How Are The Mighty Fallen

[JSchmidt]

Argumentum ad verecundiam, the long drawn out variant. While this might not be problematic in that the authority that is appealed to (in this case Mr. Fido (who I like as an author)) is certainly knowledgeable, it is problematic in that in the quoted parts his opinion is not substantiated by facts and arguments.
It is up to him to validate his claims. Just saying "I believe he is not a vainglorious boaster" without supplying the why in the form of "Because of this bit and that bit in conjunction with..." is not going very far.

[Ally]

God you are thick.

I have already challenged the basic premise.

Martin said Anderson was not vainglorious 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 vainglorious 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 vainglorious.

There has been NO supporting documentation of why precisely Martin believes Anderson was not vainglorious. 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 vainglorious exercise in personal ego.

[Jeff Leahy]

Okay fine. Here's a direct challenge to the assessment on which it is based.

The assessment that he wouldn't have lied is based on these words "Anderson was not vain glorious, or a boaster".

So do tell me, 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?

Thats probably why you need to go back to the sources and challenge Martins argument.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think thats Pirate"s role.His role here is not to discuss whether Anderson was capable of lying about Jack the Ripper. His role is to trash and wreck all criticism of Begg and Fido by trying to force a lopsided "debate " with an agenda set by Begg about a theory of Martin Fido - but with neither Begg nor Fido present to explain or expound the theory .Moreover with Pirate " daft lad "Jeff as the mouthpiece, they believe he will hurl enough abuse at Stewart Evans to keep their little game afloat -----while they continue to peddle piffle about Anderson"s porkies ! .

and the FACT that Norma is casebooks biggest ANTI ANDERSON Exponent doesn’t make anyone think she might be just a little bit bias?

And again another conspiracy theory, "their all in together trying to turn Anderson into a saint".

ITS NOT TRUE NORM

This all just amounts to tital tatal and aviods anyone seeing the obvious:

"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.”

AND THIS IS THE KEY BIT:

“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."

Thats what you need to address forget the fluff.

The claim being made is; "that no one has challenged Martins assessment by siting the source he used to make that assessment, to show where he got it wrong"

What could be more simple than that.

Pirate

[Ally]

Okay fine. Here's a direct challenge to the assessment on which it is based.

The assessment that he wouldn't have lied is based on these words "Anderson was not vain glorious, or a boaster".

So do tell me, 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?

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
A word of advice...a friend is someone who cares about you.

Go get your so called friend....cause at the moment he's evidently making the bullets and letting you fire 'em,and take the consequences.

Let him take his own.

I don't like the sound of him at all...fancy reading and contacting behind the scenes,and from a man who has the intelligence to get his work into print..it's like something infant school kids would do.

Anna I havnt a clue what you are talking about. I think you've been taken in by some of the mud slinging.

I'm making a very simple a clear point raised by Paul Begg, He has addressed this in private and in public. Namely that Martin Fido made an assessment by studying Anderson and his writing and to challenge that conclusion one must address to sources from which he made it.

Paul believes no one has done this, and I have seen or heard nothing currently that makes me think he is wrong.

Best Px

[Natalie Severn]

re Piffle and Porkie

This discussion is getting mighty shrill. How about all involved take a moment or ten to go away, cool down a bit and reread the discussion then to pick up the relevant parts? I get the impression that this is going nowhere.

I think thats Pirate"s role.His role here is not to discuss whether Anderson was capable of lying about Jack the Ripper. His role is to trash and wreck all criticism of Begg and Fido by trying to force a lopsided "debate " with an agenda set by Begg about a theory of Martin Fido - but with neither Begg nor Fido present to explain or expound the theory .Moreover with Pirate " daft lad "Jeff as the mouthpiece, they believe he will hurl enough abuse at Stewart Evans to keep their little game afloat -----while they continue to peddle piffle about Anderson"s porkies ! .

[Jeff Leahy]

...but could just be one out of convenience.

But could have lied for another reason.

Nothing here says he was entirely honest. It merely gives opinion about when he would not lie or boast.

Mike

I agree. The point being made is not the Martin Fido is correct.

Begg's point is specific "I have yet to see anyone challenge the assessment on which it was based"

Thanks for some sanity Mike.

[anna]

Jeff,
A word of advice...a friend is someone who cares about you.

Go get your so called friend....cause at the moment he's evidently making the bullets and letting you fire 'em,and take the consequences.

Let him take his own.

I don't like the sound of him at all...fancy reading and contacting behind the scenes,and from a man who has the intelligence to get his work into print..it's like something infant school kids would do.

[Jenni Shelden]

I don't understand why Anderson - or any of them - could not have lied. where is the proof. Did he have some kind of disorder like Jim Carey in that film?





Jenni

[Ally]

I have asked you to provide ONE single support that Martin builds his foundation on.

And you call that irrelevant?

I guess you really don't know how this debate thing is supposed to go.

[The Good Michael]

He concluded that one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster..

...but could just be one out of convenience.

and (Anderson) would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force’s reputation.”

But could have lied for another reason.

Nothing here says he was entirely honest. It merely gives opinion about when he would not lie or boast.

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Fine. Give me one interpretation of his.

(To the intelligent reader who realizes that Leahy has asked for an impossible, again, by asking to refute an opinion, I realize that, but he's an idiot, and sometimes you have to meet idiots on their home turf so I am pretending with him, that he's asked for something rational.)

IRRELEVANT

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh and as for other people who've studied the same sources as Martin and Begg as if they were the only ones who have access to the text:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.lighterside.html

Some people believe in going to the source directly, rather than waiting for someone else to do it and tell them what they should think.

Try it. You might find it a refreshing change.

If Martin Fido had made his conclusion simply by reading 'ALSOMOL' then you would have a point. But he did NOT he studied Andersons work and writing.

BEGG: 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."

[Ally]

To demonstrate where he went wrong you need to show how he miss interpreted those sources.

Pirate

Fine. Give me one interpretation of his.

(To the intelligent reader who realizes that Leahy has asked for an impossible, again, by asking to refute an opinion, I realize that, but he's an idiot, and sometimes you have to meet idiots on their home turf so I am pretending with him, that he's asked for something rational.)