Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

I did try to give my explanation some explanatory power, Pierre, but I'm not sure there is any power on earth that will enable you to understand anything.

There, there. Go and have a rest now.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The simple human error is all yours.

Is it really beneath you to admit it?

Are you serious Simon? You posted a purported extract from PC Long's 6th November report back in June which misled the entire forum! In response to your post #836 in the "An experiment" thread", jerryd posted in #837 to comment that Long's "writing does not match his signature at all". A number of people including myself then attempted to interpret what Long had written. We had all been misled by you.

It's all here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9504&page=84

Instead of trying to claim that the human error is "all" mine, I would have thought you would be hanging your head in shame.

[Pierre]

Are you serious Simon? You posted a purported extract from PC Long's 6th November report back in June which misled the entire forum! In response to your post #836 in the "An experiment" thread", jerryd posted in #837 to comment that Long's "writing does not match his signature at all". A number of people including myself then attempted to interpret what Long had written. We had all been misled by you.

It's all here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9504&page=84

Instead of trying to claim that the human error is "all" mine, I would have thought you would be hanging your head in shame.

Why let someone mislead you when you can read the original inquest source in a book?

[David Orsam]

Why let someone mislead you when you can read the original inquest source in a book?

Oh Pierre you just go to show what an amateur you are. Why would anyone rely on a secondary source when the primary source is available?

I do happen to have a copy of the primary source - my own copy is attached - but it's only available to the public on microfilm which is of poor quality and hard to decipher in this form. I had thought Simon was posting a good quality version of the original (to which the authors of the Ultimate Sourcebook had access) but no-one, including Simon Wood himself seems to know what he posted.

[Pierre]

Oh Pierre you just go to show what an amateur you are. Why would anyone rely on a secondary source when the primary source is available?

I do happen to have a copy of the primary source - my own copy is attached - but it's only available to the public on microfilm which is of poor quality and hard to decipher in this form. I had thought Simon was posting a good quality version of the original (to which the authors of the Ultimate Sourcebook had access) but no-one, including Simon Wood himself seems to know what he posted.

No, you are not talking about primary sources and secondary sources here. You are talking about transcriptions and original sources and transcriptions of original sources. I have, as does anyone else who has the book, original sources in transcription.

You do not even know the difference between primary/secondary sources and originals/transcriptions.

I am surprised that you even bother to try to tell an historian your ideas. You have no historical education. You might as well stop embarrassing yourself.

Best wishes, Pierre

[John G]

Oh Pierre you just go to show what an amateur you are. Why would anyone rely on a secondary source when the primary source is available?

I do happen to have a copy of the primary source - my own copy is attached - but it's only available to the public on microfilm which is of poor quality and hard to decipher in this form. I had thought Simon was posting a good quality version of the original (to which the authors of the Ultimate Sourcebook had access) but no-one, including Simon Wood himself seems to know what he posted.

Thanks for this, David. From this source, the operative word certainly seems to be "Juews."

[David Orsam]

[B]No, you are not talking about primary sources and secondary sources here. You are talking about transcriptions and original sources and transcriptions of original sources. I have, as does anyone else who has the book, original sources in transcription.

You do not even know the difference between primary/secondary sources and originals/transcriptions.

I am surprised that you even bother to try to tell an historian your ideas. You have no historical education. You might as well stop embarrassing yourself.

Pierre, the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook is a secondary source. Consequently there is always the possibility of human error in the transcriptions. This was the point I made in my earlier post where I posted an extract - yes Pierre, an extract! - from what Simon told us was PC Long's original report of 6th November 1888 (i.e. the primary source).

Once you understand this Pierre then one day maybe even you can become an actual historian rather than a pretend one.

[John G]

No, you are not talking about primary sources and secondary sources here. You are talking about transcriptions and original sources and transcriptions of original sources. I have, as does anyone else who has the book, original sources in transcription.

You do not even know the difference between primary/secondary sources and originals/transcriptions.

I am surprised that you even bother to try to tell an historian your ideas. You have no historical education. You might as well stop embarrassing yourself.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

With respect, I find your repeated reference to yourself as an "historian" extremely frustrating. To be an historian you have to be regarded as an authority on the past. However, you have failed to provide any credentials in this respect despite repeated requests.

Once again I ask you to provide references to authoritative works that you have published, i.e. books, peer reviewed journal articles. If you cannot do this I will have no other alternative but to draw obvious inferences.

[Pierre]

Pierre, the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook is a secondary source. Consequently there is always the possibility of human error in the transcriptions. This was the point I made in my earlier post where I posted an extract - yes Pierre, an extract! - from what Simon told us was PC Long's original report of 6th November 1888 (i.e. the primary source).

Once you understand this Pierre then one day maybe even you can become an actual historian rather than a pretend one.

No, it contains both transcriptions of original sources and secondary sources as newspapers.

You do not understand this and yet you are willing to debate it in absurdum ad finitum.

And Long´s source is later than the inquest source. The inquest source is higher up in the source hierarchy.

[David Orsam]

Thanks for this, David. From this source, the operative word certainly seems to be "Juews."

I think that's right John although the quality of both the microfilm copies does involve a certain amount of guesswork.

[David Orsam]

No, it contains both transcriptions of original sources and secondary sources as newspapers.

You do not understand this and yet you are willing to debate it in absurdum ad finitum.

And Long´s source is later than the inquest source. The inquest source is higher up in the source hierarchy.

Pierre, you absolutely have not got a clue.

[Pierre]

I think that's right John although the quality of both the microfilm copies does involve a certain amount of guesswork.

Guesswork in Goulston Street and guesswork in the archives!

Low reliability.

And this was my last post for tonight.

[David Orsam]

Guesswork in Goulston Street and guesswork in the archives!

Low reliability.

Guesswork because it's a copy from a microfilm Pierre.

[GUT]

No, it contains both transcriptions of original sources and secondary sources as newspapers.

You do not understand this and yet you are willing to debate it in absurdum ad finitum.

And Long´s source is later than the inquest source. The inquest source is higher up in the source hierarchy.

So once again the great Historian displays an ignorance of primary and secondary sources.

A source hierarchy now, that should get a good laugh from real historians, oh no wasn't he a sociologist before that, hang on scientist came first I seem to recall, could explain his confusion over primary and secondary sources in an historical context.

[Abby Normal]

Not only are Pierre, Simon and Trevor completely ignorant about pretty much everything, they are actually arrogant in there ignorance.

But that's apparently a prerequisite for membership in the Rocket Science Club.

It's also pretty amazing that they al are masters at the evade the questions by asking more questions. Which only tends to drag this nonsense out.

It's like watching a car accident in slow motion.