How Are The Mighty Fallen

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.)

[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."

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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