How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes. And you can do that for social phenomena and general attitudes, mores and precepts as a whole, but none of that makes anyone, not even Martin, more qualified to tell you what a single individual would or would not have done in a given instance.

There is absolutely NO ONE not even trained psychologists who can tell you with any degree of certainty what a person absolutely would not do, and quite frankly, historians, who live in the rarefied world of academia are generally far less insightful into individuals than Paul would have us believe.

At last a little glimmer of substance in the reams of hot air.

And I think if I get Paul correct he is actually agreeing with you to some extent. However what he is also saying is that Historians have to consider sources and make balance on what the historical record informs and tells us.

Their opinion is not based on their experience of the individual but their experience of what the sources tell them. There is a big difference between the two.

Martin has studied Anderson's theological writing and to challenge his views on them any critic must go there and challenge the individual points he makes.

It is no good resorting to generalization if you wish to contradict Martin Fido.

It is now late hear. I will continue tomorrow. But I only intend to stick to the subject. Anything personal is on my ignore button.

Sweet dreams

[Ally]

And once again, Leahy has no reasoned argument of his own and goes to Begg to tell him what to think.

And there is further proof of Leahy's intellectual dishonesty.

“being an expert in Victorian literature doesn’t give Martin ‘a window into the soul of a man’, but Martin’s assessment had nothing much to do with him being an expert on Victorian literature.

Except of course that I was replying to LEAHY's DIRECT STATEMENT that said

Originally Posted by Pirate Jack View Post
If anyone wishes to make the criticism that Martin Fido is incorrect then I think they should do us all the favour of demonstrating why this is so and where Martin Fido, an expert in Victorian literature, has gone wrong.

See this is the problem with Begg and Leahy's little shell game. Leahy wants to pretend he is the one having the discussion, but when it actually comes down to providing ANY SORT of rebuttal, he has not a single thought of his own, not even to replies to his OWN direct words or questions.

It was based on his understanding of Anderson’s own theological and secular writings, the observations of other people, including those who did know him, and on Martin’s own understanding of late 19th century born again Milleniarist Christian thinking.

Ally’s argument, which boils down to saying that people are unpredictable creatures who can and do act out of character, is undeniably true,

Now see if Paul had actually stopped there, he might still have some credibility, but no of course not...

but it is also extremely naïve – we can’t know how and why people in the past behaved as they did; we weren’t there, we didn’t know them, but it is the job of the historian and particularly of the biographer to interpret diverse and disparate evidence to try and get as close as they can to understanding the past, to setting events in context and getting inside the head of the people who lived at the time to understand their thinking and actions.

Yes. And you can do that for social phenomena and general attitudes, mores and precepts as a whole, but none of that makes anyone, not even Martin, more qualified to tell you what a single individual would or would not have done in a given instance.

There is absolutely NO ONE not even trained psychologists who can tell you with any degree of certainty what a person absolutely would not do, and quite frankly, historians, who live in the rarefied world of academia are generally far less insightful into individuals than Paul would have us believe.

But Paul’s response is both prophetic and cuts at the heart of a very real debate being had between experts on this subject at present. No doubt she will scream and shout that there is some conspiracy and silly plot.

Huh, more insulting and personal invective from the man who claims he wants reasoned debate.

IT of course should be pointed out here that for all his claims to want reasoned debate, he has yet to offer a single factual or reasoned debate of his own. His rebuttals are all the words of others, and all he has to contribute is more insulting and bile, while claiming it's what he doesn't want.

This debate will ride but I only intend to argue the subject I’m rather sick of some of the silly personal mud slinging.

Yeah all evidence to the contrary. Let's test that.

Tell Paul that considering he checked into the boards as recently as today, if he has something to say regarding MY arguments, in the future, he should have the basic guts and courtesy to speak to me himself rather than using his sock puppet Jeff.

[Jeff Leahy]

Don’t be stupid Norma of course I spend considerable time with Paul as you well know.

So I asked Paul what he thought about Ally’s opinions. His response was somewhat prophetic. And against my better judgement I feel in the interest of casebook readers that that response should be given in full:

BEGG

“being an expert in Victorian literature doesn’t give Martin ‘a window into the soul of a man’, but Martin’s assessment had nothing much to do with him being an expert on Victorian literature.

It was based on his understanding of Anderson’s own theological and secular writings, the observations of other people, including those who did know him, and on Martin’s own understanding of late 19th century born again Milleniarist Christian thinking.

Ally’s argument, which boils down to saying that people are unpredictable creatures who can and do act out of character, is undeniably true, as I’m sure Martin would be the first to acknowledge, but it is also extremely naïve – we can’t know how and why people in the past behaved as they did; we weren’t there, we didn’t know them, but it is the job of the historian and particularly of the biographer to interpret diverse and disparate evidence to try and get as close as they can to understanding the past, to setting events in context and getting inside the head of the people who lived at the time to understand their thinking and actions.

But none of it can ever be certain, so to apply Ally’s argument would leave us with very little history and still less biography. If Ally wants to challenge Martin’s conclusion then she should challenge the arguments on which it is based, not offering ad hoc generalisations based on so-called ‘common sense’ or one’s own experience of life.”

Of course Ally will miss the point and start screaming and shouting about Pirate Jack being a puppet and a **** stirrer ‘yardi yarda’ But as far as I’m aware there are no rules on ‘casebook’ against seeking expert advice when some one has stated something that they believe is incorrect. And something I have never denied because where the Truth comes from doesn’t matter.

But Paul’s response is both prophetic and cuts at the heart of a very real debate being had between experts on this subject at present. No doubt she will scream and shout that there is some conspiracy and silly plot.

There is NOT. I asked Paul a straight question and got a straight reply.

There is however a serious debate to be had. If the self proclaimed Anti – Anderson camp are serious then they need to take heed of Paul’s words. Martin Fido’s reasoning requires serious consideration and debate. Not some silly mud slinging match and irrelevant protests about who said what, to whom and when.

So let me make this clear. I do talk to Paul. I talk with a number of leading Ripperologist’s in email and in PM. Including you Norma as you well know. However I have my own brain and reason for interest in this subject matter and I’m interested in serious debate because it’s a subject I care about.

This debate will ride but I only intend to argue the subject I’m rather sick of some of the silly personal mud slinging.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Moreover, even with the latest state of the art lie detector tests ,a seasoned master of duplicity [ deception ] and disinformation such as Robert Anderson ,may well have been able to fool the lie detector tests and the tests are the only remotely scientific proof we would ever have.
Martin Fido"s "well reasoned argument" about whether or not he would have lied in certain circumstances can never be more than opinion or " conjecture" and remains quite without the means to be corroborated by evidence.

[Ally]

Thank you Jeff. That reply proves my point better than I ever could. You are a joke and worse, you are intellectually dishonest.

[Jeff Leahy]

The facts are these. It was just pointed out that you made a factually untrue comment and accused the "anti-anderson" brigade of doing something they didn't do.
Where is YOUR apology that you have demanded of others when they post something untrue.

The facts are these: I posted a rebuttal and you ignored it in favor of calling me infantile names and posting you tube videos.

I am NOT, going to repeat myself for your convenience because you are too damn stupid and lazy to read something the first time, or find it when you need it.

We aren't here to perform to your direction Leahy. This isn't YOUR show.

Your every post proves more and more you are nothing but a joke, completely unable to maintain a rational and logical discussion.

Whenever you are cornered you duck and you dodge and you play the fool.

My post is there. GO back and read it. Respond to what I have ALREADY posted. Refute what I have ALREADY posted.

If you can't do that simple thing, you are nothing more than what you have accused me of being. A sht stirrer who has no real interest in this case except to cause trouble.

I at least made a rational argument. You have yet to do the same in response.

Yardy yardy yarda

Again, no surprise, your post contains no substance. Becasue you dont actually know what Fido based his reasoning about Anderson apon.

So you go round and round the mulberry bush with groundless accusations.

What does Pauls health have to do with Fido's reasoning. NOTHING.

What does it matter if i have a dalek sitting behind me telling me what to write. NOTHING.

The only thing that matters is discussion about the subject matter. Something that Ally Ryder has never contributed towards.

If she had anything to add about Martin Fido (dont hold your breath)

Then she would actually have to do some real thinking and reasoning about the subject, which she wont do because for Ally Ryder throwing about mindless abuse is simply the easy option.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Sure. Being an expert in Victorian Literature doesn't give one a special magical window into the soul of a man who lived during that time. It does not qualify one to make judgments on which situations a man would or would not tell lies. Martin's opinion that Anderson wouldn't tell lies to increase his own reputation is an opinion of no more weight than anyone else's. He has absolutely NO idea what situations Anderson would or would not have lied in, and he could have degrees in every single facet of Victorian life and it still would not make him more able to judge the character of a single, unique individual in that period than the average lay person. Anderson told lies. We know this. We cannot parse it out and say oh, he never would have lied in this situation...we don't know for the simple reason that none of us, Martin included, knew the man. And even if we had actually KNOWN the man, people have a way of surprising you with what they are willing to do to increase and protect their own precious reputations.

This is Ally"s concise and superb summary of the flaws in Martin Fido"s reasoning about the question of whether or not Robert Anderson could have lied about his claim to have known who the ripper was.

Apologies Ally .Our posts crossed.

[Ally]

The facts are these. It was just pointed out that you made a factually untrue comment and accused the "anti-anderson" brigade of doing something they didn't do.
Where is YOUR apology that you have demanded of others when they post something untrue.

The facts are these: I posted a rebuttal and you ignored it in favor of calling me infantile names and posting you tube videos.

I am NOT, going to repeat myself for your convenience because you are too damn stupid and lazy to read something the first time, or find it when you need it.

We aren't here to perform to your direction Leahy. This isn't YOUR show.

Your every post proves more and more you are nothing but a joke, completely unable to maintain a rational and logical discussion.

Whenever you are cornered you duck and you dodge and you play the fool.

My post is there. GO back and read it. Respond to what I have ALREADY posted. Refute what I have ALREADY posted.

If you can't do that simple thing, you are nothing more than what you have accused me of being. A sht stirrer who has no real interest in this case except to cause trouble.

I at least made a rational argument. You have yet to do the same in response.

[Jeff Leahy]

I already posted the argument against Martin's conclusions. Norma pointed out to you that I posted the reasoning against Martin's conclusions.

NO YOU HAVE NOT. Post them and stop trying to aviod the piont of this discussion.

Stick to the FCATS and the Subject

Why not prove that you can also deliver some substance instead of banality

[Ally]

Notice how when it is pointed out that Leahy is wrong, and has said something factually untrue he glides right on over that? He demands others apologize for the inaccurate statements, but he is completely incapable of doing the same.

I already posted the argument against Martin's conclusions. Norma pointed out to you that I posted the reasoning against Martin's conclusions.

Rather than behaving like a total jackass, why don't you try going back and READING what people have already written rather than using the boards as your own personal little stage to engage in your own egotistical drama. It's the post right before you called me the wicked witch of the west.

If you cannot be bothered to actually READ what the people on these boards are ACTUALLY saying because you are too wrapped up in your one-man show, what's the point of anyone even attempting to have a conversation with you?

Go back and read what I wrote Leahy. Prove you aren't just a dancing monkey.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;130901]

I have already done so. I refuted it.

Well obviously we all missed your breakdown of Martin Fido's flawed reasoning perhaps you'd like to re-enlighten us so the serious debate you are so keen on, can commence and we can all stop this childish personal mud slinging (which as usual serves no purpose but yours) and stick to the Facts about Sir Robert Anderson.

Ally's next post should be one we are all eagerly waiting fore

Pirate

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;130894]

No it doesnt but then it wasnt me that bought up paul being unwell in the first place it was the Anti Anderson camp who did so.

Wrong. It was you :

He does post on JtRforums. But has not done so for some time due to ill health.

also

Stewart I have no interest in antagonizing or upsetting you. You have something completely wrong.

I’m aware that like Paul you have also been unwell.

Blatant attempts to drum up sympathy for Paul and to quash any hard questions.

Why don't you simply take on board what Begg is saying?

Because unlike you, I have a functioning brain of my own and don't just accept it as gospel because it comes from the mouth of Paul.

If you wish to dispute Martin Fido you need to address his reasoning about Anderson and his conclusions and stop spewing out pointless and irrelevant mantra.

I have already done so. I refuted it. You replied with personal insults calling me the Wicked Witch of the West, rather than addressing the reasoning and the conclusion, proving you are more capable of personal invective than logical argument.

Stop trying to turn this into a circus about personality when there is a serious debate being had.

You have got to be kidding; with your idiotic youtube videos and clown performances, you actually have the gall to tell someone else that this is a serious debate? You were dropped on your head repeatedly as a child weren't you?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Jeff----that was your post!I recognised your style!
And the most perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen -Unbelievable! Punch took a first!

Get real Norma. Do you have anything to contradict Martin Fido's reasoning?

[Jeff Leahy]

Considering you were the first person who resorted to personal abuse, and you have lost, I'd say that's apt.

Was I? No I don't seem to remember that?

indeed I have been fairly careful in avioding any personal abuse aimed at anyone and been fairly consistant in trying to stear things to the debate in hand..

Did Anderson LIE? has he fallen?

Its you that dont have a clue or anything to add on that subject. Because Ally Ryders posts are purely about personal abuse. They contain no substance because she dosn't have a clue about what is being discussed.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Hey Jeff----that was your post!I recognised your style!
And the most perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen -Unbelievable! Punch took a first!