Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"No, it isn't. What do you mean? I was talking about the consistently closed G-loop which looks nothing like any of the open-loop witness G's. It's nowhere near the H and the u of "Hutchinson". I must admit that it's becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of your criteria for prioritizing some "differences" over others. It all seems decidedly arbitary to me."

I think, Ben, that the only useful thing here is the insight that you don´t know what I mean. If you wish to, I can expand on it, but the you must say s. I won´t do it otherwise, since it is all too obvious that it is to little avail.

"we also know that none of the noted changes are anywhere near as radical as they would need to be in order for them to look like any of the witness signatures."

Maybe you would like this to be correct. It is not, however. The looped stem in Bethnal, only to take an example, looks very much like the looped stem in the police report h. But once again, I know that telling YOU so is to little avail.

“Again with the aggressive, military terminology.

I've told you before, this is not a fecking battle zone, so please lose the silly one-upmanship agenda. If you think you've shot anything down, I'm afraid you've been firing blanks.”

You, Ben, get to tell me effectively NOTHING! What the blazes is WRONG with you? What makes you think that you may have any influence at all on how I choose to word myself? And you have the STOMACH to speak of an upmanship agenda!!!

This is from your las post: “And I will KEEP CLAIMING with much greater tenacity and resilience than Fisherman is capable of, that the above is complete nonsense”

And now YOU speak of an aggressive terminology!!?? Get real, or get the **** out!!!

Now that I made that perfectly clear to you, you GET OFF! Keep to the issue, and keep away from how I phrase my convictions. Be sure that I can do so in a much less cordial tone than this, but I realize that none of us – or the other posters – will benefit from it. It would be a further cloud of gun-smoke in the way of the obvious, and we´ve had enough of that already!

“So what are we, as mature adults, supposed to do about that? Just keep repetetively posting over and over again, pretending that we're battling stamina rather than individual points? Or might it be a sensible course of action to agree to disagree?”

We disagree, alright, Ben. And I prefer to make my own decisions on what to post and when. I hope you agree on that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Ben writes: Of course, the implications of this interesting revelation are rather obvious

It's funny though, isn't it?

[Ben]

Hi the Fish,

Maybe you would like this to be correct. It is not, however. The looped stem in Bethnal, only to take an example, looks very much like the looped stem in the police report h.

I don't think they do, really. Besides which, we don't even have evidence of the witness' "l"s, whereas we have evidence of "h"s from both parties, and they look very different to eachother, from my observations.

What makes you think that you may have any influence at all on how I choose to word myself?

I'm not trying to exert an influence. I'm simply making a suggestion in the interests of message board peace. You're sometimes very antagonistic - unwittingly or not - in your style of prose. That's wrong. Sometimes I react with disproportionate hostility and melt down when I'm on the receiving end of that style. That is also wrong. I'm willing to fulfill my side of the not-going-crazy bargain if you're prepared to re-think some of the inflammatory insinuations, such as your recent claim to have "shot me down".

It's just all so easily avoidable.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm not trying to exert an influence. I'm simply making a suggestion in the interests of message board peace. You're sometimes very antagonistic - unwittingly or not - in your style of prose. That's wrong. Sometimes I react with disproportionate hostility and melt down when you do so. That is also wrong. I'm willing to fulfill my side of the not-going-crazy bargain if you're prepared to re-think some of the inflammatory insinuations, such as your recent claim to have "shot me down".

Once again, Ben, you don´t get to judge my prose. You would be much better adviced to stay of it, and stay on topic. If my wording about shooting things down displeased you, then it´s something that you need to get used to - it did not point YOU out, but instead it pointed to the fact that finds had been made that supported my wiew that the elements of style connected to Toppys writing would change. That effectively shot down the misconception that they were not likely to do so.
With as much respect as I´m capable of, I know from experience that I´m not the one who needs to brush up on my attitude and language, so let´s agree to disagree on this point too. I have had it with you telling me not to use a hectoring language, especially keeping in mind the way you have treated a poster like Richard Nunweek. THAT is about the most hectoring tone I have heard on these boards.
Now it would seem that he was right all along (and I KNOW that you disagree), and I sense some sort of divine justice hidden in that fact. You reap what you sow. That goes for the tone I use posting against you too.

I will stay as civil as I can in the posts to come. I always do, when met by another civil poster. I think it is the best way to do things. That assertion I will gladly provide you with. But it comes with a renewed advice to stay away from commenting on what language I prefer to use. You make your choices and I make mine. You DON´T make my choices, though.

Fisherman

[Ben]

If my wording about shooting things down displeased you, then it´s something that you need to get used to - it did not point YOU out, but instead it pointed to the fact that finds had been made that supported my wiew that the elements of style connected to Toppys writinf would change.

But that's inappropriate on two levels:

1) Your "finds" did no such thing, as far as I'm concerned. Quite the reverse.

2) Your antagonistic style is in marked contrast to your earlier requests to keep the discussion civil. So no, I'm not going to "get used to it". If you're not willing to acqueisce to my requests, I'm not likely to acquiesce to yours.

especially keeping in mind the way you have treated a poster like Richard Nunweek

I've always been civil to Richard, with one exception where he accused me of "balderdash". That's all cleared up now, so no harm done.

Now it would seem that he was right all along (and I KNOW that you disagree), and I sense some sort of divine justice hidden in that fact.

Sorry, what "fact" would this be?

Ah yes, you're still trying to mutate your expert-contradicted opinion that the signatures match into a "fact".

Whoops!

But it comes with a renewed advice to stay away from commenting on what language I prefer to use.

Well, it depends what language you do use. Blatently antagonise for no good reason, and I might be less inclined to accept your "renewed advice"

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I've always been civil to Richard"

That is in no way my wiew. My wiew is that you have been very condescending towards him. In fact, inexcusably so.

"Sorry, what "fact" would this be?
Ah yes, you're still trying to mutate your expert-contradicted opinion that the signatures match into a "fact".
Whoops!"

The fact that it seems he was right all along, Ben. Whoops indeed.

"it depends what language you do use. Blatently antagonise for no good reason, and I might be less inclined to accept your "renewed advice""

I always have a good reason when/if antagonizing. With ninetynine posters out of a hundred, there is never any antagonism on my behalf. So that is fair enough as far as I´m concerned. I have no fears whatsoever.

Fisherman

[Ben]

That is in no way my wiew. My wiew is that you have been very condescending towards him. In fact, inexcusably so.

If that's the way Richard feels, I naturally extend him my apology. I don't agree with your view on the matter, however.

The fact that it seems he was right all along, Ben.

It doesn't "seem" like that at all. To you maybe, but not to the majority of actual experts.

I always have a good reason when/if antagonizing.

When can you ever have a "good" reason for antagonizing someone on a message board unless you're trying to goad them into precisely the sort of reaction that you were previously complaining about? Antagonise away if you wish, but don't be surprised - and certainly don't complain! - if and when it's met with hostility.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"To you maybe"

Not "maybe", Ben - most certainly.

"Antagonise away if you wish, but don't be surprised - and certainly don't complain! - if and when it's met with hostility"

I have had unpleasant dealings with three posters altogether: Mr Poster, who made it his business to annoy people and succeded to do so with many of us, Tom Wescott, who preferred to try and paint me out as a pompous newbie instead of noticing the fact that the theory he had presented was more frail than a geriatric grasshopper - and you, Ben. The three of you all belong to the small but illustrous little bunch of people who have failed to communicate in a friendly tone with me and exchange for the benefit of the boards.

The latter is what I suggest we return to now, before this gets any sillier. You will know where you have me by now, just as I for a long time have known where I have you. Let´s work from that, keeping the other posters in mind.

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Well! This has come on somewhat since I last visited! Most of it appears to be unqualified, opinionated twaddle.

I object - my twaddle is as good as anyone's.

[Crystal]

I object - my twaddle is as good as anyone's.

Better than most, I'd say...

[DVV]

Well, let me pay my tribute to the spirit of this thread and give my view again:
I don't know if Toppy was the witness.
But I do know that at least one expert, having examined the signatures of Hutch and Toppy, has come to the conclusion that they are probably not from the same hand.
And Reg's story doesn't make Toppy a more credible witness. Understatement.
If Toppy had seen Astrakhan Man with Kelly, how could his son(s) say he had seen Churchill? - since, as far as I understand, this family tradition existed before the author of The Royals talked to Reg.
I really can't answer this question. I don't know what happened.
What I know is that Fleming was living in the VH, knew Kelly for about 3 years, used to give her money, was 5'7 tall, 29 years old, and could well have been in no regular employment since he is said to be a plasterer, a costermonger, a dock labourer, etc. Not to mention that he was sent to an asylum under a false name.
All in all, a far more plausible Hutch than Toppy.
Of course, I may change my mind one day, but I'll have to see more than half matching signatures, especially since the handwritings we are comparing are quite ordinary - hence the similarity of Lambeth GH handwriting with Hutch's.

Amitiés all.

[Sam Flynn]

Aha! But did you spot the trick? I'll let you in on a little secret - are you ready? This is the secret - only one of the Georges is by Toppy....

...try the "utchinso" combo:

[Ben]

Ah, that's an easy one, Gareth.

Look to the "t"s!

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, that's an easy one, Gareth.

Look to the "t"s!

Better still - look at the big picture, Ben... or at least look at where he launches his crossbars. As it happens, I had thought of posting a revised set of "triplets" - but it was fiddly enough putting that last collage together, and even that was a rough job. Enough, however, to see the similarity.

Edit: hang on a minute! What do you mean "look to the 't's..."? It's the looped "h"s that were "radically" (not) different in 1888, not the top-launched "t"s. Or are you getting all o'Brien on me again?

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"...try the "utchinso" combo"

Must be thirteen different writers, Sam - I can spot differences inbetween them all!

The best,
Fisherman