Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

I am not against changing ones mind when new evidence comes to light.

Reminds me. I have to change my underwear soon, too... maybe Monday.

Mike

Forget it Fish.

You still haven't apologised to me for misrepresenting my view and making disparaging remarks concerning the independence of my view by your infantile suggestion that I was Ben's 'parrott' (sic.).

I, on the other hand, did apologise to you for any offence you may have felt over the 'poem'

So: who does have the respect, then?

Now I don't take your spurious accusations seriously, because I see you do it to everyone who disagrees with you.

It's a poor way to argue, Fish. It does you no favours and suggests very strongly that you are incapable of anything better.

Learn to be nice. Otherwise, you'll wake up one morning to find that anybody interested in serious debate has put you on ''ignore'.

[babybird67]

?

Hi BB,

you're a new SH in Mike's movie.

I dont understand what this means.

[babybird67]

Speaking of slander, please remember that I think Toppy is Hutch based on what we now know (we, meaning we objective ones). I am not so entrenched in this thought that I can't change my mind based upon new evidence. I have changed my mind many times on JTR stuff, as should we all when evidence with high levels of probabilty comes our way. Some don't change their minds. I do. Believe it or not, I used to believe in the Bible as having historical accuracy. That was before I studied history and uncovered much evidence to refute it. That's kind of how people should operate I think.

Cheers,

Mike

Indeed Mike. I concur.

I have changed my mind from initially thinking the sigs did not match, to noticing that i perhaps wasn't the person best qualified to be so definite about them not matching because Crystal showed us sigs which didnt match but that looked like they did.

I am not against changing ones mind when new evidence comes to light.

However when we are discussing something in which one person cannot appear to present a consistent view from one post to the next, and even a consistent view in the same posts at times, trying to argue logically becomes almost impossible.

You can't counter that with logic as the argument is not following logical processes.

[DVV]

Hi BB,

you're a new SH in Mike's movie.

[babybird67]

No, Babybird - I am denying your wrongful presentation of what I have said And I will do it again, whenever it happens.

pray explain how in quoting your own words back to you i could possibly have misrepresented you?

It was not slander - it was exactly what you did.

Once again, no i did not. I QUOTED you, Fish; i quoted your own words back to you. If you dont like those words you shouldnt have used them.

I have neve said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch.

I suggest you re-read the posts where i have QUOTED YOU VERBATIM, and you will see that you have said that you concur with Leander in concluding Toppy is Hutch. These were your words, not mine.

But this quibble is not what the boards are for.

You may call it a "quibble" (oops sorry did i misrepresent you again? oh no, you clearly called it a quibble) to accuse someone of lying; i personally do not appreciate it and find it a little like your assertion that those who have lost the argument resort to violence to try to gain a victory. Your verbal violence against me, because you cannot stick to the argument, is to accuse me of lying when i have consistently quoted your own posts back to you. That's not a quibble to me. Anyone who knows me knows that i would not lie or fabricate things. As i said, a gentleman would apologise. Our exchange today is indeed very telling.

I suggest that you immediately effect your suggestion to contact the administrators and ask them whether they feel that I am a liar. In fact, I am urging you to do so. Until you have done it, I will not participate in any further pie-throwing on this issue.

Done.

[Fisherman]

And I concur with this, Mike! Thanks for offering your wisdom!

I am fighting a hard battle here, but I don´t think that anybody - ANYBODY - should take that as a sign of me not being able to change my mind. Whenever the evidence surfaces that tells us that Toppy was NOT Hutch, I will change my stance immediately. There is no other way of dealing with things like these.

Cheers, Mike!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Speaking of slander, please remember that I think Toppy is Hutch based on what we now know (we, meaning we objective ones). I am not so entrenched in this thought that I can't change my mind based upon new evidence. I have changed my mind many times on JTR stuff, as should we all when evidence with high levels of probabilty comes our way. Some don't change their minds. I do. Believe it or not, I used to believe in the Bible as having historical accuracy. That was before I studied history and uncovered much evidence to refute it. That's kind of how people should operate I think.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

babybird:

"you are not worth debating anything with as you deny what you have said"

No, Babybird - I am denying your wrongful presentation of what I have said And I will do it again, whenever it happens.

"Yes Fish because that was AFTER you slandered me by accusing me of fabricating things."

It was not slander - it was exactly what you did. I have neve said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch. He is of the obvious meaning that as the evidence stands, we ougth to regard it a probable thing, but he also adds that this is "AS IT STANDS"! And that, and nothing else, is what I have said.

But this quibble is not what the boards are for. I suggest that you immediately effect your suggestion to contact the administrators and ask them whether they feel that I am a liar. In fact, I am urging you to do so. Until you have done it, I will not participate in any further pie-throwing on this issue.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"I have never made any disparaging remarks regarding your character"

Well, that would be but for the "I cannot abide liars", I take it?

Fisherman

Yes Fish because that was AFTER you slandered me by accusing me of fabricating things. I either accept your opinion that i am a fabricator or point out the truth, which is that in calling me a fabricator you are LYING.

Honestly it's like debating with a twelve year old.

[babybird67]

that's it Fish

you are not worth debating anything with as you deny what you have said and try to make other posters out as liars when YOUR OWN WORDS are quite clearly posted up there for other people to see.

I have absolutely no respect for someone who cannot stay on topic and argue the points, but has to attack another poster's character rather than admit they are wrong.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"I have never made any disparaging remarks regarding your character"

Well, that would be but for the "I cannot abide liars", I take it?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No, Babybird - no more dabbling if you please.

Before we go anywhere else, we need to straighten out this bit:

"Quote:
I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch.
Right. You never said:
Quote:
I think I said "At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander."

As any discerning reader will notice, this does not in any way tell us that I have said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch. It points out that "AT PRESENT", as things stand, that is a reasonable deduction. But when we say "As things stand" we also say that they may stand differently when new evidence is added.
In other words, we are both of the meaning that Toppy reasonably IS Hutch, just as we both are of the meaning that added evidence will either strengthen this or weaken it, and as we both are of the meaning that we would be surprised if the latter happened.

"point this out or apologise; if you do not i will report you."

You have had it pointed out to you by now, Babybird, and you either accept it or you don´t. In the later case, I suggest you do exactly what you say: report me to the administrators and let them take a look on who is truthful and who is not.

"I cannot abide liars"

Nor can I. I really, really detest them.

Fisherman

[DVV]

Correction, Dave: it has been said that she "categorically dismissed" Toppy - and that on the basis of having only one signature to compare against the witness statements. I tell you one thing, without prejudice, if she actually did "categorically dismiss" him, then that doesn't reflect too well on her expertise. That's why I rather suspect (hope?) that she said no such thing.

"Quand le rapport de Sue sera tiré au jour

Les Cieux s'entrouvriront sur des taureaux assis

L'Etoile du matin fera trois quarts de tour

Les cités trembleront, et nos genoux aussi."

[babybird67]

decency fish

is locking horns with someone by tackling their argument, which i have done with you on every single posting i have made.

Indecency is accusing the person who is quite legitimately pointing out the flaws in your argument(s) of fabricating things, when they have clearly quoted your argument before dismantling it.

I have never made any disparaging remarks regarding your character, nor would i stoop to do so.

Sadly, you have not afforded me the same respect.