How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Natalie Severn]

CAN YOU PLEASE NAME THE HISTORIANS WHO DONT AGREE WITH MARTIN FIDO ON HIS ASSESSMENT OF CHARACTER>>>AND WHY?

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.

[Ally]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Martin's very public statements that it is absolutely beyond doubt that Kosminski/Cohen was the Ripper. No wiggle room left whatsoever in these statements made on broadcast television in 1888 as part of 'The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I miss Paul's mullet.

That may be because people are hesitant to berate Martin here over his every error, because they are well aware that he is being used as the cudgel by the Begg-Leahy dipshit duo.

I personally have no intention of taking him to task for everything he has ever gotten wrong, when he is merely the tool being used by a tool at the behest of another total tool.

[Jeff Leahy]

Can you please name the HISTORIANS who agree with Martin Fido on his assessment of Anderson"s character ?

CAN YOU PLEASE NAME THE HISTORIANS WHO DONT AGREE WITH MARTIN FIDO ON HIS ASSESSMENT OF CHARACTER>>>AND WHY?

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Martin's very public statements that it is absolutely beyond doubt that Kosminski/Cohen was the Ripper. No wiggle room left whatsoever in these statements made on broadcast television in 1888 as part of 'The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper'.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott
P.S. I miss Paul's mullet.

Blimey we are in total agreement again? people will talk

[Ally]

Hi Don,

While I agree with your assessment that Begg makes more of it than Martin himself does, I think it context that Martin was clearly applying it to Anderson. In addition, I may be wrong and someone can please correct me if I have gotten this incorrect, but I believe he elaborated on it in the podcast that he did and confirmed that because of Anderson's convictions, he would not have aggrandized himself in his writings.

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh look at the monkey dance,
In his shiny monkey pants,

"My god he's stupid", she rants.

Galileo was about the Earth going around the sun, not being round, dumbass.

Oh dear you've really lost it...come back to earth soon

[Jeff Leahy]

It would seem that all the wrangling is over the following statement in Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper: Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster. [emphasis added]

An arguable statement, clearly, but if you parse the sentence carefully it is obvious that Martin Fido was not referring specifically to Andrerson but to evangelical Christians in general. Hence the use of the rather than this.
Not only does this vitiate the the blanket statement that Anderson, himself, would not be a "vainglorious liar or boaster," but opens the statement to questioning how applicable such an assertion is about a whole group. A point Martin Fido makes quite clear in the following sentences when he states that "Anderson's fellow evangelical philanthropist, Barnardo, was guilty of really silly lying backed by amateurish forgery to support his premature claim to the title of 'Dr.' "

Fido then suggests that while an evangelical, Barnardo was not "scrupulous." Thus, Fido picks and chooses among his evangelicals based on his own reading of character. He may or may not be correct in assessing Anderson and Barnardo, but it would appear that Paul Begg puts rather more credence in Fido's general statement about evangelical's than Martin himself.

Don.

Hi Don

Personally I have no idea but paul does indeed set great store by Martin Fido's analysis of Sir Robert Anderson. As Stewart Evan's pointed out a few posts ago he appears to have a reason for doing so?

Trusting you are well

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Martin's very public statements that it is absolutely beyond doubt that Kosminski/Cohen was the Ripper. No wiggle room left whatsoever in these statements made on broadcast television in 1888 as part of 'The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I miss Paul's mullet.

[Ally]

Oh look at the monkey dance,
In his shiny monkey pants,

"My god he's stupid", she rants.

Galileo was about the Earth going around the sun, not being round, dumbass.

[Natalie Severn]

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.’

I have challenged it on this thread. So have others. The fact that YOU refuse to heed it, or credit it, doesnt' make that statement factually true.


OK we’ll ignore the rest of the flapping you’ve gotten yourself into and concentrate on this. One Step at a time.

You may feel that you have addressed this question but YOU HAVE NOT. Go back. Look at it carefully. Ask yourself why a leading authority on the subject would draw this conclusion?

Why would he say it in a public forum if he felt that there were a string of historians and authors who would cite examples where this was wrong?

Don’t shoot the messenger, we’ve established I’m not an expert. Deal with what I have cited.

Pirate

Can you please name the HISTORIANS who agree with Martin Fido on his assessment of Anderson"s character ?

[Supe]

It would seem that all the wrangling is over the following statement in Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper: Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster. [emphasis added]

An arguable statement, clearly, but if you parse the sentence carefully it is obvious that Martin Fido was not referring specifically to Andrerson but to evangelical Christians in general. Hence the use of the rather than this.
Not only does this vitiate the the blanket statement that Anderson, himself, would not be a "vainglorious liar or boaster," but opens the statement to questioning how applicable such an assertion is about a whole group. A point Martin Fido makes quite clear in the following sentences when he states that "Anderson's fellow evangelical philanthropist, Barnardo, was guilty of really silly lying backed by amateurish forgery to support his premature claim to the title of 'Dr.' "

Fido then suggests that while an evangelical, Barnardo was not "scrupulous." Thus, Fido picks and chooses among his evangelicals based on his own reading of character. He may or may not be correct in assessing Anderson and Barnardo, but it would appear that Paul Begg puts rather more credence in Fido's general statement about evangelical's than Martin himself.

Don.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes yes your still having trouble with the basics arnt you?

Let us pose a question in a metaphor:

If Galileo says the earth is round. And Ally Ryder comes along and shouts very loudly “no it isn’t, it’s a triangle and made of cheese” IS GALILEO BEING CHALLENGED? Or is he simply dealing with someone who hasn’t thought the problem through properly?

Now apply that argument to Paul Begg’s comments and see where it takes you?

Good luck

Pirate

PS With regards to your music career. Dont give up the day job

[Ally]

And you may feel you actually have a rational brain in your head, but you do not. Go BACK read carefully. We all have.

Nope sorry, I am not even going to bother pretending I am taking this clown's nonsense seriously any more. It's all goofery all the time.

The Lackey’s Lament

Heed the tale of the Patsy Jeff;
Born without intellectual heft
With a head made of wood
It was all to the good
As a fool, he proved quite deft.

But he wanted to be Someone.
For admiration, his to have won
Though he lacked the facility
Or even token ability,
To have his place in the Sun.

Then a light through darkness shone:
Without great renown on his own,
He could fetch and carry
For a famed luminary
Who would throw the poor dog a bone.

So he Begged, what a pitiable plight,
In the shadows of reflected light
Reduced to but a shill
For his master’s deep ill-will
The flag bearer of another's fight.

So heed well this cautionary trust,
Lest your honor likewise turn to dust,
When a poisoned pen comes writing
Asking you to do his slighting:
Remember the famed aren’t always just.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.’

I have challenged it on this thread. So have others. The fact that YOU refuse to heed it, or credit it, doesnt' make that statement factually true.


OK we’ll ignore the rest of the flapping you’ve gotten yourself into and concentrate on this. One Step at a time.

You may feel that you have addressed this question but YOU HAVE NOT. Go back. Look at it carefully. Ask yourself why a leading authority on the subject would draw this conclusion?

Why would he say it in a public forum if he felt that there were a string of historians and authors who would cite examples where this was wrong?

Don’t shoot the messenger, we’ve established I’m not an expert. Deal with what I have cited.

Pirate

[Ally]

Ally Ally Ally

You really don’t get it do you?

Oh I get it much better than you do.

It is not me that has to supply ANYTHING. BUT YOU!

Wrong. You are the one making claims via Begg. Every single thing that you have directly stated by Begg has been refuted.

INFACT I have already supplied a whole string of posts which challenge your arguments.

Posts? Factual arguments? No. You can post from now until next year but until you actually post something of evidential importance, you are still just pissing in the wind.

And Finally I made the claim that Martin Fido had never seriously been challenged about his reasoning and conclusion ‘That Anderson would not Lie for personal kudos’

And this is where you are wrong. Of course you have to caveat it with "seriously" because then of course you can define what you believe is "serious" and ignore everyone who points out the flaw in your argument as being unserious.

I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate why Begg is wrong and all you have come up with is silly personal abuse.

NO I have demonstrated where Begg is wrong and all you have done is dance like the monkey you are.

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.’

I have challenged it on this thread. So have others. The fact that YOU refuse to heed it, or credit it, doesnt' make that statement factually true.

If you think BEGG is wrong then the owness is on you to demonstrate why this is so?

Owness? seriously? You actually wrote that.


A head like a brick but twice as thick.