How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Ally]

Of course it's going nowhere. It never goes anywhere with Leahy, he counts on wearing down his opponents through sheer pigheaded stupidity, counting on the fact that eventually, people get tired of beating their head against a brick wall and go off for more pleasurable pursuits. It usually works too. Even I get tired of blatant stupidity like he displays, usually. He counts on it. Then he crows he "won". It's amusing. Stick around it will happen soon. There's only so much stupidity I can tolerate before I start getting despondent over the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern era and go off to read something intelligent.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think you recognize the tactic since you employ it frequently.

The fact that you fail to comprehend is every single one of your arguments have been refuted.

But you are stupid, and worse you are unwilling to learn. You have a crusade, you are hell bent on defending Begg even when he's wrong, to the point that you are absolutely incapable of being reasoned with.

So there's no point. You are a joke and for the most part, should be treated as such.

When you refuse to respond to people's statements, and instead pick up on the one thing they said that you can scream and pound your fists about, when you ignore all the logic and the reason without even a token response and instead pick up on anything you can to say IRRELEVANT OFF TOPIC while pumping out irrelevant off-topic stupidity of your own, you have NO ground on which to stand.

By choosing you to be his mouthpiece and knife errant, Paul has done himself more harm than good. He probably should have plucked up the balls to defend himself since a persons pick for sidekick shows a lot about the calibre of the person.

This was a worse pick than Palin.

Yardi yardi yardi yardi

This is very simple. Martin Fido drew his conclusion by studying sources related to Anderson. To demonstrate where he went wrong you need to show how he miss interpreted those sources.

Your opinion of me is irrelevant it has nothing to do with point in hand. Palin? thats all gumph.

Pirate

[JSchmidt]

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.

[Ally]

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.

[Ally]

I think you recognize the tactic since you employ it frequently.

The fact that you fail to comprehend is every single one of your arguments have been refuted.

But you are stupid, and worse you are unwilling to learn. You have a crusade, you are hell bent on defending Begg even when he's wrong, to the point that you are absolutely incapable of being reasoned with.

So there's no point. You are a joke and for the most part, should be treated as such.

When you refuse to respond to people's statements, and instead pick up on the one thing they said that you can scream and pound your fists about, when you ignore all the logic and the reason without even a token response and instead pick up on anything you can to say IRRELEVANT OFF TOPIC while pumping out irrelevant off-topic stupidity of your own, you have NO ground on which to stand.

By choosing you to be his mouthpiece and knight errant, Paul has done himself more harm than good. He probably should have plucked up the balls to defend himself since a persons pick for sidekick shows a lot about the calibre of the person.

This was a worse pick than Palin.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;131014]

And this is the point that a fanboy like you can't possibly comprehend--in this debate, no one but you gives a fat rat's ass what Begg thinks. This isn't about Begg or his treasured opinion.

This is about the FACTS. And you and Begg have not provided.

The sad thing of it all is because of your clumsy bumbling and inability to hold a rational discussion and because of Begg's spleen, Martin is being dragged through the ringer through no doing of his own.


It has been pointed out time and time again that other historians and authors HAVE studied Anderson, have read the same texts, and disagree with Martin's conclusion.


And Begg dismisses them because they don't support him.

More examples of the sound scholarship and lack of bias we can expect from certain quarters of Ripperology.

Here we go screaming and shouting hurling abuse.

YOU REALLY ARE SO PREDICTABLE

if you throw enough flotsom and jetsom into the mix and enough mud perhaps something will stick and no one will notice I'm avoiding the question?

Perhaps you could site these other authors and quote their sources. Many thanks. Px

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;131010]

I think Paul's point fairly simple to gasp. simply that very little serious study has been done on Anderson's work.

And this is the point that a fanboy like you can't possibly comprehend--in this debate, no one but you gives a fat rat's ass what Begg thinks. This isn't about Begg or his treasured opinion.

This is about the FACTS. And you and Begg have not provided.

The sad thing of it all is because of your clumsy bumbling and inability to hold a rational discussion and because of Begg's spleen, Martin is being dragged through the ringer through no doing of his own.


It has been pointed out time and time again that other historians and authors HAVE studied Anderson, have read the same texts, and disagree with Martin's conclusion.


And Begg dismisses them because they don't support him.

More examples of the sound scholarship and lack of bias we can expect from certain quarters of Ripperology.

[Jeff Leahy]

I have already demonstrated what arrant nonsense this is, and I don't intend to repeat it. Why don't you toddle off and try to develop some thoughts of your own - you stupid boy.

IRRELEVANT

[Jeff Leahy]

I presume by this, Paul hasn't replied yet to your frantic emails begging him to tell you what to say?

Yardi yarda. The question. Stay on topic...

[Jeff Leahy]

Once again Jeff, and I realize you are about as thick as a brick and completely incapable of understanding simple ideas so I'll dumb it down to the level I think you might comprehend.

NONE of what you Copied there is in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM supporting reason or foundation or FACTS.

It is all OPINION. You are asking us to refute his analysis, but there is NO analysis. Analysis requires fact and reasons and supporting evidence. There is none of that.

There is only a conclusion:

Martin has read Anderson, and Anderson was a Christian therefore, Anderson wouldn't lie in his book.

That is refuted. It's not only crap logic, it's unreasoned, uneducated and flat out inaccurate.

You have NOT provided ANY factual basis for your conclusions. Martin has not provided any factual basis for his conclusion.

As for the "foundations", an opinion based on an interpretation is a foundation built on sand, and has clearly washed away with the tide.

I think Paul's point is fairly simple to grasp. simply that very little serious study has been done on Anderson's work.

BEGG “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.”

That is the key point here. If you wish to knock Martin Fido then you need to go back to the original sources his conclusion was based on and do yur own research before dismissing him out right.

Thats clear thats simple. I'm not screaming shouting or hurling abuse.

I'm just saying that Begg makes a very good point. Its very hard to attack someone unless you know how they reached their conclusion and to do so one must find the holes in their argument and demonstrate where they are wrong.

Something that no one has as yet done.

I'll leave you all to huff and puff.

Hopefully something will sink in eventually.

Pirate

[Ally]

'Yardi yardi yarda' no substance nothing to say stir the pot.

Address the topic. Anyone can shout loudly and pontificate.

Pirate

I presume by this, Paul hasn't replied yet to your frantic emails begging him to tell you what to say?

[Ally]

"Preaching water, drinking wine" seems an oddly appropriate quote at this time when it comes to Anderson. When actions contradict writing I'd go with the actions.

As would most reasoned and intelligent people. I would say people are more likely to try to make themselves look good on paper, than to try to live it in a daily way.

[Jeff Leahy]

I will show Mr. Begg the exact same respect he has always shown to me, which is to say, none at all.

And as for his illness, he is well enough to read the boards daily and he's well enough to feed his puppet his lines.

If Begg wanted this to end, the solution is simple:
He'd stop telling Jeff what to say.

The fact that a response to one of my posts was asked for and received by Begg in under a half hour last night proves that Begg is a willful participant in this.

So he has the power to stop it completely, just cut the strings.

'Yardi yardi yarda' no substance nothing to say stir the pot.

Address the topic. Anyone can shout loudly and pontificate.

Pirate

[Ally]

I simply refer you back to what Paul Begg has stated. None of you are addressing the core theme of this statement:

“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”

Until someone tackles Fido's source analysis 'The mighty havnt fallen because the foundations are still holding tight.

Pirate

Once again Jeff, and I realize you are about as thick as a brick and completely incapable of understanding simple ideas so I'll dumb it down to the level I think you might comprehend.

NONE of what you Copied there is in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM supporting reason or foundation or FACTS.

It is all OPINION. You are asking us to refute his analysis, but there is NO analysis. Analysis requires fact and reasons and supporting evidence. There is none of that.

There is only a conclusion:

Martin has read Anderson, and Anderson was a Christian and seemed humble, therefore, Anderson wouldn't lie in his book.

That is refuted. It's not only crap logic, it's unreasoned, uneducated and flat out inaccurate.

You have NOT provided ANY factual basis for your conclusions. Martin has not provided any factual basis for his conclusion.

As for the "foundations", an opinion based on an interpretation is a foundation built on sand, and has clearly washed away with the tide.

[Stewart P Evans]

Stupid Boy

I simply refer you back to what Paul Begg has stated. None of you are addressing the core theme of this statement:
“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”
Until someone tackles Fido's source analysis 'The mighty havnt fallen because the foundations are still holding tight.
Pirate

I have already demonstrated what arrant nonsense this is, and I don't intend to repeat it. Why don't you toddle off and try to develop some thoughts of your own - you stupid boy.