Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[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???

[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

[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

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

[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".

[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]

Sorry - already have. Find the documents and I may remember her again.

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.

Ah - one expert of whose work we have no documentation, one expert that has a nasty habit of accusing her fellow posters of being wrong multiple times - but with no further urge to bolster the accusations, and one expert of whom we know nothing.

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.

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'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".

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, let's not forget about Iremonger."

Sorry - already have. Find the documents and I may remember her again.

"Iremonger, Crystal, and another expert contacted by Crystal."

Ah - one expert of whose work we have no documentation, one expert that has a nasty habit of accusing her fellow posters of being wrong multiple times - but with no further urge to bolster the accusations, and one expert of whom we know nothing. Thatīs quite a line-up youīve got there, Ben!

"I was a bit embarrassed for you, yes"

Thanks, Ben - you really shouldnīt!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

Babybird IS quoting me, and I have no problems with that. The problem lies in the fact that she tells me that her own stance - that I have stated that Leander has said that Toppy is Hutch - equates the quotation, which it does not.

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.

It is a silly point to press, and I think we would be wise to leave it by now. I have explained it numerous times, and the thought of doing so until they come from the Old Peoples Home to pick me up is slightly sickening. It is a bit like me telling you that you have said that I am your best friend and bolstering it by looking for the word "yes" in your posts. It donīt work that way.

Now, you go looking for all them faults of mine and publish them, and let Babybird report me to the administrators. I would be the happiest man on earth to get rid of these issues, since I know that I am on terra firma with them.
By the bye, how did that phone conversation with Leander go? You stated yesterday that you had him on the line, and it would only be fair to share the result with the rest of us.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Taking into account what you seem to know (and not know) about the expression "probability", letīs forget about Iremonger, shall we?

No, let's not forget about Iremonger.

Let's remember her, because she is an expert in the field of document examination who doesn't believe Toppy was the witness.

Iremonger, Ben?? Or Crystal? Or the pair of them? Is that the "majority of experts" you speak of?

Iremonger, Crystal, and another expert contacted by Crystal. That's three professionals in this particular field who believe that, on balence, Toppy was probably not the witness.

And hey, you forgot to comment on my revealing your plans for your next move - could it be that you were slightly embarrased?

I was a bit embarrassed for you, yes, I am forced to admit. I mean, anyone who darts straight back onto his PC at his first waking breath with what amounted essentially to: "Hey, if I repeat myself using the same arguments that didn't work yesterday, let's see if Ben repeats himself with precisely the same objections!", is deserving of my sympathy, especially after expressing the intention to be off the boards for a while.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Proof would be nice, but given the overwhelming probability..."

Blah-blah-blah, Ben. No. Your "probabilities" carry no weight. Taking into account what you seem to know (and not know) about the expression "probability", letīs forget about Iremonger, shall we?

"She certainly would have done, but given that it would have been written in the early 1990s, it shouldn't come as any grea surprise that they're not readily available now"

Flushed down the toilet? Or simply existing, but nobody knows where?

"Her evidence counts for a great deal"

Find it for me, and letīs see.

"It's the wording of a man who radically altered his mind, most probably as a result of your continued bombardment of his in-box. "Please Leander! Tell me, it's Toppy! It is Toppy isn't it? Please make your comments more Toppy-endorsing". If reflects as poorly on you as it does on him"

Then find that too - you have had the full wording printed out for you.

"As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a mismatch, as endorsed by the majority of experts to date"

Iremonger, Ben?? Or Crystal? Or the pair of them? Is that the "majority of experts" you speak of?

And hey, you forgot to comment on my revealing your plans for your next move - could it be that you were slightly embarrased? I do hope so, since it is not a very technique, though in some parts admittedly ingenous.
Anything to say on the matter, Ben?

Fisherman



Fisherman

[halomanuk]

Maybe this thread should be locked as it is getting a little silly now !!

What?

Fisherman

BB quoted you VERBATIM. It means - she quoted your EXACT words. I should consider backing down for once, since anyone who wishes to can go back to check that she has done just that - and will find that she has.

Accusing her of effectively lying is unpleasant, untenable, and unacceptable. Nobody likes to be treated as such. People object when you call them a liar. And when you misrepresent their views. And when you falsely accuse them of posting assertions which they never have.

Please, stop being so aggressive.

And I think in describing me, you just very accurately described yourself.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"NO.

I refuse to pander to your desire for endless keyboard combat any longer."

As I thought - you have been making accusations you can in no way justify. I told you that this would be my stance if you failed to come up with something - ANYTHING - to bolster your accusations, and it seems we are there now.

Donīt do it again, Crystal. It serves no good purpose, and you will be revealed in the same manner whenever it happens. From now on, I must regard any further posts of yours as the posts of a participator who is ready to throw reckless accusations around her - but not able to bolster them.

Fisherman

Fisherman

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

"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