I think I have found him.

[David Orsam]

The reasons I can´t reveal my theory before my work is finished are two: it might destroy evidence - and there is the ethical aspect of accusing innocent people.

So let me see if I've got this right. If you post on this forum the name of your suspect then some evidence, somewhere, gets destroyed?

Is this a magic trick you have mastered?

Or is there a person holding the evidence who has threatened that, if you post the name, that evidence goes on the fire?

[Pierre]

Excuse a bit Pierre, but the second point does not really make sense. If you are correct on your current theory, and you name guilty name (s), they are name(s) of dead people, not living ones. These people were active in 1888 or about that date. None would be still alive. So if you accused them, and were satisfied (in your own mind) about their guilt) but others argued against your final proofs, they are not really in a position to be personally insulted by your comments about them. That is unless you believe in an afterlife, and meeting these people when you have passed on as well.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

No, I do not believe in the supernatural.

But I believe that someone did something illegal and very dangerous in the days of Jack the Ripper and that this could be a problem for England.

Regards Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

Would it be fair for me to conclude that this 1888 person has now, in fact, vanished?

As the year 1888 would have, leaving it for historians to examen in the future. LOL

[David Orsam]

1888

Would it be fair for me to conclude that this 1888 person has now, in fact, vanished?

[Mayerling]

that's the quadrupède version of Occam razor. Love it.

Gee, I never thought of it that way. Nice point.

[Mayerling]

The reasons I can´t reveal my theory before my work is finished are two: it might destroy evidence - and there is the ethical aspect of accusing innocent people.

The first bit is the most important.

Regards Pierre

Excuse a bit Pierre, but the second point does not really make sense. If you are correct on your current theory, and you name guilty name (s), they are name(s) of dead people, not living ones. These people were active in 1888 or about that date. None would be still alive. So if you accused them, and were satisfied (in your own mind) about their guilt) but others argued against your final proofs, they are not really in a position to be personally insulted by your comments about them. That is unless you believe in an afterlife, and meeting these people when you have passed on as well.

Jeff

[curious4]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1885/72/pdfs/ukpga_18850072_en.pdf

Note date

Best wishes
C4

[EmaEm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artiza...llings_Company

Name remained until 1952.

Your're still not getting it. I didn't say there were not anomalies, but the majority of the uses of the word by 1888 used the letter s. This was mainly due to the Act of 1875, and if anyone wishes to use the word in the context of 1888, then the majority of the instances of it in common use, literature, plaques and most importantly legislation used the letter s. In fact, with some companies today, there has been a fashion in using the letter z again. Any decent editor in a publishing house would have the letter changed from a z to an s. I am only referring to London here and do not possess the knowledge about other countries in the 19th Century, though I would not be surprised if most of them were using z. I don't think you appreciate the importance of historical accuracy and context in written work. A visual image of a plaque is no doubt sufficient for a film, tv, or artwork, and of course would be completely correct if it was about that particular company. I don't think I can make the point any clearer to you. Just posting visual images of artisan with a z as if it proves that the majority of examples of this word used a z (which off course it doesn't) shows me that you don't really have a grasp of the required information.

[DJA]

No my dear. I neither used any authority or was trying to proove (sic) any superiority. Just facts: and your comment reeks of inferiority. It was posted as I worked damn hard for it! I therefore know what I am talking about regarding how artisan was spelt in Britain in the late 19th Century. Non Brits have a reasonable excuse for arguing the point, but not people who were educated in this country. Doubt being expressed over the word educated of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artizans,_Labourers_%26_General_Dwellings_Company

Name remained until 1952.

[GUT]

"Nother"
"WHIL"

You make it too easy to laugh at you. Next you'll be saying you were brought up in a cardboard box and had to lick Yorkshire pavement before going to school.

Which displays real ignorance, since it is plain where I am from, and it ain't England.

[Hercule Poirot]

No my dear. Posted as I worked damn hard for it! I therefore know what I am talking about regarding how artisan was spelt in Britain in the late 19th Century. Non Brits have a reasonable excuse for arguing the point, but not people who were educated in this country. Doubt being expressed over the word educated of course. Physics, for example, is not my subject. I neither post anywhere about it, read, or talk on the subject. I am happily content to leave it to others as I would with other subjects. If I had to find out about one of those subjects I will happily seek out those qualified to know what they are talking about.When I know exactly what I am talking about, people like you making silly facetious comments just make me laugh. What is pertinent regarding the subject is whether someone has the facts or not; nothing else. If you did have the facts and the background, you would have been posting them. Did you? Or are you just content to site on the sidelines jeering. You have made the answer to that quite plain.

As this site is currently riddled with trolls, fantasists, and people claiming knowledge that they don't have, you would do well to question them and your own konowledge, or lack of it. Try your bullying tactics on them: you're attempts won't work with me.

Never mind though; as long as you are secure in your mind that you have brought facts to the table on this case and widened the knowledge base instead of trying to be supercilious?

Think on.

Q.E.D.
Hercule Poirot

[EmaEm]

When someone uses the argument from authority (ad verecundiam) to proove his superiority, he only prooves he's got nothing else to say for himself.

I think one of these recent posters should have gone for a MA in adult behaviour instead of Victorian studies.

Hercule Poirot

No my dear. I neither used any authority or was trying to proove (sic) any superiority. Just facts: and your comment reeks of inferiority. It was posted as I worked damn hard for it! I therefore know what I am talking about regarding how artisan was spelt in Britain in the late 19th Century. Non Brits have a reasonable excuse for arguing the point, but not people who were educated in this country. Doubt being expressed over the word educated of course. Physics, for example, is not my subject. I neither post anywhere about it, read, or talk on the subject. I am happily content to leave it to others as I would with other subjects. If I had to find out about one of those subjects I will happily seek out those qualified to know what they are talking about.When I know exactly what I am talking about, people like you making silly facetious comments just make me laugh. What is pertinent regarding the subject is whether someone has the facts or not; nothing else. If you did have the facts and the background, you would have been posting them. Did you? Or are you just content to sit on the sidelines jeering. You have made the answer to that quite plain.

As this site is currently riddled with trolls, fantasists, and people claiming knowledge that they don't have, you would do well to question them and your own knowledge, or lack of it. Try your bullying tactics on them: your attempts won't work with me.

Never mind though; as long as you are secure in your mind that you have brought facts to the table on this case and widened the knowledge base instead of trying to be supercilious?

Think on.

[Hercule Poirot]

When someone uses the argument from authority (ad verecundiam) to proove his superiority, he only prooves he's got nothing else to say for himself.

I think one of these recent posters should have gone for a MA in adult behaviour instead of Victorian studies.

Hercule Poirot

[EmaEm]

But you feel ok to criticism other's typing.

As for degrees slightly more than you.

As for arthritis, in virtually every joint of my body, I just get upset when someone is prepared to attack Nother posterior perceived typographical errors or sentence structures WHIL making errors of their own.

"Nother"
"WHIL"

You make it too easy to laugh at you. Next you'll be saying you were brought up in a cardboard box and had to lick Yorkshire pavement before going to school.

[EmaEm]

Can't spell,has no eye deer about the Victorian word Artizan and poor use of quotes when trolling.

Fail!

Even starting to make Lucky Pierre look good .....by comparison.

Yes, indeed, you have failed big time. Hoist by your own petard - "eye deer". I could have added hundreds of links to the two I posted regarding 'Artisan' but they both proved my point. Still, tres amusant when fantasists like you shoot themselves in the foot. Btw, you don't get an MA in Victorian Studies without a lot of damn hard work. Try it sometime, you might learn something- but do you have the ability? No evidence from your posts at all.