Tweet
Ben writes:
"I somehow suspected (knew) that the "whatever" approach wouldn't last long."
Should make you happy, Ben. It would not be much fun if you were the only one laying out the text on the threads, would it? Or? Come on, now, Ben; really...!
"with respect, Fisherman, if people keep disagreeing with you, is there really much point in re-stating the original argument?"
Nope - but when they do not even understand what I am saying, I am not opposed to such a strategy.
"Which would be a step in the right direction ..."
Which COULD be a step in the right direction. Or not.
"it should be observed that her comparion carried a quart can of ale into room #13, so it is likely that Kelly indulged further even after being observed in an intoxicated condition by Cox at 11:45pm."
...and it should equally be observed that people have been making all sorts of theories about what there was inside the can - most say beer, some say a knife and so on.
Beer is a credible guess, but still a guess. It is also a credible guess that the can was full - but still a guess. It is also a credible guess that Blotchy would treat Kelly to the credible beer - but still a guess. And when it comes to just how much of the credible beer he was willing to let Kelly have, it´s hard to say how credible ANY guess would be, wouldn´t you say?
So no, we cannot rule Hutch out on this account.
"t depends what you're attempting to convey. If your argument is basically that we shouldn't rule out all improbable scenarios because, eventually, one of those improbable scenarios will end up being the correct one, then perhaps you're right on statistical grounds. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't see the improbable scenario of Toppy mentioning Lord Randolph Churchill as an Astrakhan-comparison ending up as the correct explanation."
...which is why it is good that I did not stick with "whatever" - if we leave the thread to yourself only, Ben, there is no telling what would happen. No, wait a minute, I´ll rephrase that ...
"It really isn't a question of me "not taking kindly" to suggestions such as the one Jane posited. She raises a good point in that, perhaps the only thing the original Hutchinson and Toppy/Reg had in common was a propensity to economise with the truth."
Oh, I think we can bank on a whole lot of other commonalites, from collar size to occupation. I am not even opposed to the idea that they both spent the evening of November 9 1888 in the same fashion and in each other´s company. Why, they even write in the same fashion!
Fisherman
"I somehow suspected (knew) that the "whatever" approach wouldn't last long."
Should make you happy, Ben. It would not be much fun if you were the only one laying out the text on the threads, would it? Or? Come on, now, Ben; really...!
"with respect, Fisherman, if people keep disagreeing with you, is there really much point in re-stating the original argument?"
Nope - but when they do not even understand what I am saying, I am not opposed to such a strategy.
"Which would be a step in the right direction ..."
Which COULD be a step in the right direction. Or not.
"it should be observed that her comparion carried a quart can of ale into room #13, so it is likely that Kelly indulged further even after being observed in an intoxicated condition by Cox at 11:45pm."
...and it should equally be observed that people have been making all sorts of theories about what there was inside the can - most say beer, some say a knife and so on.
Beer is a credible guess, but still a guess. It is also a credible guess that the can was full - but still a guess. It is also a credible guess that Blotchy would treat Kelly to the credible beer - but still a guess. And when it comes to just how much of the credible beer he was willing to let Kelly have, it´s hard to say how credible ANY guess would be, wouldn´t you say?
So no, we cannot rule Hutch out on this account.
"t depends what you're attempting to convey. If your argument is basically that we shouldn't rule out all improbable scenarios because, eventually, one of those improbable scenarios will end up being the correct one, then perhaps you're right on statistical grounds. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't see the improbable scenario of Toppy mentioning Lord Randolph Churchill as an Astrakhan-comparison ending up as the correct explanation."
...which is why it is good that I did not stick with "whatever" - if we leave the thread to yourself only, Ben, there is no telling what would happen. No, wait a minute, I´ll rephrase that ...
"It really isn't a question of me "not taking kindly" to suggestions such as the one Jane posited. She raises a good point in that, perhaps the only thing the original Hutchinson and Toppy/Reg had in common was a propensity to economise with the truth."
Oh, I think we can bank on a whole lot of other commonalites, from collar size to occupation. I am not even opposed to the idea that they both spent the evening of November 9 1888 in the same fashion and in each other´s company. Why, they even write in the same fashion!
Fisherman
Comment