Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"just trying to help!"

And thanks for that, Babybird. Problem is, Leander also tried to help. By now that has gotten him pointed out as a lousy expert and a complete nitwit.

I think he could have done without it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Ah, that was great BB.

More Booze?

Email him anyway. I would. The world will thank you for it! xx

[babybird67]

with respect fish

i dont think i've read any posts on here saying anything like that. But i dont want to get drawn in here, i just thought it might help if we said to Leander, we are not sure how you mean this phrase...does it mean "cannot be ruled out" or "probable match"?

i'd be happy as i said to contact him and ask him to confirm how he was using the phrase since it might mean something slightly different in translation but that's ok if you dont want that.

anyway, guys, remember nobody knows the truth...we can only make up our own minds on what we believe...and trenchant belief is what caused the Inquisition so be warned!!!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Which would amount to a drastic and suspicious alteration of his initial views"

No, it would not - like Sam, Mike and I have told you. Waky-waky, Ben!

"I like it, and I'll be with you til page 1000."

,,,where you will be just as wrong as you are now.

" In fact the only person willing to follow me around and engage with endless battles with me is you Fish"

You need to BE battled in that sense, Ben. The thread, the truth and Frank Leander deserve it. And it does not matter if Sam does not feel that he must tell you twentyfive times that you have got things wrong again - one time will do the trick - which it did.

"yet you'll keep following me anyway, despite having identified those tactics...?"

Well, Ben, if it had been some other misguided poster that had held the same untenable wiews as you do, I would have followed him/her instead. But there is not, on the whole of Casebook, any other poster who has such serious problems with the truth as you do. So in a fashion THAT is what I am following. The unavoidable fact that I will find your mouth at the end of the megaphone is subordinate to it all, but there you are...!

Fisherman

[Ben]

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 don´t you think Sam has great insight, good sense and deep knowledge?

If anyone says that "cannot be ruled out" can ever be considered a synonym for "probable", they are factually incorrect. I don't care if it's Stephen frickin' Hawking arguing that point. It is irrefutably false.

Then why is it that the three of us are conviced that you are wrong?

I neither know nor care. The fact of the matter is that you're totally wrong, so I don't know why I'm supposed to invest any significance in other people saying the opposite.

And why is it that we ccould provide example after example of it?

You couldn't. You can only provide examples of being people either sarcastic, or hideously missapropriating basic English phrases...or you misinterpreting the nature of the individual messages. Since Leander belongs in none of these categories, it is only reasonable to surmise that he used the expression in its correct context.

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, don´t you think that kind of opens up the possibility that the sixty MAY be wrong

This is a frighteningly illogical way to conduct debates - the fallacy that the perceived majority of opinion must be right. If 59 out of 60 people claimed that black was white, what would you have me do? Go with the 59-strong majority? No, so your observation is flawed. As it happens, I'm not in the minority of opinion, especially when it comes to the opinions worth listening to - those with expertise in the subject.

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.

It's a contemptible judgement, since the majority of experts endorse the reverse opinion, pretty much; that Toppy was not the witness. If anyone says the match is proven, they're liars and frauds. Simple as.

[Fisherman]

babybird again:

"i just thought it might help if we said to Leander, we are not sure how you mean this phrase...does it mean "cannot be ruled out" or "probable match"?

I would have thought, babybird, that reading his post two in order to find out would make eminent sense. I find it hard to believe that he would first say "Nah, not realy, but maybe just...", only to turn to "Yes, it seem like a good match" in the second. Correct me if I´m wrong. And mail him if you doubt me. I certainly won´t - he has been very clear already, and it has earned him no flattering thanks.

Fisherman

[Ben]

You need to BE battled in that sense, Ben.

But you told me last night that nodoby cares about my view, so their exposure to my comments has no adverse effects, according to you. Face the fact that you're obsessed with doing battle with me, and that obsession has more to do with your undeserved ego than anything else. I've got no problems with you following me around. I crave the attention and I'll be here to perdition's flames, obviously, but your reasons for doing so are hilariously illogical in light of your earlier comments.

Ben (Amazed at his power to keep Scandinavian ripperologists on their computers)

[babybird67]

hi fish

well, there seems to be a disagreement as to what he actually meant and where the emphasis is placed. That's all. It could be a matter of translation that's all.

Surely going straight to the horse's mouth and asking the person who said it what it meant when he said it would put an end at least to this part of this interminable discussion.

That's all...i was not implying doubt of anyone, merely that when there is a disagreement about what someone means, asking the person who said it would remove any doubt about meaning.

best wishes

[Roy Corduroy]

'It can hardly be ruled out' is a stronger usage that 'it cannot be ruled out.' But by starting his topic sentence with a negative phrase Frank is telegraphing his final sentence in advance. That this is an informal response, done as a favor.

This issue cannot be decided without looking at the originals. Here is an example from the real world. Two medical scientists are applying for a new research grant awarded with the stimulus money we are printing. Principal Researcher (PI) # A states in his proposal " I will analyse the samples using a miscoscope." PI # B states " I will analyse the samples using photoreproductions.

Guess who gets the grant?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If anyone says that "cannot be ruled out" can ever be considered a synonym for "probable", they are factually incorrect. I don't care if it's Stephen frickin' Hawking arguing that point. It is irrefutably false."

And when Sam, Mike and I tell you that in this context, that could very well be exactly what he meant, we are being irrefutably false, Ben? each and every one of us?


"The fact of the matter is that you're totally wrong, so I don't know why I'm supposed to invest any significance in other people saying the opposite"

For the same reason that you may want to take a peak in the corridor when a number of hotel guests knock on your door and tell you that the hotel is on fire: When a number of people concur on an issue, you are normally wise to lend them an ear. But you would go straight back to sleep, would you not?

"Since Leander belongs in none of these categories, it is only reasonable to surmise that he used the expression in its correct context."

But we have already tld you that Leander belongs to exactly the type of category where this kind of language is used, Ben! Could it be that you are ... well, sort of, you know... wrong?

"This is a frighteningly illogical way to conduct debates - the fallacy that the perceived majority of opinion must be right. If 59 out of 60 people claimed that black was white, what would you have me do?"

But you do not HAVE a 59 to 1 vote here! You have a very equal vote, it would seem. On the language issue, it´s pretty much you, Crystal, David and Roy against me, Mike and Sam. So far. And that would amount to a pretty even battle. So in fact, it is completely logical to tell you that you need to rethink.

"If anyone says the match is proven, they're liars and frauds. Simple as"

You need to rephrase that, Ben. If somebody says the match is proven, the are admittedly premature, I´ll give you that. But your stance that they would be liars and frauds is very much influenced by the terror you feel at the thought that you may be proven wrong. You should not take that so hard, Ben - such things happen, you know.
i, for one, would not have any much trouble with somebody saying that the match is proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Not that I say that myself, Ben, not yet - but I would have only minor objections to such a verdict.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"you told me last night that nodoby cares about my view"

You are overestimating your amplitude here, Ben. It is not YOU specifically that play a rol here - it is the value of your contributed assertions and wiews. Had they been held by the Shah of Persia, I would ALSO have said that they needeed to be battled.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Not to offend you or take away your mesmerizing qualities, Ben, but right now I have better things to do - So I´m off the boards for a while.
I´m sure, though, that I won´t be able to resist the call from Ben-land fortwith, and so I will in all probability bow at your altar soon again.

...that was irony, by the way. At least I think it was. It can hardly be ruled out, sort of!

Pssss. Toppy WAS the Dorset Street witness!

Fisherman
who knows

[Roy Corduroy]

Fish, please don't put me in one camp or the other. This issue is undecided until the originals are tested. Just like Davies did with the marginalia and at least could come up with "probably Swanson" and "most likely Swanson". Until an expert sees the originals all bets are off.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

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.

It depends on the context and who's saying it. When a scientist (or conscientious expert) says that something "can't be ruled out", he or she is making a statement about probability - it's not as "black and white" as the dictionary definition or the layman's use of the phrase.

[babybird67]

i still think

someone of neither particular camp could easily email Leander and ask him to clarify if his meaning and emphasis was more for "cannot be ruled out" or "can hardly be ruled out i.e., is likely"...

who better to ask what is meant than the person who said it?

Things can get changed in translation quite easily, imo.