Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[caz]

Actually, I find the whole "obsessed chick" thing slightly appealing.

Ah, so you've noticed that one poster seems to have fallen at long last for your 'Poor me, I'm being stalked by dozens of loonies - chase me' routine. A bit forward of you though to describe your new fan as an obsessed chick. I hope she doesn't mind.

My 'speculation' about possible prior information came directly from the heady combination of Crystal's warning that 'definitely' is a no-no and Sue's - er - 'definitely'. I explained at the time that if I had come to this with no prior knowledge or preconceptions, I might have wondered, from Crystal's warning about reputable experts not doing what Sue appears to have done, if the latter's 'definitely' could have been based on something a tad more definite, shall we say, than her considered opinion alone.

Got it now?

So basically there's nothing for me to discard. It was and remains a hypothetical scenario, in which I came up with the one way I could think of to make Sue's 'definite' more Crystal-friendly.

If you have a better suggestion, fire away. I'm all ears.

Love,

The Old Bat
X

PS On current performances I'd rate anything coming directly from Sue as infinitely more likely to be sensible than what's been coming from her alleged 'support' group.

[Ben]

A bit forward of you though to describe your new fan as an obsessed chick. I hope she doesn't mind

Yeah, I thought you might be little jealous. It would certainly explain the recent display of malice, but if you could refrain from making those sorts of insinuations in future, I'm sure Crystal would be most appreciative.

I might have wondered, from Crystal's warning about reputable experts not doing what Sue appears to have done, if the latter's 'definitely' could have been based on something a tad more definite, shall we say, than her considered opinion alone

Well, exactly.

And in that scenario - i.e. your scenario - Iremonger would not be at fault for the "definitely" comment, since it would have been based entirely upon information that she'd been supplied with before she conducted her analysis. She would have been told it was definite. So criticising Iremonger for being "definite" wouldn't be particularly rational in the scanario you suggested, would it? Again, it's worth bearing in mind that Iremonger had access to the actual statement.

[caz]

And in that scenario - i.e. your scenario - Iremonger would not be at fault for the "definitely" comment, since it would have been based entirely upon information that she'd been supplied with before she conducted her analysis.

By George, he's getting it at last. I even added for good measure a hypothetical example of the kind of information that could have existed (a contemporary memo to the effect that Hutch had forgotten to sign page one) and said I wouldn't have called it 'poisoning' Sue's judgement had she been given sight of it.

Remember, I'm not the one who has implied that Sue deserves to be criticised for being 'definite' and I totally agree that it wouldn't be rational at all in the scenario I suggested, had I done so myself. And I know darn well that Sue uses orginal documents in coming to her conclusions and forming her opinions.

For all these reasons and more, I consider the fannying about around here, supposedly on Sue's behalf, offering opinions based on internet images of signatures and general pomposity, is doing her no favours at all. She was arguably better off without Crystal riding in to 'defend' her, let alone you getting her position on Badham backwards.

Sue may well have been right all along about Toppy and Hutch (and I suspect she was), but all you and your new friend are doing right now is muddying the waters.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

By George, he's getting it at last.

I got it the first time, thanks.

Besides my slight misinterpretation of Ms. Iremonger views on the first signature (for which 40 lashes are clearly warranted, despite the fact that this was all clarified long before you decided to play "catch-up"), it seems we don't actually disagree on very much here. Instead, it seems as though you were looking for an excuse to level caustic remarks at Crystal and myself, which doesn't serve to advance the discussion very much.

[caz]

Pull the other one, Ben. Everything you posted suggested you believed I was the one trying my level best to undermine Sue's position, not you or Crystal.

And if you can, with a straight face, describe turning Sue's very simple 'definitely by Badham' into 'not eradicating the possibility that the witness signed all three pages' a slight misinterpretation of the poor woman's views, and you're supposed to be fighting her corner, then this whole sorry thread has just sunk to a new low and God help anyone else whose views you have seen fit to interpret in the past and may try to interpret in the future. I think you had better stick to direct quotes from now on, that can be cut and pasted. There is not a single reason left to trust you with other people's words.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

then this whole sorry thread has just sunk to a new low and God help anyone else whose views you have seen fit to interpret in the past and may try to interpret in the future

Which was cleared up ages ago, thus eradicating your mind-bogglingly pointless "catch-up" exercise. Move on. That has been dealt with. I've acknowledged that I misinterpreted her views, and you're further harping on about it is beyond pointless. According to your scenario, the "definitely" aspect of her report didn't even reflect her "views", but rather a preconception that she had been supplied with by others from the outset.

[caz]

No Ben, this won't do. Please cut and paste my words because you have instantly proved my worst fears correct by misrepresenting everything I actually wrote about this hypothetical scenario, and you are blaming me for not moving on, when only a short while ago you chose to describe a polar opposite representation of your favourite expert's views as a 'slight misinterpretation' on your part.

Have you no shame at all?

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hi Caz,
Is this thread about Ben, or about Hutch / Toppy ?

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

Here you are, Ben, I'll do it for you since you seem incapable - or just breathtakingly dishonest. Please cut and paste the following if you want to refer to it again:

My 'speculation' about possible prior information came directly from the heady combination of Crystal's warning that 'definitely' is a no-no and Sue's - er - 'definitely'. I explained at the time that if I had come to this with no prior knowledge or preconceptions, I might have wondered, from Crystal's warning about reputable experts not doing what Sue appears to have done, if the latter's 'definitely' could have been based on something a tad more definite, shall we say, than her considered opinion alone.

Got it now?

So basically there's nothing for me to discard. It was and remains a hypothetical scenario, in which I came up with the one way I could think of to make Sue's 'definite' more Crystal-friendly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Is this thread about Ben, or about Hutch / Toppy ?

It's about Caz's rather alarming fixations with me being brought into sharp focus today, David.

Sorry about this! It'll only take a moment.

Look, Caz, what are you doing?

This is ridiculous.

There are only so many times I can acknowledge that I misread Iremonger's stance. Your continued "reminders" to that effect are quite unnecessary, and if you feel the thread has been "muddied", you must realize by now that you're just adding to the soiling process.

[caz]

Hi Caz,
Is this thread about Ben, or about Hutch / Toppy ?

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

If Ben wants to offer his own interpretations of Hutch's position v Toppy's, then it's vital for anyone who might agree with him that any other interpretations he chooses to offer are not very publicly and very obviously riddled with inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hi David,
If Ben wants to offer his own interpretations of Hutch's position v Toppy's, then it's vital for anyone who might agree with him that any other interpretations he chooses to offer are not very publicly and very obviously riddled with inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Love,
Caz
X

Hi again Caz,
I've followed this thread carefully, and I'm well aware of Ben's thoughts.
He thinks the signatures don't match.
Just like Sue Iremonger.
That's all!

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

This is very simple, Ben.

I've had it with your total inability to reproduce the words and views of others fairly, accurately and honestly. Debate on any level is quite pointless until you have mastered this rule of the game.

If and when you demonstrate that you can do this, all by yourself, and don't need careful supervision to ensure fair play to all, from the most respected expert right down to the current thorn in your side, then I will disappear in a cloud of very grateful smoke.

Deal or no deal?

Your choice.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He thinks the signatures don't match.
Just like Sue Iremonger.
That's all!

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

If he had stuck with that thought he'd have saved himself from getting stuck with a Caz for this long.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

It makes no odds to me if you disappear or not.

You say you've "had it" and that debate with me is "pointless", but here you still are. I've acknowledged that I made an error of interpretation concerning one aspect of Iremonger's conclusions, and I'm genuinely perplexed as to what you think you're actually acheiving or hoping to gain by pointing this out over and over and over.

It seems awfully dotty to me.

Would you only be satisfied if there was a huge chorus of posters chiming in with "Yes Ben, you bastard! How dare you misinterpret things like that"...?

Your observation has been noted.

Sssshhhh....