Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[halomanuk]

Or everyone can agree to disagree and we can move on ?

[Roy Corduroy]

Crystal you are right. 'Cannot be ruled out' does not mean probable. It means 'within the realm of possibillity.'

If you are playing red at roulette and I am playing black, we could say 'one of us will win.' As an afterthought we say 'but the zero can't be ruled out'.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy writes:

"'Cannot be ruled out' does not mean probable. It means 'within the realm of possibillity.'"

...until it is served in a context where we, just like Sam says, need knowledge and understanding to make the correct interpretation.

If I was to say that I am the greatest Ripperologist ever, a good deal of people would first laugh their heads off - and correctly so - and then some of them would return to the boards and write: "Yeah, right!"

And, as you know, Roy, that means : Yes, absolutely". So in fact, they would concur with me, would they not?

Or ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"we'll see who's there at the finish line, you who are obsessesd with scoring points against me..."

It seems Sam and Mike have caught the same obsession as I have, Ben. Sam, who has a better grasp of the language than I have (or has he now also joined the school of "tortured" English?), puts it very nicely and perfectly correct: "when used by responsible experts who are aware that they are dealing with probabilistic phenomena" the wording "can hardly be ruled out" may well mean that they recognize a very clear possibility.

Maybe it is time, Ben, that you realize this, and that you also realize that this means that Leanders second post - that you try to throw suspicion on in a very unflattering manner - was a very reasonable and completely logical bearing out of his first one. That would make a lot more sense than running for some thought-up finish line, foaming at the mouth, hellbent on showing that your stamina can break any logic in the world.
It canīt, you see. The running you may do - but it wonīt change the facts.

Fisherman

[Ben]

It seems Sam and Mike have caught the same obsession as I have, Ben.

Well, like I said - hypnotism.

Flattered by all the attention, but yes - hypnotism. It must be.

No, seriously, I wouldn't call them obsessed. They don't say my views aren't worth taking seriously and then demonstrate that my engaging in further lengthy "battles" with me.

Responsible experts will use "cannot be ruled out" in its correct context. It means not impossible, and that is a fact, as proven by Crystal. It does not mean "probable". Check out Roy's post for a good example of "cannot be ruled out" being used properly. Leander, being an expert, is a big favourite for belonging to the majority of people who use the phrase properly.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"seriously, I wouldn't call them obsessed. They don't say my views aren't worth taking seriously and then demonstrate that my engaging in further lengthy "battles" with me."

That only leaves you and me for the obsession side, then! But donīt you find it interesting that they tell you exactly the same thing as I do - that "can hardly be ruled out" corresponds quite well with a serious researchers vocabulary when he wants to say that something is probable?

When people of great insight, good sense and deep knowledge tell you that you may need to rethink a subject, does that never give you a pause? No?

And - if Sam and Mike should be correct here - donīt you realize that you may have been very premature in draging Leanders name in the filth? What are you going to do about that? Say that we are all wrong and that you MUST be right? That there cannot be a shred of doubt about that?

I think it would make perfect sense for you to say "Hey, thatīs interesting, and that shows me that even if I still am of the impression that I was right from the outset, I actually MAY BE WRONG! I may have misinterpreted it all, and that in itīs turn may have resulted in my going way over the top in my judgement of Frank Leander.

"Responsible experts will use "cannot be ruled out" in its correct context."

But we have just told you, Ben, that this is a misconception on your behalf - responsible experts will AVOID shouting "Yes sir, those two signatures match perfectly and it must be the same man that wrote them. They donīt, they instead use a more careful vocabulary and you cannot bring out a dictionary to understand this. That is square thinking - which is just what Sam, Mike and I point out. Not realizing this makes you look more than a bit childish; "I wonīt, I wonīt, I wonīt, I WONīT!"-sort-of-thing.

Iīm glad that Sam stepped in and made this very clear, since you obviously hold a lot of respect for his wiews. So do I, for perfectly obvious reasons. Maybe we can agree that it hardly can be ruled out that he is right, Ben?

Fisherman

[babybird67]

why doesn't someone...

independent of both camps, email Leander and ask him for clarification; is it that he doesn't speak English? I'd be happy to email him and ask him if anyone wants me to?

[Crystal]

BB! Good to see you!

But surely, my mud-slinging companion, you realise that your suggestion is far too sensible and logical for this thread? Come on, let's go to the pub instead.

Oh, just before we do, I sent Fisherman's original 'Leander Says' post to 2 Swedish friends, so that we end up with 2 separate, independent, translations as well as his.

Not that I have trust issues.

At all.

So - the pub! ...

[babybird67]

hiya Crystal

missed you!

Now, i know we used the mud-slinging last time for a good excuse for a roll in the wrestling ring in our bikinis, but to be honest, i think this has given the guys too good a reason to stop slinging it!

Maybe they think we wont be as attractive in the shower!

Pub sounds like a good idea to me lol...if i can just get this mud out of the crevices!!!

[Ben]

That only leaves you and me for the obsession side, then! But donīt you find it interesting that they tell you exactly the same thing as I do - that "can hardly be ruled out" corresponds quite well with a serious researchers vocabulary when he wants to say that something is probable?

It's factually incorect, so if anyone's saying that, they're wrong.

There is absolutely no way that "cannot be ruled out" can ever mean probable, because it simply doesn't, and that is a proven reality. If someone uses "cannot be ruled out" as a synonym for "probably", he is certainly not a serious researcer. He is someone with a limited grasp of the English language, and word meanings in general. At the very least, he's misappropiating an unambiguous phrase very drastically indeed.

When people of great insight, good sense and deep knowledge tell you that you may need to rethink a subject, does that never give you a pause?

Let me know when that happens, and I'll consider doing so. There have been people with all of those things encouraging you to alter your perspective, but that hasn't stopped you hammering away.

What are you going to do about that? Say that we are all wrong and that you MUST be right?

You've phrased that in a way that disonestly makes it looks as though that mine reflects the minority of people, which is clearly doesn't, as the preponderance of expert opinion is still inclined to dismiss Toppy as the witness. Or if you're referring to the "cannot be ruled out = probable", that is factually incorrect, so it doesn't matter in the slightest how many people argue otherwise.

Hey, thatīs interesting, and that shows me that even if I still am of the impression that I was right from the outset, I actually MAY BE WRONG!

So are you going to make any such concessions?

My judgement of Leander is very positive, so no need for revisions there either.

responsible experts will AVOID shouting "Yes sir, those two signatures match perfectly and it must be the same man that wrote them

Well, Leander will avoid shouting that, certainly, but that's because he clearly doesn't believe it to be true.

They donīt, they instead use a more careful vocabulary

Which, in your dreamed-up scenario, would mean a vocabulary that radically alters the meaning of unamiguous English words. Hardly "careful".

[Fisherman]

There is no need to e-mail him, Babybird. He was a lot more outspoken in a second post on the subject, where even Ben admits that he is quite positive to the suggestion that Toppy may have been the Dorset Street witness.
The problem is that Ben wanted to point Leander out as totally unreliable since he had only said that a match could hardly be ruled out in his first post. But by now other posters have stepped in and concurred with me - there is nothing in Leanders posts that point to any change of his mindset. Only Ben seems to hold this wiew, and Ben is Ben - the fact that other posters gather around him and tell him that he may have been wrong is something he donīt count for much.
The rest of us out he, I trust, are better eqipped to see that when poster after poster steps in and says that there is a better alternative to Bens suggestion, then this may be worth some afterthought.

So no - I donīt think we need to contact Frank Leander again. And if we do, and he ays "Yes, I meant from the outset that Toppy was a very viable candidate", Ben will only say "Then why did he not say so in post number one?" and he will keep on saying that an expert that changes his mind so radically cannot be trusted and therefore we should rule any judgement of Leanders saying that Toppy makes a good match out.
Those are his tactics, and nobody - interestingly not even Frank Leander - can change them.

All the best, Babybird!
Fisherman

[babybird67]

ok

just trying to help!

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Let me know when that happens, and I'll consider doing so

It happened fifteen minutes ago, Ben. Sam told you that Frank Leander may well have used the wording "can hardly be ruled out" to say that he believed it probable. Or donīt you think Sam has great insight, good sense and deep knowledge?

"There is absolutely no way that "cannot be ruled out" can ever mean probable"

Then why is it that the three of us are conviced that you are wrong? And why is it that we ccould provide example after example of it? Is that "hypnotism" too?

"You've phrased that in a way that disonestly makes it looks as though that mine reflects the minority of people, which is clearly doesn't"

That does not matter in the least, Ben. I of course do believe that you ARE in minority, but letīs theorize you are not. If sixty people say that a thing can only be interpreted as A, and forty people say that it should more correctly be interpretd as B, donīt you think that kind of opens up the possibility that the sixty MAY be wrong?
Itīs not as if only an obsessed myself tells you that you need to realize that you have left out a very clear possibility - there are a number of us that do so. When that happens, it is time to open your mind, Ben. And that time has come now.

"So are you going to make any such concessions?"

I already have. I have for the longest time admitted that there is a microscopical possibility that you are right. That is a very fair judgement, Ben, as there are other posters that bluntly say that the signatures are a proven match.

" in your dreamed-up scenario"

Sam and Mike share those dreams, oddly enough. You better give that some useful afterthought, Ben. It is not "my" scenario at all. It belongs to a number of people, and that is something you need to award appropriately. Thatīs what you do when you realize that the world is turning on you, Ben.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

you know what i have a mental image of...

two cavemen, loads of facial hair, one dressed in sabre tooth tiger fur, the other in mammoth fur, both with huge wooden clubs, hitting eachother over the head alternately, bash and bosh, bash and bosh!

[Ben]

He was a lot more outspoken in a second post on the subject, where even Ben admits that he is quite positive to the suggestion that Toppy may have been the Dorset Street witness.

Which would amount to a drastic and suspicious alteration of his initial views, so if we're to take Leander seriously - as I believe we should - we'd be well advised to address his first post #1255 where he offered his "spontaneous" reaction, which he acknowledged was not a full expert opinion. If we pay attention to that suspiciously "timely" second post, both observations are effectively cancelled out.

Keep going over old ground, Fish. I like it, and I'll be with you til page 1000.

Only Ben seems to hold this wiew, and Ben is Ben - the fact that other posters gather around him and tell him that he may have been wrong is something he donīt count for much

I do love this fantasy of yours that scores of people are queueing up to agree with you, while I'm some lonely voice on my own. I think if you open your eyes to the reality of the situation, you'll discover that to a hideously mistaken impression, unless you've deluded yourself into believing that the people who agree with many of views don't exist.

But no, on Planet Fisherman it's poster after poster chiming in to contradict me. In fact the only person willing to follow me around and engage with endless battles with me is you Fish, but then you take my views very seriously indeed, as you continue to demonstrate.

I donīt think we need to contact Frank Leander again. And if we do, and he ays "Yes, I meant from the outset that Toppy was a very viable candidate",

He never said anything of the sort. Next!

Those are his tactics, and nobody - interestingly not even Frank Leander - can change them.

And yet you'll keep following me anyway, despite having identified those tactics...? Okay, sounds fun. Not very logical, but yes, gird your loins and remain on that screen. I command you!