How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Ally]

Does he give you a cookie and pat you on the head every time you perform to his standard?

Just thought i'd point out, there wasn't a question in any of that passage. Except of course for the rhetorical header.

[Jeff Leahy]

I understand Ally some people just cant take the heat.

A good run will do you good

[Jeff Leahy]

I have addressed Begg's question. If Begg has any further questions, he can come on here and ask them himself.

No start again!

CITE BEGG: Anderson is a complex character and no doubt subject to all the failings and foibles that beset all human beings. But after reading Andersons secular and theological writings, and with a knowledge of the morals and mores of the times, as well as an understanding of Anderson’s complicated religious beliefs and how they would have influenced his thinking and actions, the author Martin Fido completely rejected any idea that Anderson would lie in self-interest.”

“The likes of Gladstone and Lord Salisbury have been examined by successive historians in considerable detail and almost every nuance of meaning has been drained from thorough examination of published and unpublished material. It is therefore possible to say with some degree of probability what either man may or may not have said or done in a given situation. That is not the case with Sir Robert Anderson, who as far as Ripper revelations is concerned, has really only been assessed by Author Martin Fido, a professional Academic and specialist in the Victorian period who blessed with interest in and understanding of eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society. His assessment of Anderson was made during the research for a book about the Ripper for the centenary of the crimes and led him to conclude that Anderson was one of the more reliable, if not the most reliable, of police commentators.”

BEGG “He also rejected the until then widely accepted theory that Anderson’s suspect was John Pizer, convincingly suggested in the 1970’s by author Donald Rumblow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, and concluded that Anderson’s suspect was ‘kosminski’ referred to by Sir Melville MacNaughten in a memorandum written in 1894. Fido observed that bothmen provided corresponding detail- both appeared to refer to the suspect’s masterbation (it being a silly notion common in late Victorian period that masterbation led to madness), Anderson calling it ‘unnatural vices’ MacNaughten “solitary vices” and noted that both alluded to an identification, this Fido deducing in the case of MacNaughten from reference to Kosminski resembling a man seen by a city PC (a claim itself not without problems!) Fido concluded, ‘sinse neither Anderson nor Macnaughten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority”


“MARTIN FIDO WOULD ANDERSON HAVE LIED?

In the chapter ‘the man who knew to much’ in his book. The Crime, detection and death of Jack the Ripper (1987) Martin Fido devoted a couple of pages to an analysis of Anderson, who he described as an ‘evangelical fundermentalist’ and how his religious beliefs would have influenced his thinking and behaviour. He concluded that one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster..and (Anderson) would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force’s reputation.”

“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the assessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundamentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

BEGG “Whether or not we can trust what a source tells us is probably the first and most fundamental question a historian must ask, and in many cases, we cannot know with absolute certainty that it can be. We can, however, draw a conclusion based on the sort of considerations used by Martin Fido.

More seriously, it was pointed out by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates that “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” Fido had, however, already considered and responded to that important point, stating that Anderson ‘had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty nevr to lie to ones brothers : but denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear the truth they would only misuse” Fido went on to cite ab anecdote told by the writer Hargrave Adam about Andreson lying to a suspected murderer in the hope of extracting a confession. Anderson was guilty of making a hair splitting distinction about acceptable and unacceptable lies, and in Fido’s view Anderson’s opinion of acceptable lies did not include ‘publishing lies in books for a wide audience”

[Ally]

LOL...I amended my post as you wrote that to reflect the same.
I have already said about fifty times I don't plan to argue Begg via his illiterate and ignorant proxy. If Begg wants to have a discussion he can get in here and have it.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have addressed Begg's question.

Begg has a question? He showed up here and posted a question?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

I have addressed Begg's question. If Begg has any further questions, he can come on here and ask them himself.

[Jeff Leahy]

The precise reason I am not storming off in a huff dear boy is because of precisely that line of "logic".

In the past, when people get fed up with trying to explain something simple to someone as terminally stupid as you are, they finally give it up, you claim some sort of idiotic victory as if outlasting someone through sheer stupidity is an achievement.

So I thought I'd take a page from your book and keep on pointing out to you over and over again, what an absolute stupid bottom feeder you are.

I would start by recommending you read a fifth grade science book. Or a fifth grade history book. Both deal with Galileo.

It's easier to see the stars if you remove the plank from your own eye.

and you still havnt addressed Begg's question? Not that its important to someone like you, but we wouldn't wont the thread going off topic?

[Ally]

The precise reason I am not storming off in a huff dear boy is because of precisely that line of "logic".

In the past, when people get fed up with trying to explain something simple to someone as terminally stupid as you are, and they finally give it up, you claim some sort of idiotic victory as if outlasting someone through sheer stupidity is an achievement.

So I thought I'd take a page from your book, eschew reason altogether, and keep on pointing out to you over and over again, what an absolute stupid bottom feeder you are.

I would start by recommending you read a fifth grade science book. Or a fifth grade history book. Both deal with Galileo.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yeah the kind of ignorance that attempts to link Galileo as being challenged on the world being round.

No the kind of ignorance that reduces everything to personal abuse.

To be honest I'm rather surprised you haven't stormed off in a huff by now. Its what you usually do when you've run out of a defense and logic .

You must hold the world record for saying the most words without saying anything..

Pirate

[Ally]

You mean if ignorance doesnt work try blind ignorance?

Only Ally Ryder could have come up with that logic?

Pirate

Yeah the kind of ignorance that attempts to link Galileo as being challenged on the world being round.

[Ally]

God, what a boring discussion.

You think this argument is boring to read? You should try being in it.

[Jeff Leahy]

LOL...norma, we're trying to have a rational argument with a guy who can't even get a metaphor established properly. He can't even get the facts in his examples right. How could it be anything BUT tiresome?

This is why I advocate mocking. And limericks.

You mean if ignorance doesnt work try blind ignorance?

Only Ally Ryder could have come up with that logic?

Ally has clearly lost the argument and is resorting to 'white noise' much like her prose.

Pirate

[Stephen Thomas]

God, what a boring discussion.

The 'good book' is right.

All is vanity and vexation of spirit.

[Jeff Leahy]

How tiresome this is.Dont get your knickers in a twist.I thought you claimed he had impressed a number of historians with his assessment of Anderson?
So the actual answer is you know of none?
Thankyou.

What I know is irrelevant I'm just a humble student like yourself.

BEGG: “Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the assessment on which it was based.’

It is this statement that I am citing, And as yet no one has produced anything to contradict it? The ball is in your court.

Pirate

[Ally]

LOL...norma, we're trying to have a rational argument with a guy who can't even get a metaphor established properly. He can't even get the facts in his examples right. How could it be anything BUT tiresome?

This is why I advocate mocking. And limericks.