How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

For some unknown reason he always seems to prefer to cite Martin Fido's conclusions about Anderson's character rather than coming up with his own with supporting evidence. To this degree it has become a double act. We are asked to accept Fido's conclusions because he knows more than anyone else does about the subject matter.

Sorry, I can't accept that.

Yes it is interesting. I'm afraid I havent a clue why that is so. Perhaps he simply believes Martin is better informed and researched in the subject than he is?

[Jeff Leahy]

They are not typos, they are factual errors, and there are many more if you want to see some better ones.

They have nothing to do with Paul Begg's claim that no one has seriously challenged Martin Fido's reasonings and conclusions 'that Anderson would not lie for kudos'

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

You haven't read Anderson, and I sincerely doubt you've read Martin either. Because if you had, you would at the very least be able to support his conclusion with his reasoning.

Just like the wild stab in the dark there hoping no one will notice YOU haven't answered any of the questions put to you either? I told you already, I'll repeat it till it sinks into that thick brick head of yours: UNTIL YOU PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSIONS YOU QUOTE, YOU WILL GET NO FURTHER DEBATE FROM ME.

It is up to YOU to cite support for the conclusions you have drawn. Until then I will do nothing but point out exactly what a thick headed shill you are.

Exactly. You have provided pages and pages of BEGG's arguing and reason, NONE of your own and NONE of Martin's the point you are actually supposed to be arguing. I couldn't have summed up your shill status and lack of credibility any better. Thank you.

I have. Pretty much everything you post.
A perfect example.
Exactly right. So when do you plan to do it?

Ally Ally Ally

You really don’t get it do you?

At no point during this thread or any other come to that have I ever claimed that I am an authority or commentator on Sir Robert Anderson. What I have done, which is a perfectly legitimate is cite people who are authorities on the subject to point out flaws in your logic and conclusions.

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

INFACT I have already supplied a whole string of posts which challenge your arguments. It is NOT me however that you need to address. But the information that I have cited.

I have only made three claims on this thread all of which are FACTUALLY correct.

Firstly neither Martin Fido or Paul Begg, both recognized authorities, have claimed that Anderson ‘NEVER LIED’

(Are you holding in there Ally have you got that?)

Secondly I made a claim that Sir Robert Anderson ‘NEVER HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE’ Again this is simply fact, I know its correct because I double checked with an authority who confirmed it was so.

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’

This again appears fairly self-evident. But I supported that claim by citing BEGGS arguments in his 100th Anniversary article on Sir Robert Anderson. Extensively.

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

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 will repaste what Begg has said. Now our disagreement is very simple you either believe Begg is correct making that statement or that he is incorrect.

This has absolutely nothing to do with me I’m just citing Begg. Has the penny dropped yet??

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

Have you got that yet is it sinking in..Ally Ryder provide proof to support your claims that PB is wrong????

Good we’ll try again I have all week.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Stated

A pure and simple fact is that Paul Begg has stated of Anderson, categorically, "there is no evidence that he was a liar" when assessing whether we should believe his pronouncements about the Ripper.

For some unknown reason he always seems to prefer to cite Martin Fido's conclusions about Anderson's character rather than coming up with his own with supporting evidence. To this degree it has become a double act. We are asked to accept Fido's conclusions because he knows more than anyone else does about the subject matter.

Sorry, I can't accept that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Errors

...
Picking out another authors typo's and nitpicks is rather childish especially when there is a wider and serious question to be considered.
Pirate

They are not typos, they are factual errors, and there are many more if you want to see some better ones.

[Ally]

You haven't read Anderson, and I sincerely doubt you've read Martin either. Because if you had, you would at the very least be able to support his conclusion with his reasoning.

Another wild stab in the dark hoping that no one will notice that you still haven’t answered the question.

Just like the wild stab in the dark there hoping no one will notice YOU haven't answered any of the questions put to you either? I told you already, I'll repeat it till it sinks into that thick brick head of yours: UNTIL YOU PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSIONS YOU QUOTE, YOU WILL GET NO FURTHER DEBATE FROM ME.

It is up to YOU to cite support for the conclusions you have drawn. Until then I will do nothing but point out exactly what a thick headed shill you are.

The fact that over and over, when asked to provide his reasoning behind his conclusion, you have failed every single time to do so, proves you don't know what you are talking about, and are limited to the facts that Begg supplies you with.

Talk about turn it on its head. Are you going to supply anything that supports your claim? I have supplied pages of Beggs argument and reasoning, you have done nothing but puff hot air as usual.

Exactly. You have provided pages and pages of BEGG's arguing and reason, NONE of your own and NONE of Martin's the point you are actually supposed to be arguing. I couldn't have summed up your shill status and lack of credibility any better. Thank you.

Yardi Yardi, I’ve never heard such a load of tosh.

I have. Pretty much everything you post.

Yardi Yardi

A perfect example.

Anything to avoid doing what is required. Which is to go back to The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper. Read what Martin actually has to say instead of inventing stuff as it comes into your head.

Exactly right. So when do you plan to do it?

[Jeff Leahy]

Martin doesn't need your defense. Frankly, I doubt he'd welcome it since it is piss poor and riddled with inaccuracies. .

What inaccuracies exactly? Don not generalize

There is a very simple fact here that you seem unable to comprehend, due I suspect to your blind obstinate idolatry and basic thick-headedness.

Yardi yarda muck sling, some might stick, fingers crossed.

Martin's opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's. I have read Anderson's own words. I find him vainglorious. Martin has read them and thinks he's not.

No you haven’t you claim to have read TLSOMOL you have NOT studied Anderson theological writing. You have made no attempt to place Anderson in historical context. You have made no attempt to challenge Martins conclusions.

You haven't read Anderson, and I sincerely doubt you've read Martin either. Because if you had, you would at the very least be able to support his conclusion with his reasoning.

Another wild stab in the dark hoping that no one will notice that you still haven’t answered the question.

The fact that over and over, when asked to provide his reasoning behind his conclusion, you have failed every single time to do so, proves you don't know what you are talking about, and are limited to the facts that Begg supplies you with.

Talk about turn it on its head. Are you going to supply anything that supports your claim? I have supplied pages of Beggs argument and reasoning, you have done nothing but puff hot air as usual.

And that is base stupidity on your part. When Norma, Stewart and I point out that you are being led by someone who has no interest in the truth and turning yourself into a joke and a fool at his pleasure, you may rightly ignore us as being biased.

Yardi Yardi, I’ve never heard such a load of tosh. It’s like dealing with a kid in a playground. Ripperology is not about 'popularity' or 'me and my mates'. Of course a large number of commentators will disagree with Martin Fido, that’s because most of them have there own theories and suspects to champion. Put them in the same room and ask them to agree on their own theory and see how far they get? Admittedly you don’t do suspect Ripperolgy you appear to just enjoy mud slinging.

But there are other people on here who are pointing out the same lack of logic, inaccuracies and repeated foolishness being displayed by you and they have no dog in this hunt.

They all have a dog in the hunt somewhere. Its more naivety on your part.

Maybe rather than dragging Martin further through the mud under the pretext of "defending" him you should do some self-analysis.

I would open the offer back to you but it would only distract you for two or three seconds.

You are not the first tool Begg sought to use. You are not the first person he's emailed, trying to use his name and reputation to get you to champion his cause while he removes himself to a safe distance. He tried it with me ten years ago when I joined the boards. He has tried it with half a dozen people who have told me directly he tried the same thing with them.

You are just the only one stupid enough to be used in this manner. Begg remains safely above it, and you look like a blithering idiot. I hope the price of this one sided friendship is worth it. Your defense of Begg might be considered admirable by some, but where is Begg's defense of you? Seems very one-sided to me considering all this is at his behest.

Yardi Yardi

More avoidance more tosh. Anything to avoid doing what is required. Which is to go back to The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper. Read what Martin actually has to say instead of inventing stuff as it comes into your head. And actually challenge the reasoning behind his conclusion by challenging his sources.

I fear that we will all just get more of the same old blarney.

Ho hum

pirate

[Ally]

Martin doesn't need your defense. Frankly, I doubt he'd welcome it since it is piss poor and riddled with inaccuracies.

There is a very simple fact here that you seem unable to comprehend, due I suspect to your blind obstinate idolatry and basic thick-headedness.

Martin's opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's. I have read Anderson's own words. I find him vainglorious. Martin has read them and thinks he's not.

You haven't read Anderson, and I sincerely doubt you've read Martin either. Because if you had, you would at the very least be able to support his conclusion with his reasoning.

The fact that over and over, when asked to provide his reasoning behind his conclusion, you have failed every single time to do so, proves you don't know what you are talking about, and are limited to the facts that Begg supplies you with.

And that is base stupidity on your part. When Norma, Stewart and I point out that you are being led by someone who has no interest in the truth and turning yourself into a joke and a fool at his pleasure, you may rightly ignore us as being biased.

But there are other people on here who are pointing out the same lack of logic, inaccuracies and repeated foolishness being displayed by you and they have no dog in this hunt.

Maybe rather than dragging MArtin further through the mud under the pretext of "defending" him you should do some self-analysis.

You are not the first tool Begg sought to use. You are not the first person he's emailed, trying to use his name and reputation to get you to champion his cause while he removes himself to a safe distance. He tried it with me ten years ago when I joined the boards. He has tried it with half a dozen people who have told me directly he tried the same thing with them.

You are just the only one stupid enough to be used in this manner. Begg remains safely above it, and you look like a blithering idiot. I hope the price of this one sided friendship is worth it. Your defense of Begg might be considered admirable by some, but where is Begg's defense of you? Seems very one-sided to me considering all this is at his behest.

[Jeff Leahy]

And you have not cited any of the statements you claim support Martin's conclusion which would move us along a little.

This is supposedly YOUR argument and you are supposedly only using Martin's conclusions as YOUR support. You have yet to show a single conclusion of Martin's that holds water. You have said only that Martin said he was not vainglorious. YOU are failing to support it utterly.

I have shot down every single statement YOU have made. I am not arguing Martin. He is not here. I am arguing YOU. And you are failing, at every turn, to provide supporting evidence for the claims YOU are making.

If you have other supporting statements, provide them. But you have failed to do so on every occasion.

I am simply defending Martin against those who have misrepresented his thinking, by claiming he has said that Anderson would NEVER lie, which is not what he said, and asking that people actually challenge the evidence on which Martin’s actual conclusion was based?

It is not my argument, it is yours, and indeed the theme of this thread, that is suggesting Martin is in error. I'm simply asking you to substantiate that claim by demonstrating how FIDO urd with his sources and conclusions?

I have asked you to site historians and authors who believe Martin incorrect?

Thats where we are, not out in some cloud cockoo land of your opinion against Martin.

Pirate

[Ally]

And you have not cited any of the statements you claim support Martin's conclusion which would move us along a little.

This is supposedly YOUR argument and you are supposedly only using Martin's conclusions as YOUR support. You have yet to show a single conclusion of Martin's that holds water. You have said only that Martin said he was not vainglorious. YOU are failing to support it utterly.

I have shot down every single statement YOU have made. I am not arguing Martin. He is not here. I am arguing YOU. And you are failing, at every turn, to provide supporting evidence for the claims YOU are making.

If you have other supporting statements, provide them. But you have failed to do so on every occasion.

[Jeff Leahy]

Wrong.

This has nothing to do with historical sources or any of that twaddle whatsoever.

It is purely and simply down to one and one sole opinion only:

Was Anderson vainglorious?

That is all. I have provided a support for my conclusion that he was: he wrote an autobiography.

There has been NO supporting evidence for the conclusion that he was not vainglorious.

Neither you, nor Martin, nor Begg has provided a single factual statement about Anderson that supports the conclusion that he was not vainglorious.

All of your "supports" are what Begg thinks and what Martin thinks. Nothing about Anderson himself.

That is not reasoned argument, that is opining.

Martin outlines his argument in The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper. You simply disagree with his conclusion, but the only reason you have given is that nobody can say with absolute certainty what anyone would do in any given circumstance, which is true but as Paul said “naïve”, it is obvious.

It does not address the reasoning on which Martin’s conclusion was based.

Indeed you still havn’t sited historian’s and authors who disagree with Martin Fido’s work. Which would at least move us along a little.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

The Evidence---

This is absurd. Expecting us to respond to the absent Begg and the absent Fido.
Richard Evans, a famous historian who, as expert defence witness successfully defended another historian in a libel case brought by David Irving,wrote a book about the trial.It was entitled, "Telling Lies about Hitler, The Holocaust,history and the David Irving Trial" 2002 .
" Argument between historians is limited by what evidence allows them to say" he wrote in the above book.He gives a metaphorical comparison of historians acting like figurative painters sitting around a mountain, painting it in different light and angles.However they paint, they will all be painting the same mountain ."The possibilities of legitimate disagreement and variation are limited by the evidence in front of their eyes.[-Telling Lies about Hitler page 257].*
A few posts back I gave you examples of where Anderson lied in his autobiographical book , The Lighter Years of My Life about what he termed "The Poplar Case" first raised in fact by Stewart Evans . This comment alone revealed the extent of Anderson"s deception-self-deception and therefore public deception . The conclusions drawn by the" majority " of doctors [4:1] and the jury at the Inquest on Mylett was not that it was an accident but that it was murder.The evidence therefore is that he falsified historical evidence in publication by giving only his own, the coroner"s and Dr Bond"s opinion and leaving out entirely from his version of events , the views of the other four doctors as well as the determining decision of the jury by leaving a deliberate gap over what had actually happened at the Inquest and regarding the conclusions of the other doctors views and ,crucially, the verdict of the jury.
Nor was that the only "evidence" we have where he has been roundly contradicted over his pronouncements on the Ripper Case .We had his statement about "him knowing where the Ripper Lived" being roundly contradicted by the contemporary Police Chief, Henry Smith .'None of us knew where he lived," Smith stated most emphatically and this was in response to Robert Anderson"s assertion in 1910 .
Therefore, to state that Anderson would never lie about knowing who Jack The Ripper was is to "falsify history", based on the above " evidence" to the contrary.
* Evans argument assumes there is a consensus amongst historians about what "evidence" is.

... why would a man who was not vain glorious nor a boaster have ever considered for a single moment that anyone would have been interested enough in his official life to read a book about it?

Why would a humble and non-boasting man have written an autobiography, in which the vast majority of the anecdotes are set out to make him look honorable and modest, he even makes sure you get it by peppering it with "my innate modesty". Why would a non vain glorious man have thought for one moment, that anyone would have cared?

I'm sure it is only a matter of time before an autobiography by Martin Fido, with a forward by Paul Begg, hits the shelves.

[Ally]

Wrong.

This has nothing to do with historical sources or any of that twaddle whatsoever.

It is purely and simply down to one and one sole opinion only:

Was Anderson vainglorious?

That is all. I have provided a support for my conclusion that he was: he wrote an autobiography.

There has been NO supporting evidence for the conclusion that he was not vainglorious.

Neither you, nor Martin, nor Begg has provided a single factual statement about Anderson that supports the conclusion that he was not vainglorious.

All of your "supports" are what Begg thinks and what Martin thinks. Nothing about Anderson himself.

That is not reasoned argument, that is opining.

[Jeff Leahy]

God you are thick.

I have already challenged the basic premise.

Martin said Anderson was not vain glorious nor a boaster. Period. That's all he's said. He has said nothing else except: I read what he wrote and I don't think he is vainglorious. That is the SOLE total of his argument. There is NOTHING ELSE to challenge except MArtin's assertion that Anderson was not a vain glorious boaster. There is NO OTHER PREMISE. NO OTHER FOUNDATION. THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL.

I have refuted that assertion: people who are humble don't think enough of themselves to consider their humble little lives worthy of a biography.

Therefore Martin was wrong, and Anderson was vain glorious.

There has been NO supporting documentation of why precisely Martin believes Anderson was not vain glorious. It is purely and solely HIS OPINION.

My opinion is: humble people don't think enough of themselves to think people are going to want to read an entire book about themselves. Therefore, Anderson had a healthy ego and more than a touch of vain glory--sufficient to write a book about himself and pepper it with anecdotes designed to show off all the qualities he admired. To make himself look witty and wise and humble and stalwart. In other words, a vain glorious exercise in personal ego.

No you are saying your opinion is the same as Fido's. Paul is clearly challenging that and saying Fido's opinion is based on the study of various sources, in a historical context. To challenge Martin's assessment one needs to demonstrate where he was incorrect:

BEGG: 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.