Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Cannot be ruled out" never ever means "probable."

Have you not noticed that it means exactly that in each and every example we have been posting lately? No, you have not. And it cannot be ruled out that you won´t see it in the future either.

There, is that "probable" enough for you?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Fine Fisherman. I never said it was an insurmountable difference."

Great. One more for the conscious side. Always welcome.

Thanks, Crystal!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

It doesn't matter. We don't know exactly what Leander meant. We know that it meant possible. Was it very possible or somewhat possible, a smidgeon possible, a modicum of possibility? We don't know. Arguing about such a little thing points to obession and agenda, and I ain't going there.

[Ben]

They don't militate against any such possibility, unless we were matching on capital "G"s alone, or that other "outlier", the terminating lower-case "n".

They do. Leander said so. He argued that the different "G" argued "against" the similarities.

Fortunately, we have other letters that match closely, because "eorgeutchinso" remains remarkably consistent

No, I don't think they are "remarkably consistent". Quite the opposite, and of course Iremonger who examined the original documents believed the differences outweighted the similarities. Leander also pointed out the differences with the "tch", that others have observed.

Given that we have 16 letters in "GeorgeHutchinson", and only the terminators differ to any appreciable extent, that's an 87.5% match over a period of 23 years.

I'm afraid none of that is remotely true, and conspicously at loggerheads with what any of the experts claim to have observed.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't think I'll read post two, since it's likely to increase my very grave suspicions that something fishy went on"

Throw me a vomiting-bag, somebody...?

"He just doesn't think that the obstacle is sufficient to rule out Toppy as impossible"

TWO more for the conscious side - wow! Now we are getting somewhere! That leaves only David and the "Benjamin Button G" - let´s hope he makes the leap too!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Yes, Mike, I know. And if I had the time, I could provide a million other examples. But it cant be ruled out that Ben will keep teling us that this is a VEEEERY uncommon practice, can it?

If you want to provide a million examples of people who use tortured and confusing English and/or heavy sarcasm, go right ahead, but that's only if you want to accuse of Leander of resorting to either of those things, which would be pretty ridiculous as accusations go. "Cannot be ruled out" does not mean "probable", to be repeated a trillion times if necessary.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm afraid none of that is remotely true.

I strongly object to an analysis into which I put some thought being written off as "not remotely true", especially when, at the same time, you brandish the opinions of "experts" without knowing what empirical weight those opinions might entail.

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"Cannot be ruled out" does not mean "probable", to be repeated a trillion times if necessary."

Thing is, Ben, it CAN do just that, as we keep pointing out. If you only have the three words "cannot be ruled out", it normally would mean that we have a decision that needs more bolstering before we know where we are going.

But in many a context - like the ones we keep posting - it means nothing BUT probable. And it is very instrumental to realize that Leander added the "knappast" - hardly - as he wrote. That means that it can hardly be ruled out that he was using the very construction that we keep pointing you to.

Of course, there is not a hope in hell that you will admit this - but, like I ordinarily say, that does not mean that it should not be pointed out. On the contrary, it makes it so much more vital.

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

"Cannot be ruled out" does not mean "probable".

It most certainly can, when used by responsible experts who are aware that they are dealing with probabilistic phenomena.

[Ben]

Thing is, ben, it CAN do just that, as we keep pointing out.

It can't.

"Cannot be ruled out" does not been "probable" if used properly, and without mangling English. That is a fact. THEY DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING.. So you can keep pointing out whatever you want. I'll just keep point out this obvious reality as often as it takes. It'll derail the topic and it'll probably result in more and more pages of acrimony, but if you want to engage in these petty fights, go right ahead, and we'll see who's there at the finish line, you who are obsessesd with scoring points against me, despite lying about not caring for my views. Leander was most emphatically NOT saying that he felt the match was "probable", or else he would not have used the phrase "cannot be ruled out".

For Leander to have used "cannot be ruled out" as a synonym for "probable", he would have to be seriously confused as to the correct application of certain phrases, or inappropriately sarcastic, but he was clearly doing neither of those things.

If you can't rule something out, you're saying it can't be called impossible. And "not impossible" does not = probable. It just doesn't.

[Crystal]

No? No dictionaries? Shame. That would put a stop to this, hey? Ah, maybe I should do it?

OK then. Hang on.

[Sam Flynn]

No? No dictionaries? Shame. That would put a stop to this, hey?

Dictionaries only provide definitions. Knowledge and experience bring understanding.

[Crystal]

But.... What does it all mean...?

The standard English dictionary definitions these inexplicably contested terms are:

Ruled Out: verb = 1. to dismiss from consideration; 2. to make impossible.

Cannot: the negative form of can.

In this context, 'cannot be ruled out' is a double negative. It means - 'it cannot be dismissed from consideration' or if you prefer, ' it is not impossible'.

The meaning of these interpretations is clearly, and beyond dispute - 'it is possible'.

Probable: adj. = likely to happen or be true.


There is a clear and obvious distinction between the two. They do not mean the same thing, and I have a dictionary to prove it.

And Flynn, that's utter nonsense - note that I make no comment regarding your intelligence, which I have the greatest of respect for.

[Sam Flynn]

There is a clear and obvious distinction between the two. They do not mean the same thing, and I have a dictionary to prove it.

Like I said, dictionaries only give definitions - but knowledge and experience bring understanding.

[Crystal]

Yes, fair enough, but that understanding is impossible without a definition in the first place. Definitions are dynamic, clearly - and so language is constantly evolving and devolving. However, Leander is speaking in current times, and those definitions are current. Thus they are applicable.

It seems to me that this debate has now become focussed on the meaning of these words/phrases. So I volunteer the definition, from which meaning is bound to be derived.