not to answer.

2. “What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism. “




What is wrong with you? Do you actually not understand the difference between an ex policeman interpreting historical sources and an historian doing it? How come you do not see the difference, but instead you are being rude and saying "Do you consider yourself special and above all others"?

The reply has nothing to do with the comments made in post 177, which had nothing what so ever to do with a policeman ex or not interpreting anything. That is clear for all to see from that post. Or is the suggestion that "academic historians" are of a higher standing than others on this forum.
On this forum we are all equal, with the valid exception of Admin.

The question asked was in response to reply given in post 195, the above comments are obviously not serious or sensible reply to that comment and the question asked.

It is incredible. You do not know anything at all (obviously from your statements here) how a simple academic historian works and still you think you can tell everyone about it!

I am not telling anyone, anything, other than exposing the failings in posts 195, 172 and previous posts.
The comment in post 237 above is an obvious personal attack under the rules of this forum



[QUOTE=Pierre;379022]

Details? What do you mean by this exactly?

How tedious to have to repeat again from post 227, but if that is require it shall be done.


"The claim is that a pilot study has been presented to this forum, however all I see is another hypothesis, followed by the statement that a pilot study has been undertaken.

I can find no details of:

1. What is that data used for the study, and where is it?
2. What methodology was used?
3. What was the sample size?

Surely you are not referring to the lines in post 81, quoting 6 newspapers and selected wording. please tell me it is somewhere else."

Give me one reason why I should give you my data sources?

Because that is the norm when presenting research in the academic world!
References are always required!
How are others to form an opinion on the comments made if data is withheld, how can others judge the hypothesis if they do not know what it is based on.



[QUOTE=Pierre;379022]

Just because you do not see it doesnīt mean it doesnīt exist.

That is not the question which was asked.
However it appears such information has not been seen by anyone.
There is no proof such information exists!

Why do you need a yes or no on that? Havenīt you read everything I have said?

To clarify the situation. What is the problem with that?

Yes.

Thank you

Sources. Plain simple historical work.

Which there is still a refusal to discuss, how do others know these exist if they are kept secret.
I suggest that the reason this thread is saying left handed and refuses to give the source for such an hypothesis, is that such sources have nothing to do with evidence from the scene in Goulston street; but rather are sources linked to an unnamed suspect, this is a bias in many of the posts.

I never ignore questions that are meaningful. But your questions to me are twisted, i.e. they have very little to do with what I am writing here. You constantly try to alter my descriptions of the material and interpretations of them. First you must use my descriptions and not twist them, then you can criticize them. But you can not criticize what I have not written.

We can use any word we like when replying to a post so long as those words are clear and the meaning is understood.
There is no attempt to twist the posts, however the posts often give the impression of twisting the known evidence.

Very heroic. But you do not understand, Steve. I have NO INTEREST in being anyone, or in arguing for something that I am not finished with. I have just my simple DUTY to history. Nothing else.


Or should I forget everything and let another 128 years pass???

What can one say to that?

There has been a constant theme in the some of the posts on this thread to avoid answering questions, indeed this continues with this very post.
with no replies given to the first half of post 236

regards

Steve

[Observer]

Allez Oup Hoopla

[GUT]

Are Pierre's posts getting weirder?