Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

"If he thought...?". Give me a break, David.

What type of break would you like Pierre?

I'm trying to explain to you why a person in 1888 might have spelt "Jews" as "Juwes". If you don't want to listen that it is up to you.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I shall double-check the provenance of the earlier version with the person who sent it to me.

But all's well that ends well.

Here is page 2 of PC Long's 6th November report.



Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

This is truly embarrassing. You are now so desperate as to to deduce from the concept of "evolution". Really, David!

What is truly embarrassing Pierre is your failure to read and understand anything.

I was not deducing anything from the concept of evolution. I was pointing out to you that the human brain functions in the same way in 1888 as in 2016.

You are the one who seems to think that evolution is so fast that 1888 might as well be 100 million years go.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I shall double-check the provenance of the earlier version with the person who sent it to me.

But all's well that ends well.

Here is page 2 of PC Long's 6th November report.

So the answer is that you don't know what the extract was that you previously posted on this forum, claiming it to be an extract from Long's report?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I received the earlier version in good faith from a trusted source.

Now, instead of continuing to be evasive, why don't you simply admit to being wrong about your interpretation of PC Long's 6th November spelling of Juews.

It would save all of us a lot of time.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;395135]

What is truly embarrassing Pierre is your failure to read and understand anything.

I was not deducing anything from the concept of evolution. I was pointing out to you that the human brain functions in the same way in 1888 as in 2016.

You try and hide your mistake now. You call your deduction "pointing out". But you did draw from "evolution" to support your own idea of misspelling. It is very sad. You are now actually trying to defend your mistake by making a new mistake.

You are the one who seems to think that evolution is so fast that 1888 might as well be 100 million years go.

Oh, dear me. "Seems to think" and "100 million years"?

Are you not feeling well today?

Perhaps you should take a break from discussing with me, it does seem (your own understanding) to bother you when you fail in our discussions repeatedly.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi David,

I received the earlier version in good faith from a trusted source.

Now, instead of continuing to be evasive, why don't you simply admit to being wrong about your interpretation of PC Long's 6th November spelling of Juews.

It would save all of us a lot of time.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

We already know that David is wrong.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

So the answer is that you don't know what the extract was that you previously posted on this forum, claiming it to be an extract from Long's report?

The correct word, David, is not "extract" but "excerpt".

Please try not to mix "common sense" language with the scientifically correct words. Thank you.

Pierre

[John G]

The correct word, David, is not "extract" but "excerpt".

Please try not to mix "common sense" language with the scientifically correct words. Thank you.

Pierre

They're synonyms.

[Pierre]

What type of break would you like Pierre?

I'm trying to explain to you why a person in 1888 might have spelt "Jews" as "Juwes". If you don't want to listen that it is up to you.

Your explanations are of no value. If you try to explain, your explanations must have explanatory power to have any value.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I received the earlier version in good faith from a trusted source.

Now, instead of continuing to be evasive, why don't you simply admit to being wrong about your interpretation of PC Long's 6th November spelling of Juews.

It would save all of us a lot of time.

My interpretation, Simon, was of the extract you posted in June claiming to be an extract from PC Long's report - an issue which remains unresolved - which I still believe says "Juwes".

But if the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook has indeed correctly transcribed from the correct version of Long's report as "Juews" then the answer to the original question is that there is likely to be simple human error involved here, either in Long's admission in court that the word could be "Juwes" or in the 6th November report.

Given the confusion that exists in 2016, as seen in this very thread (and in the "An experiment" thread), you do accept the possibility of human error don't you Simon?

[David Orsam]

You try and hide your mistake now. You call your deduction "pointing out". But you did draw from "evolution" to support your own idea of misspelling. It is very sad. You are now actually trying to defend your mistake by making a new mistake.

I didn't draw anything from evolution Pierre.

I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt in that English is not your first language but it is another example of how you don't seem to be able to understand anything written in plain English.

[David Orsam]

The correct word, David, is not "extract" but "excerpt".

You are completely wrong Pierre. Please don't try and teach me how to write English.

[David Orsam]

Your explanations are of no value. If you try to explain, your explanations must have explanatory power to have any value.

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

The simple human error is all yours.

Is it really beneath you to admit it?

Regards,

Simon