How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Ally]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

No Leahy. Absolutely not. I am frankly sick of the pretense. I am not having a debate with Paul Begg through you.

Where are YOUR actual thoughts and opinions on the subject?

This is not about you "consulting" Paul. Consulting means you ask people what they think, assess their replies, assimilate them and form your own conclusions.

That is not what you are doing. You are parroting verbatim Paul's words.

Do not pretend YOU are having any sort of reasoned debate on the subject. You have yet to put forth one valid, logical, fact based assessment of your own.

Why people want to continue the pretense that you are anything more than an empty mouthpiece for Paul is beyond me. And I for one refuse to have an argument by Proxy because Paul wants to pretend he's above it all.

[Jeff Leahy]

No Leahy. Absolutely not. I am frankly sick of the pretense. I am not having a debate with Paul Begg through you.

Where are YOUR actual thoughts and opinions on the subject?

This is not about you "consulting" Paul. Consulting means you ask SEVERAL people what they think, assess their replies, assimilate them and form your own conclusions.

That is not what you are doing. You are parroting verbatim Paul's words.

Do not pretend YOU are having any sort of reasoned debate on the subject. You have yet to put forth one valid, logical, fact based assessment of your own.

Why people want to continue the pretense that you are anything more than an empty mouthpiece for Paul is beyond me. And I for one refuse to have an argument by Proxy because Paul wants to pretend he's above it all.

Don't be so melodramatic. You are either interest in a debate or you are not.

The truth simply is..

If i debate you. And you get facts incorrect, there is nothing wrong with checking those facts through another source.

If your to scared to debate me thats your problem.

If you stick to normal form you will storm off in a huff fairly soon anyway..

But seriously it snow past midnight

[Ally]

No I am not going anywhere but I am not having an argument by proxy either.

I have asked you twice now.

Do you have any actual thoughts of your own on the subject.

I think it is clear from your response that you do not.

And your every response with no thought of your own just proves it more and more.

Paul's a coward, and you are his beard.

You should both be proud.

[Jeff Leahy]

No I am not going anywhere but I am not having an argument by proxy either.

I have asked you twice now.

Do you have any actual thoughts of your own on the subject.

I think it is clear from your response that you do not.

And your every response with no thought of your own just proves it more and more.

Paul's a coward, and you are his beard.

You should both be proud.

Yardi yardi yarda

Have you actually some criticism of Martin Fido's assessment of Sir Robert Anderson or Not?

That really is the only problem that you need trouble your head with at present.

Clearly you are not debating Paul. If you make up any porkies, like Anderson calling a press conference. I will ask his opinion.

Stick to the facts, for once, and we should be fine.

Pirate

[Jenni Shelden]

Was Robert Anderson ever mighty?
Raaaaaa HE-man!

[Ally]

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.

Two lies in one statement. What did Paul not tuck you in yet.

Let me ask you this:

What FACTS has Martin ever held up to support his opinion that Anderson wouldn't lie.

I'll wait for you to ask Paul.

[Jeff Leahy]

Two lies in one statement. What did Paul not tuck you in yet.

Let me ask you this:

What FACTS has Martin ever held up to support his opinion that Anderson wouldn't lie.

I'll wait for you to ask Paul.

You were asked a straight forward question. Demonstrate where Martin Fido's reasoning was incorrect and where he drew the wrong conclusion.

Stop trying to shift the subject into some silly and irrelevant argument about who said what to whom.

The question is there, either respond with something that makes sense or shut up. I'll give you 24 hrs. Good Night.

Pirate

[Ally]

I am not bound to answer a straightforward question when you have consistently failed to do so. There has been absolutely no reasoning of MArtin's put forth on this thread whatsoever. There has been an opinion of his, with absolutely no reasoning behind that opinion whatsoever.

I have rebutted Martin's opinion. No where is there reasons given that support this opinion.

So I ask you again. What specific facts has Martin ever stated that support his opinion that Anderson wouldn't lie? Again, I'll wait for you to go ask Paul.

You are asking me to rebut his reasons. Until you actually show he HAS reasons, it is impossible to do.

[Jeff Leahy]

I am not bound to answer a straightforward question when you have consistently failed to do so. There has been absolutely no reasoning of MArtin's put forth on this thread whatsoever. There has been an opinion of his, with absolutely no reasoning behind that opinion whatsoever.

I have rebutted Martin's opinion. No where is there reasons given that support this opinion.

So I ask you again. What specific facts has Martin ever stated that support his opinion that Anderson wouldn't lie? Again, I'll wait for you to go ask Paul.

You are asking me to rebut his reasons. Until you actually show he HAS reasons, it is impossible to do.

The answer is in the question. That is the way forward.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Facts

...
If i debate you. And you get facts incorrect, there is nothing wrong with checking those facts through another source.
...

True, but be careful which facts you get checked out. For example where Annie Chapman lodged.

The Facts, page 80 - "Given that she [Chapman] was drunk when she left the lodging house at 35 Hanbury Street..."