Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Doesn't bother me if you remember her or not.

Your "forgetfulness" in this regard serves as a testament to your habit of dismissing evidence that isn't convenient to your cause."

We donīt know how convenient or unconvenient it is, Ben, and that is my whole point. Earlier on the thread, Sam said that Iremonger had expressively stated that we had a total mismatch, whereas I seem to remember that it was said that she only said something like "On balance, I think ..."
Do you know what she REALLY said? And if you do, who has told you? Certainly not Iremonger.

So no, I am not ruling out any evidence that goes against me. But when it lacks every bit of substantiation, I question it.

"Nope, that'll be one expert who actually examined the original documents, another whose professionalism and experience is beyond any doubt and who has expressed her intention to dedicate her time and abilities to assess the original documents. You're free to cast any aspertions you wish in the direction of the third, providing you don't expect anyone to care."

Sorry, Ben, but once again, we do not know what Iremonger examined - we only know what YOU would have liked her to have examined and what YOU think is logical. So there goes that point. As for Crystals credentials, I know just as little about them as I do about Iremonger. And expert three - well, who knows?
Point is, your line-up MAY be top of the line. But if it is, you are awfully shy about it. If I had known it to be a lousy line, I would have pointed that out - but I donīt. I know nothing about itīs quality, and that would also go for the rest of the posters you are trying to sell your bid to.

"That's after radically changing his mind in a suspicous and implausible fashion, which you unwittingly acknowledge yourself in an earlier post in which you condeded that Leander said nothing about a match being "probable"."

Ooopla, Ben! Letīs first admit that what I said was that he never used the actual WORD probable. And in all fairness, I added that this was due to the fact that he never needed to, since he had already said that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match.

And we all know by now that Leanders complete turnaround went from saing, in the first post, that a match could not be ruled out (later explaining that this expression infact meant that we had a match on the positive end of the scale, the end where the probable matches end up), to saying in his last post that we have a match on the positive end of the scale (where the probable matches end up).

So there is that almighty turn-around again! He goes from stance A to ... no, wait a minute, he does not go at all ... he stays at the very same stance! Heureka!

Fisherman

[Ben]

I wrote a succinct post, Fisherman.

Therefore you need to write a succinct post back.

No need for all the verbosity and confusing bombast thar characterizes too many of your posts.

Earlier on the thread, Sam said that Iremonger had expressively stated that we had a total mismatch

No. Sam didn't say anything of the sort, and I'm not sure he'd take too kindly to your mangling his words. Nobody said there was a "total mismatch", least of all Sue Iremonger who knows better than to speak in such hobbyist terms. The salient point is that she examined the signatures and came to the conclusion that they didn't match. Her actual observations were reported by Jonathan Menges after contacting Paul Begg and Martin Fido. If you wish to doubt them, that's your perogative. It would be pretty outrageous if you did, though.

Sorry, Ben, but once again, we do not know what Iremonger examined - we only know what YOU would have liked her to have examined and what YOU think is logical.

It must be regarded as a practical certainty that she examined the original documents. That is what document examiners do wherever the originals are readily accessible, and in this case, they were. Besides which, she volunteered her services. So we need proof that she examined the originals as much as we need proof that the Pope is Catholic.

As for Crystal's credentials, she offered to divulge them to anyone who wished to contact her privately via PM. If you haven't done so, I'm afraid it isn't me who's the "shy" one.

I added that this was due to the fact that he never needed to, sincve he had already said that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match.

You didn't say that, Fisherman.

Here's what you said in post #1668:

"But not having been informed of whether he thought it probable or possible does not equal us being able to say that he thought it a bad match, though a possible one, just as it does not mean that we can say that he thought it a probable match."

Notice that I've underlined the word "thought".

In other words, you acknowledge that there's no evidence that he "thought" the match was probable. So what you're unwittingly acknowledging here is that Leander has changed his mind, since you appear to have had the gumption - back then at least - to realise that "cannot be ruled out" cannot mean the same thing as "probable", rather than resorting to the rather forlorm defence that "Oh, institutions sometimes completely misapprpopriate basic unambiguous words and sentences".

[Crystal]

Crystal's Credentials

Ben

I did say that, yes. And Fisherman, before he comes back at you with more of the same, did contact me via PM. Apart from some other comments, which I won't reiterate here, he said that if I doubted his integrity with regard to keeping it to himself, I needn't divulge my credentials to him.

Whilst categorically not saying that I hold that opinion, I don't feel comfortable doing so in the light of his constant and aggressive attacks on posters who happen to disagree with him, and I feel I may be putting myself at a personal disadvantage by sharing this information with him.

As you know, I am obliged to be circumspect due to my professional position. If I have not already done so, however, I would be quite happy to tell you all about my credentials.

I trust you. simple as.

Crystal

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No. Sam didn't say anything of the sort, and I'm not sure he'd take too kindly to your mangling his words. Nobody said there was a "total mismatch", least of all Sue Iremonger who knows better than to speak in such hobbyist terms."

Sam would not mind at all, since he also finds this all quite mysterious and very damaging to the credibility of Iremongers work, Ben. I think you know that.
Donīt you yourself find it slightly unnerving that you are hailing something you have never heard?

"It must be regarded as a practical certainty that she examined the original documents."

Itīs blah-blah-blah again, Ben. Extremely probable, practically certain et al will not seerve you - until you have the goods at hand. Whenever that will be.

"As for Crystal's credentials, she offered to divulge them to anyone who wished to contact her privately via PM. If you haven't done so, I'm afraid it isn't me who's the "shy" one."

I have an understanding with Crystal on the point, and you must ask her to find out how it looks, Ben. I will elaborate no further on the subject.

"You didn't say that, Fisherman.
Here's what you said in post #1668:
But not having been informed of whether he thought it probable or possible does not equal us being able to say that he thought it a bad match, though a possible one, just as it does not mean that we can say that he thought it a probable match."

Exactly so. When we are not informed of what he thought, we cannot know. But then again, he DID inform us later on, did he not? He told us that he would be surprised if it was not a match. After that, we can easily allow ourselves to realize that he thought the match probable - in fact, we would be stupid not to.

You are making a total mess of this, Ben. You have not made many a fair point since the thread begun, and I am growing increasingly tired of it. There is NO turn-around anywhere but in your brain. That, in itīs turn (pun!) goes round and round in the dizziest of manners.

Howīs that for succinct?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"I did say that, yes. And Fisherman, before he comes back at you with more of the same, did contact me via PM. Apart from some other comments, which I won't reiterate here, he said that if I doubted his integrity with regard to keeping it to himself, I needn't divulge my credentials to him.

Whilst categorically not saying that, I don't feel comfortable doing so in the light of his constant and aggressive attacks on posters who happen to disagree with him, and I feel I would be putting myself at a personal disadvantage by sharing this information with him.
As you know, I am obliged to be circumspect due to my professional position. If I have not already done so, however, I would be quite happy to tell you all about my credentials."

Thanks for sharing this, Crystal. It earns you a good deal of my respect back. You really need not have done so - but it was a brave thing to do.


Fisherman

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"Like i said Fish i have only quoted what you said."

Like I said, Babybird, you have not. What you have done is to say one thing, and thereafter trying to bolster it with a quotation that does not tally with your original statement.

Yes i have, Fish. It seems you would argue black is white given half a chance, but saying something a number of times does not transmute it from inaccurate to accurate. You will need not so much a pen to effect that transformation, more of a magic wand.

"If i find it necessary to defend my character from baseless assassination, that's what i will do."

I thought you already did? I have urged you to, and I will do so again - please do report me to the administrators, and let them decide who is faulting who. It will clear the air, I believe.

Fisherman

Fish, i suggest you read more clearly what i said. You told me to act on my comment to you to contact admin. I replied to this "done". That means i have already done it. So you dont need to urge me again to do what i have already said quite plainly that i have already done. Meantime where you ascribe to me base aspects of personality such as lying, i reserve the right to come right back and defend myself, and i will continue to do so.

On balance, i feel i need to demote my estimate of your debating skills from that of a twelve year old, which was obviously much too optimistic, and settle on a more realistic debating age of around three or four. Honestly, can you not even read what is posted in front of you???

[Ben]

Sam would not mind at all, since he also finds this all quite mysterious and very damaging to the credibility of Iremongers work, Ben

Finds what "mysterious and very damaging" to Iremonger's credibility? The observation about a "total mismatch"? Fortunate it is then that Ms Iremonger never used such an expression or anything like it. In fact, where did you get that expression from?

Extremely probable, practically certain et al will not seerve you - until you have the goods at hand.

It serves me pretty well, thanks, since I know it reflects the truth, and since I know that the alternatives being bandied about are too frighteningly absurd for even fleeting contemplation.

Exactly so. When we are not informed of what he thought, we cannot know. But then again, he DID inform us later on, did he not?

So there we go then, see?

He did say something completely different to what he said in his earlier post. You acknowledge - or rather, my quotation of your words demonstrates - that there was an understanding on your part that there was no indication that Leander thought the match "probable". You acknowledge that the whole "probability" angle arrived later, thus demonstrating that he DID say different things as opposed to being consistent from the outset.

Howīs that for succinct?

Very impressive, Fisherman, but no you're not getting tired of this thread.

[babybird67]

Crystal, it is getting very confusing when you and Babybird side with each other to attack me. I would much prefer if you minded your problems (substantiating your faulty accusations), and left her to do her bit.

Yet another baseless assertion! Just because Crystal and i mud wrestle, obviously when she can get precious time off from wheedling Ben into her lurid clutches (or is it Ben with the lurid clutches? one gets so confused sometimes) does not mean we are somehow siding with eachother to "attack" you. All i attacked was your specious logic which flits from place to place when deciding whether you wish us to believe Toppy = Hutch, Toppy probably = Hutch, or Toppy very probably = Hutch.

As pointed out to you previously, i do not attack the poster, i attack the posts. I afforded you that respect which you unfortunately were unable to reciprocate. Hence my respect for you hits zero.

Your complaint that Crystal and i both share disdain and disgust of someone who accuses them of lying has much more to do with your own behaviour than either of ours...if you had not made dishonest, baseless, unworthy accusations, to BOTH of us i might add, then we would have had nothing to reproach you with.

Leander is of the meaning that AS IT STANDS Toppy should be regarded as the probable Hutch. He also believes that he will be proven right in that suspicion when more evidence surfaces. That is what he has said, and that is what I concur with.
...and that does not go to prove that I have thrown forward that Leander has said that Toppy is Hutch, without any reservations.

right. Even when i can quote what you said, which was:

I think I said "At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander

I dont know why you are now focusing on this further specious argument which is that saying "As it stands" makes any difference to what you have said. It may have escaped your notice, but we are discussing the situation "as it stands"; to suggest that i omitted this (which i did not) to somehow skew your quote is ridiculous. Saying "as it stands" is irrelevant, since we can only discuss things as they stand and not as they might be in some weird future parallel world where we all suddenly discuss things that might or might not happen. If there are future discoveries that shed further light on the issue, those will be discussed as they arise. There is no need to state, this is my view AS IT STANDS, and try to use this to mean that you did not really mean what you said above which was that

"At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander

quoted verbatim, not fabricated in any way shape or form.

[Crystal]

BB - if you don't mind, my lurid clutches are infamous. Ben cannot possibly HOPE to compete.

See you in the wrestling ring....xx

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Fish, i suggest you read more clearly what i said. You told me to act on my comment to you to contact admin. I replied to this "done". That means i have already done it. So you dont need to urge me again to do what i have already said quite plainly that i have already done. Meantime where you ascribe to me base aspects of personality such as lying, i reserve the right to come right back and defend myself, and i will continue to do so.

On balance, i feel i need to demote my estimate of your debating skills from that of a twelve year old, which was obviously much too optimistic, and settle on a more realistic debating age of around three or four. Honestly, can you not even read what is posted in front of you???"

Oh, I can! In post 2131, you wrote "done", and when I later (post 2145) urged you once again to report to the administrators, your answer was "If i find it necessary to defend my character from baseless assassination, that's what i will do."

Having read it once again, I now understand that you were instead speaking of something else, so I really think you should award me at least the ability of a five-year old, Babybird. Fair is fair.

Then again, if you are going to keep persisting that I have ever stated that Leander has said that Toppy is Hutch, then you will turn out my little sister by a fair number of years.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

You acknowledge - or rather, my quotation of your words demonstrates - that there was an understanding on your part that there was no indication that Leander thought the match "probable". You acknowledge that the whole "probability" angle arrived later, thus demonstrating that he DID say different things as opposed to being consistent from the outset.



Very impressive, Fisherman, but no you're not getting tired of this thread.

Ben!!!! I am utterly shocked at you!!! Fancy quoting Fish verbatim like that...tut tut tut, you fabricator you!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Finds what "mysterious and very damaging" to Iremonger's credibility? "

That we do not have the investigation available, Ben - did I not say so?

"It serves me pretty well, thanks, since I know it reflects the truth"

Do you, Ben? A few posts back you settled for it being very incredible that you did not have the truth - but now it seems you have changed your mind? Made a complete turn-around, sort of?
Tell you what, mate; you DONīT know that it reflects the truth - you hope and guess it does, bt that is a far way from knowing.

"He did say something completely different to what he said in his earlier post. "

Wrong - again! He simply clarified later that "cannot be ruled out was a hit on the positive scale. Up til that, we could not know very much about just how much in favour - or against - he was, on Toppys account. There is no change, Ben. You need to let that sink in.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"See you in the wrestling ring....xx"

I already stated that Iīm a pacifist, Crystal. How about armwrestling?

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Thanks Fish

But Jen keeps me perfectly well occupied in the wrestling department

And besides - you'd lose

Crystal

[babybird67]

oh my giddy aunt

Crystal:

"See you in the wrestling ring....xx"

I already stated that Iīm a pacifist, Crystal. How about armwrestling?

Fisherman

Crystal was talking to ME Fish, ME ME ME ME.

If you have not yet noticed, we have a little running joke that during all the mud-slinging on this thread we decided to recycle the mud and reduce our carbon footprint by wrestling in it; we also thought it might distract from the sterility of some of the arguments, although it appears we have yet to achieve that objective.

Do i need to draw you a diagram?

mwah mwah TO CRYSTAL not you Fish