How Are The Mighty Fallen

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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?

[Ally]

Ally Ally Ally

You really don’t get it do you?

Oh I get it much better than you do.

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

Wrong. You are the one making claims via Begg. Every single thing that you have directly stated by Begg has been refuted.

INFACT I have already supplied a whole string of posts which challenge your arguments.

Posts? Factual arguments? No. You can post from now until next year but until you actually post something of evidential importance, you are still just pissing in the wind.

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’

And this is where you are wrong. Of course you have to caveat it with "seriously" because then of course you can define what you believe is "serious" and ignore everyone who points out the flaw in your argument as being unserious.

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

NO I have demonstrated where Begg is wrong and all you have done is dance like the monkey you are.

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 have challenged it on this thread. So have others. The fact that YOU refuse to heed it, or credit it, doesnt' make that statement factually true.

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

Owness? seriously? You actually wrote that.


A head like a brick but twice as thick.

[Jeff Leahy]

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 have challenged it on this thread. So have others. The fact that YOU refuse to heed it, or credit it, doesnt' make that statement factually true.


OK we’ll ignore the rest of the flapping you’ve gotten yourself into and concentrate on this. One Step at a time.

You may feel that you have addressed this question but YOU HAVE NOT. Go back. Look at it carefully. Ask yourself why a leading authority on the subject would draw this conclusion?

Why would he say it in a public forum if he felt that there were a string of historians and authors who would cite examples where this was wrong?

Don’t shoot the messenger, we’ve established I’m not an expert. Deal with what I have cited.

Pirate

[Ally]

And you may feel you actually have a rational brain in your head, but you do not. Go BACK read carefully. We all have.

Nope sorry, I am not even going to bother pretending I am taking this clown's nonsense seriously any more. It's all goofery all the time.

The Lackey’s Lament

Heed the tale of the Patsy Jeff;
Born without intellectual heft
With a head made of wood
It was all to the good
As a fool, he proved quite deft.

But he wanted to be Someone.
For admiration, his to have won
Though he lacked the facility
Or even token ability,
To have his place in the Sun.

Then a light through darkness shone:
Without great renown on his own,
He could fetch and carry
For a famed luminary
Who would throw the poor dog a bone.

So he Begged, what a pitiable plight,
In the shadows of reflected light
Reduced to but a shill
For his master’s deep ill-will
The flag bearer of another's fight.

So heed well this cautionary trust,
Lest your honor likewise turn to dust,
When a poisoned pen comes writing
Asking you to do his slighting:
Remember the famed aren’t always just.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes yes your still having trouble with the basics arnt you?

Let us pose a question in a metaphor:

If Galileo says the earth is round. And Ally Ryder comes along and shouts very loudly “no it isn’t, it’s a triangle and made of cheese” IS GALILEO BEING CHALLENGED? Or is he simply dealing with someone who hasn’t thought the problem through properly?

Now apply that argument to Paul Begg’s comments and see where it takes you?

Good luck

Pirate

PS With regards to your music career. Dont give up the day job

[Supe]

It would seem that all the wrangling is over the following statement in Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper: Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster. [emphasis added]

An arguable statement, clearly, but if you parse the sentence carefully it is obvious that Martin Fido was not referring specifically to Andrerson but to evangelical Christians in general. Hence the use of the rather than this.
Not only does this vitiate the the blanket statement that Anderson, himself, would not be a "vainglorious liar or boaster," but opens the statement to questioning how applicable such an assertion is about a whole group. A point Martin Fido makes quite clear in the following sentences when he states that "Anderson's fellow evangelical philanthropist, Barnardo, was guilty of really silly lying backed by amateurish forgery to support his premature claim to the title of 'Dr.' "

Fido then suggests that while an evangelical, Barnardo was not "scrupulous." Thus, Fido picks and chooses among his evangelicals based on his own reading of character. He may or may not be correct in assessing Anderson and Barnardo, but it would appear that Paul Begg puts rather more credence in Fido's general statement about evangelical's than Martin himself.

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

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 have challenged it on this thread. So have others. The fact that YOU refuse to heed it, or credit it, doesnt' make that statement factually true.


OK we’ll ignore the rest of the flapping you’ve gotten yourself into and concentrate on this. One Step at a time.

You may feel that you have addressed this question but YOU HAVE NOT. Go back. Look at it carefully. Ask yourself why a leading authority on the subject would draw this conclusion?

Why would he say it in a public forum if he felt that there were a string of historians and authors who would cite examples where this was wrong?

Don’t shoot the messenger, we’ve established I’m not an expert. Deal with what I have cited.

Pirate

Can you please name the HISTORIANS who agree with Martin Fido on his assessment of Anderson"s character ?

[Ally]

Oh look at the monkey dance,
In his shiny monkey pants,

"My god he's stupid", she rants.

Galileo was about the Earth going around the sun, not being round, dumbass.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Martin's very public statements that it is absolutely beyond doubt that Kosminski/Cohen was the Ripper. No wiggle room left whatsoever in these statements made on broadcast television in 1888 as part of 'The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I miss Paul's mullet.

[Jeff Leahy]

It would seem that all the wrangling is over the following statement in Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper: Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster. [emphasis added]

An arguable statement, clearly, but if you parse the sentence carefully it is obvious that Martin Fido was not referring specifically to Andrerson but to evangelical Christians in general. Hence the use of the rather than this.
Not only does this vitiate the the blanket statement that Anderson, himself, would not be a "vainglorious liar or boaster," but opens the statement to questioning how applicable such an assertion is about a whole group. A point Martin Fido makes quite clear in the following sentences when he states that "Anderson's fellow evangelical philanthropist, Barnardo, was guilty of really silly lying backed by amateurish forgery to support his premature claim to the title of 'Dr.' "

Fido then suggests that while an evangelical, Barnardo was not "scrupulous." Thus, Fido picks and chooses among his evangelicals based on his own reading of character. He may or may not be correct in assessing Anderson and Barnardo, but it would appear that Paul Begg puts rather more credence in Fido's general statement about evangelical's than Martin himself.

Don.

Hi Don

Personally I have no idea but paul does indeed set great store by Martin Fido's analysis of Sir Robert Anderson. As Stewart Evan's pointed out a few posts ago he appears to have a reason for doing so?

Trusting you are well

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh look at the monkey dance,
In his shiny monkey pants,

"My god he's stupid", she rants.

Galileo was about the Earth going around the sun, not being round, dumbass.

Oh dear you've really lost it...come back to earth soon