Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

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

No, Fisherman.

You claimed that Gareth found the expression "total mismatch" to be mysterious and very damaging, despite the fact that Iremonger never used the phrase "total mismatch".

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?

No, Fisherman.

I said I know it reflects the truth - the truth being that Ms. Iremonger having viewed the original documents can only be viewed as an overwhelming probability, since the alternatives are completely outrageous and safely discarded for that reason.

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...

So he didn't say what he meant the first time round.

Sp that means he wasn't consistent.

There's no evidence that he thought the match was "probable" in his first letter, as you acknowledge. The whole "probability" angle comes in later, or alleged synoyms thereof, despite nothing of the kind being insinuated in his original latter. Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the ability of this expert to make clear his feelings on the subject.

No, Bb!

Do i need to draw you a diagram?

Please don't. It's a private matter between us...

Things are quite heated enough on this wretched thread.

I'm up for a re-match though - if you are....xxx

[Fisherman]

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

Well, so much for wishful thinking!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"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..."

When you stop misrepresenting me and Crystal publishes her compilation of my wrongful assertions, I will discuss that further. And let´s await what the administrators have to say. Anything yet? No?

""At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander
quoted verbatim, not fabricated in any way shape or form."

..and it means that AT PRESENT, as things stand, Toppy is our man. But it ALSO means that we both leave the door open for the possibility that he may prove not to be so.
We do not have all the evidence we need to be quite certain, but what we DO have is enough for us to point the finger at Toppy. If nothing new emerges, he remains our man.

Surely, Babybird, you can see that there is a difference in "as it stands" and "proven beyond all possible doubt"? It is not all that subtle a difference, you know!

Fisherman

[babybird67]

oh Crystal

And besides - you'd lose

Crystal

That is perhaps one of the funniest things i have ever read in my life...or do i mean AT THIS PRESENT TIME...the possibility that something funnier might pop up "cannot be ruled out".

[babybird67]

oh my giddy aunt

Crystal:

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

I already stated that I´m 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

Thanks Fish

But Jen keeps me perfectly well occupied in the wrestling department

And besides - you'd lose

Crystal

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

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

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

Fisherman

[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 DON´T 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

[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]

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

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

See you in the wrestling ring....xx

[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.

[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.

How´s that for succinct?

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

[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???