Blood oozing

[John Wheat]

4. The idea of “blood evidence” is not a matter of seconds or
minutes, but a matter of semantics.

Kind regards, Pierre

The case against Lechmere is based on semantics and bullshit.

[Elamarna]

Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.

Abby
The issue is that not all people view it that way. Some do, but many don't which is why this is such a sticking point for some.

However I expect a large debate on such when I reach that point the project thread. I am sure all views will be forcefully put.


I am trying to keep out of this thread on the whole


Cheers for now


Steve

[Pierre]

Not just back, but pretending to be a great historian again, I thought he might revert to one of his earlier persona.

Hi GUT,

I explicitly ask you to stop attacking me personally. I find your comments rude and humiliating.

This is a thread about the case and not about me personally.

You have attacked me many times earlier in the same way, accusing me of "pretending". You have been using the pejorative "pretending to be a great historian" one time to many now.

I am a simple academic historian. I am not "pretending" and do not tolerate your accusation.

And do not call me a "persona". I am a person.

The next time you attack me personally I will contact admin.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.

That is my point if you have read it: The expression is ambigous and therefore not valid. So my point is crucial for the so called "blood evidence".

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

I explicitly ask you to stop attacking me personally. I find your comments rude and humiliating.

This is a thread about the case and not about me personally.

You have attacked me many times earlier in the same way, accusing me of "pretending". You have been using the pejorative "pretending to be a great historian" one time to many now.

I am a simple academic historian. I am not "pretending" and do not tolerate your accusation.

And do not call me a "persona". I am a person.

The next time you attack me personally I will contact admin.

Regards, Pierre

Can you provide any linkage to your qualifications?

By the way I remember well your attack on my wife who isn't even a member.

You also originally claimed to be a scientist and then a sociologist (or some such) as for being an historian I have also a number of times in the past caught you out not knowing the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, so I have good reason to doubt your criteria as an historian, as does everyone else here.

[DJA]

That is my point if you have read it: The expression is ambigous and therefore not valid. So my point is crucial for the so called "blood evidence".

Debaitable.Sic.

[tji]

That is my point if you have read it: The expression is ambigous and therefore not valid. So my point is crucial for the so called "blood evidence".

Just because you feel it is ambiguous doesn't make it invalid.

Tj

[Pierre]

Just because you feel it is ambiguous doesn't make it invalid.

Tj

It is not a "feeling". It is a variation in the use of the expression "blood oozing" in the material from the time. This variation shows us that the expression is used for post-oozing.

Therefore the sources used for the "blood evidence" have low validity for confirming the hypothesis. We can´t know how what use is active in the sources.

Pierre

[tji]

It is not a "feeling". It is a variation in the use of the expression "blood oozing" in the material from the time. This variation shows us that the expression is used for post-oozing.

Therefore the sources used for the "blood evidence" have low validity for confirming the hypothesis. We can´t know how what use is active in the sources.

Pierre

No it doesn't show that at all. You assume that.

Oozing is a word commonly used in the UK to suggest a slow, sluggish movement of 'fluid'

A body can still ooze blood hours after death, usually down to gravity, position of body and coagulation so Victorian Doctors may well likely have been witness to it, so you are incorrect with this assumption.


Tj


ps - the first article is dated 1973 so not really a Victorian doctor and yet they still are quite happy in using this method of observation - you have to ask yourself what that tells you.

[John G]

It is not a "feeling". It is a variation in the use of the expression "blood oozing" in the material from the time. This variation shows us that the expression is used for post-oozing.

Therefore the sources used for the "blood evidence" have low validity for confirming the hypothesis. We can´t know how what use is active in the sources.

Pierre

I strongly disagree with your "post oozing" conclusion, as the articles wouldn't make grammatical sense on that basis.

[Pierre]

I strongly disagree with your "post oozing" conclusion, as the articles wouldn't make grammatical sense on that basis.

I know that you disagree.

"Grammatical sense" is not an historical tool.

Pierre

[John G]

I know that you disagree.

"Grammatical sense" is not an historical tool.

Pierre

I have no idea what this means. Nonetheless, if it makes no grammatical sense then it's essentially meaningless.

[Pierre]

I have no idea what this means. Nonetheless, if it makes no grammatical sense then it's essentially meaningless.

That is a problem on this site. People here do not speak the same language, since they do not come from the same scientific discipline. They do not think using the same type of scientific models.

The consequences are many. I, for instance, can no teach you my discipline and you can not teach me yours. And when we approach the JtR-case we have very different understanding of it. So even if I try to explain what it means that grammatical sence is not an historical tool, there is a small chance you will understand it.

But I can tell you one thing: Many sources from the past do not make any sense at all. The reason for this is that the past and history are not the same. The past is gone, and history is our own interpretation of the sources left to us from the past.

The interpretations we make is the foundation for establishing facts, and these facts are history.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

That is a problem on this site. People here do not speak the same language, since they do not come from the same scientific discipline. They do not think using the same type of scientific models.

The consequences are many. I, for instance, can no teach you my discipline and you can not teach me yours. And when we approach the JtR-case we have very different understanding of it. So even if I try to explain what it means that grammatical sence is not an historical tool, there is a small chance you will understand it.

But I can tell you one thing: Many sources from the past do not make any sense at all. The reason for this is that the past and history are not the same. The past is gone, and history is our own interpretation of the sources left to us from the past.

The interpretations we make is the foundation for establishing facts, and these facts are history.

Regards, Pierre

Please. The only person who seems to have trouble interpreting word meaning is you, consistently. Youve made baseless statements as if they are empirical, youve challenged statements without any contradictory evidence other than your opinion....which you somehow believe supercedes evidence, and youve made a mockery out of almost every thread you either create, or interject upon.

Stop telling people they dont get it. YOU dont get it...obviously. The fact that you believe your opinion more important than the written word or factual evidence says everything about YOU, and little about those of us who wish you would find another sandbox.

[Pierre]

Please. The only person who seems to have trouble interpreting word meaning is you, consistently. Youve made baseless statements as if they are empirical, youve challenged statements without any contradictory evidence other than your opinion....which you somehow believe supercedes evidence, and youve made a mockery out of almost every thread you either create, or interject upon.

Stop telling people they dont get it. YOU dont get it...obviously. The fact that you believe your opinion more important than the written word or factual evidence says everything about YOU, and little about those of us who wish you would find another sandbox.

"Written Word". "Factual Evidence".

You sound like one of the old churchfathers in Constantinople.