Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

I'm still in awe of my power to hypnotize people into interminable posting battles with me. That's what I find astonishing. In a good way, of course, but no less astonishing for that. There never seems to be any sense that, "Oh, it's just Ben, that Hutchinson zealot who goes on and on, and isn't worth taking seriously." None of that ever happens. I reckon if I paid someone a million pounds to resist the temptation to ignore me, they'd fail miserably. Truly amazing, but again - in a good way.

Sorry, just thinking aloud.

Back on topic.

(It is amazing, though!)

No matter how you read Leander, backwards or forwards, you will find that he says the same thing: The likeness is an obvious one

No, Leander expessed the view that, while the similarities were offset by the differences, the latter were insufficient to rule Toppy out as the witness. But that's fine and dandy with me, since I don't think he should be conclusively ruled out as the witness either. I just think he's an implausible candidate.

If he later upgraded to saying the very things that you erroneously claimed he said in his first letter, and right on cue to boot (i.e. just after I pointed out that he didn't say the things you erroneously claimed he said), I find that dodgy in the extreme. I'm not accusing you personally of falsifying or manipulating anything, but it's no less iffy for that and I will continue to point this out whenever you wheel out the "obvious likeness" partyline.

If it was not any of the ones Leander listed, it must have been others - but what difference does it make what exact reasons they were???

But Leander's not saying that any of those differences must have come into play. In fact, he's not saying that any of those explanations are more likely than the rather more glaring explanation, which is that they're different because they were written by different people.

It was a possible match because it showed an obvious likeness.

But if it shows an "obvious likeness", it is a probable match, not just a possible one, and you are have acknowleged earlier today that Leander never said anything about a "probable" match.

If I say that we cannot rule out that the bathtub is leaking since there is a small amount of water on the floor, am I contradicting myself then?

You'd be using some truly bizarre terminology, ill-becoming of a professional document examiner. If there is water on the floor next to a bathtub, you'd say there's a reasonable chance that the bathtub is leaking. However, you cannot rule out the possibility that an Afghan Hound with a weak bladder came in a piddled next to your bath tub when you weren't looking. Not particularly likely, but you can't rule it out conclusively. Naturally, it plays second fiddle, probability-wise, to the leaking bath hypothesis.

[Ben]

Hi all -- The difference with Hutt is that we have only two examples of his handwriting, and therefore nothing that would suggest that he registered the same remarkable consistency of signature that Toppy displayed in 1898 and 1911. That's a 13-year period in which the similarities within his own signature (and by extension, the differences with the statement signatures) are cemented, courtesy of the passage of time. With Hutt, we see no such evidence of consistency. He could have been a veritable Donald Swanson, for all we know!

They might lack the vocabulary and "official" technique to explain why, but they can just "do" it nonetheless.

Just not as well, since they lack the extensive experience and expertise.

As for the equations, even if we disregard: Signatures + Story = Toppy is/isn't Hutch, we can still substitute it with:

Signatures = Toppy isn't Hutch.

Story = Toppy isn't Hutch.

IMO.

[The Good Michael]

Signatures = Toppy isn't Hutch.

Story = Toppy isn't Hutch.

IMO.

IMO = In My Obsession?

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I can hardly imagine that the 1898 G has been shaped by the 1888 witness..."

Well, David, then there is always Leander, who will tell you that this deviance - as well as the others involved - could have A NUMBER of explanations. You donīt have to worry at all - you can lean against a first-class expert of forensic document investigations!

Fisherman
glad to help out

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm still in awe of my power to hypnotize people into interminable posting battles with me. That's what I find astonishing. In a good way, of course, but no less astonishing for that."

That, Ben, owes chiefly to the fact that most people who see something that is unmistakably an X before them, will be anxious to tell you that you are wrong when you call it a Y. Once theyīve done this, they sit back and wait for you to say "Oh, youīare right - it IS an X!"
When you instead say "No, it is a Y", they will continue their quest, since they donīt want people to be misinformed.

It can go on for a while - just look at this thread!

"Leander expessed the view that, while the similarities were offset by the differences, the latter were insufficient to rule Toppy out as the witness"

There you go again, Ben - you see a Y where it is an X. Now, listen carefully! When somebody asks somebody else "Was Nelson Britains biggest sea hero?" and recieves the answer "Well, it can hardy be ruled out, can it?" - do you then (in accordance with your present Y-thinking here) regard it as a verdict of Nelson only POSSIBLY being the greatest sea hero, but probably not? When somebody asks if Muhammad Ali was a good boxer, and somebody smiles and says "Well, it is not as if we can rule it out, can we?" - what does that make you think? That the answering man means that he was a middle-of-the-road boxer - but PERHAPS and POSSIBLY good too?

You see, Ben, just like Stephen stated yesterday, it does not matter that I run in circles around you, since arguments that do not go to bolster YOUR wiew run of you quicker than water from a goose.

Your wiew has no merit. You mock any logic that is present on this thread, and have done so from the start. You are not ashamed to point a top authority out as being completely unreliable. Itīs a complete disgrace.

I asked you yesterday why it would matter which explanation was responsible for the changes in Toppys signature. Since you press this point, I still want a good explanation to that question. I donīt think you can give one, and I would like that to show here on the boards.

"IMO"

Why would anybody but "Americas funniest home movies" care in the slightest about your opinions? You have burnt your ships totally on this thread when it comes to reliability, Ben. I think you will find in the future that it will not be quite as easy to pull fast one on other posters. And that will be the second main benefit to emerge from the thread - the first one being that we can all celebrate that George Hutchinson has finally been identified, after 121 years of being lost to the world.

Fisherman

Who is off to a party, and has better things to do to sit around and wait for Ben to tell us all that we have understood nothing. Tonight I drink to Toppy - the Dorset Street witness!

[Ben]

Once theyīve done this, they sit back and wait for you to say "Oh, youīare right - it IS an X!"

And what are the realistic chances of that happening, based on previous discussions with me? Just think about this logically for a moment before you embark upon the next repetetive and fillibustering post. If you've decided I'm an obsessive zealot who can't admit that I'm wrong, where is the logic or rationale in "sitting back and waiting" for that obsessive zealot to suddenly agree with your perspective? It makes no sense. Assess the chances of that happening, and then ask yourself why you're keeping up a long-post battle with me. I think the answer has more to do with your ego than anything else.

Everyone is grown-up enough to make their own minds up, and will have doubtless have made a personal decision by now, but persisting in some silly "quest" is just your excuse for continuing a last-man-standing style battle with me, and I've explained to you before that this won't be prove a successful long-term sustainable strategy against me. Stamina wars are futile, as is the expectation that I'll suddenly give in and embrace your flawed observations. You'll just have to try another tactic. As a journalist, you really should have figured this out by now.

Now, listen carefully! When somebody asks somebody else "Was Nelson Britains biggest sea hero?" and recieves the answer "Well, it can hardy be ruled out, can it?" - do you then (in accordance with your present Y-thinking here) regard it as a verdict of Nelson only POSSIBLY being the greatest sea hero, but probably not?

If somebody thought there was a very strong chance of Nelson being the greatest sea hero, he or she will not simply say that he "cannot be ruled out" as holding that distinction, as that would be inapplicable and highly unconventional phraseology. More commonly, one uses "cannot be ruled out" as a means of conveying an opinion that something is not probable, but not totally impossible either.

Why would anybody but "Americas funniest home movies" care in the slightest about your opinions?

You do, you numpty, or else why would you be following me around trying to fight me to the death with interminable posts that lack clarity? Think about it. If you really didn't care what I thought, you'd ignore me, or put me on ignore. The fact that you're prepared to spend so much mental energy "battling" with me is a testament to the fact that you do care about my opinions.

Champagne on ice for you the moment you figure this out.

the first one being that we can all celebrate that George Hutchinson has finally been identified, after 121 years of being lost to the world.

Hilarious!

But false.

[DVV]

David writes:

"I can hardly imagine that the 1898 G has been shaped by the 1888 witness..."

Well, David, then there is always Leander, who will tell you that this deviance - as well as the others involved - could have A NUMBER of explanations. You donīt have to worry at all - you can lean against a first-class expert of forensic document investigations!

Fisherman
glad to help out

Now that's too much for me,
I've tried my best to keep courteous and polite,
now you're arrogant and ridiculous,
Ok Fish,
what do you prefer?
I ignore your posts() or I REMEMBER your insults ?

Just tell me.

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"And what are the realistic chances of that happening, based on previous discussions with me?"

Effectively zero, Ben - and if you have not noticed, that was my whole argument. Regardless of the weight and substance of the arguments you are met by, you will disagree if they do not tally with your thinking. No matter if other posters step in and tell you that what you argue is completely laughable, you will persist. No matter if you insult a highly renowned expert and drag his good name in the filth, you will persist. No matter if what you argue defies logic, intelligence, a healthy upbringing, the laws of gravity and common good taste, you will persist. In fact, NO MATTER WHAT, you will persist.
So no, I never thought that there WAS a chance that you would call a Y a Y, if you had once decided it was an X. For some reason, you think that you can win an argument no matter how wrong your stance is, and in thinking so you fail to recognize that you let the only chance of sharing the only win around slip through your fingers.
And you are so deeply buried in that misconception that you open a post by asking me how big a chance I think I stand to see you change your mind.
Truth? Bollocks! Honesty? Pssss... Logic? Only if it serves your purpose.

"Stamina wars are futile, as is the expectation that I'll suddenly give in and embrace your flawed observations."

Many moons ago, Ben, I would have welcomed another attitude. At that time I was much impressed by your knowledge, but not yet aware of your ambitions. That has all changed, and therefore I can only repeat that you are welcome to your stance. Like you say, we are grown-ups (well, some of us are ...) and we must make our own decisions - and live by them.

"that would be inapplicable and highly unconventional phraseology"

...and so it is to tell us that Frank Leander is unreliable and swinging between extremities in his judgements. So you should have no trouble to work with such tools.

You know as well as I do that these expressions are everyday stuff, you know as well as I do that it renders your disgraceful spitting on Leanders reputation totally ridiculous - and you know as well as I do that you will never admit it.
But it needs to be said anyway, since we should not tolerate to let you get away with filth like this.

"or else why would you be following me around trying to fight me"

In this case you are not only doing logic a disfavour. You are also trying to push your ego over Frank Leanders right to be heard fairly. You even have the nerve to suggest that we rule his posts out, and suggest that he is unreliable. So I have the double incentive of not letting you have your way and clearing Frank Leander - who has been extremely helpful and friendly, and who has a totally stainless reputation (well, at least he did until he had the misfortune of running into a sadly intelligence-defying poster on an obscure website) - from the wreckless allegations youīve made.

And no, I DO NOT care about your opinions, Ben - I care so little about them that I would rather have them wiped out and gone. It would leave us with a sound thread and a Frank Leander that had gone deservedly unabused. It would leave us with the opinions I do care about.

Once again, wonīt you please make a fool of yourself by answering my question about what difference it would make which of the possible explanations for the alterations in the signatures it was that came into play? It is a question you seem to have no answer to, though you were very keen to press that point.
It was, as I have hinted at, an asinine thing to do, and therefore it would be nice to see you elaborating on the subject. So far you have consistently avoided the issue, and I take it you will go on doing so.
Still, I will ask you once again if you avoid the question, so it may be a good idea to get it overwith, Ben.

Fisherman

who toasted to Toppy, the Dorset Street witness, in amber-coloured single malt whisky from Aberfeldy earlier this evening.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Ok Fish,
what do you prefer?
I ignore your posts() or I REMEMBER your insults ?"

Well, David, if you can point me in the direction of any insult here, Iīll give it some thought.
Leander IS a first-rate expert. He DOES tell us that all the changes may have a number of possible explanations. You DID say you were at a loss to understand the differences in the G:s. And I AM glad to help out, whenever I can.

...so Iīm afraid I canīt find any insults in my post at all. Only a collection of truths and some good advice.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David writes:

"I can hardly imagine that the 1898 G has been shaped by the 1888 witness..."

Well, David, then there is always Leander, who will tell you that this deviance - as well as the others involved - could have A NUMBER of explanations. You donīt have to worry at all - you can lean against a first-class expert of forensic document investigations!

Fisherman
glad to help out

I never worry, Fish.
Especially when a man stands in front of me with a disdainful air.
When you sign your post: "Fish, glad to help out ", you only show disdain. But fortunately, you're not in front of me.
I've often disagreed with you, but my posts always end by "Amitiés".
And I mean it. And I'm here to discuss. With respect.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

How crap must that party have been that you're back now?

Or did you excuse yourself early because you were so anxious to get back to an internet message board debate?

Regardless of the weight and substance of the arguments you are met by

Oh, but of course.

I'm defeated by the awesome, invulnerable might of Fisherman's oh-so-logical and oh-so-articulate posts. See, you didn't answer my question at all about what value you perceive in continuing an aggression-fuelled war of words. You've decided that I'd persist no matter what. Fair enough, but in "recognising" this, you're still arguing with me even after acknowledging the futility of doing so.

That's so hilariously illogical, Fisherman.

But then so is this:

And no, I DO NOT care about your opinions, Ben - I care so little about them that I would rather have them wiped out and gone

If you cared "so little" about them, you wouldn't have been "battling" with me to the extent that this particular thread is 177 pages long. The length of this thread is effectively a testament to the fact that you do care about my opinions a great deal, and here's your latest aggression fuel post, similarity attesting to the fact that you do care.

I'm not dismissing Leander at all. His initial letter reflected all the glowing qualities you rightly attributed to him; helpful, friendly, informative. I didn't disagree with his views in the slightest. He claimed that we couldn't rule Toppy out, and he's right, we can't. If you then infected that initial "spontaneous comment" with an obvious personal bias as well as misleading infromation, that may have tarnished his initial observations, which is deeply unfortunate. As you well know, another document examiner offered her views on the subject, and you advised her to "butt out" of the discussion, having made digustingly crass insinuations about the extent of her professional credentials, referring to her as a "parrott" in the process.

It would leave us with the opinions I do care about.

Um, yes, that would be the opinions that you claim agree with you. Yes, what a wonderful world it would be for you if you were surrounded only by people whose opinions agree with. Tough titty, Fisherman. Here I am. I disagree with you, and I will cheerfully reiterate that disagreement whevever you feel like engaging in repetition, and yes, you do care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't keep responding in so venonmous and fulsome a fashion.

Once again, wonīt you please make a fool of yourself by answering my question about what difference it would make which of the possible explanations for the alterations in the signatures it was that came into play?

I didn't say it made a difference, necessarily. I pointed out that Leander never once expressed the view that any of his suggested reasons for the differences actually did account for them, only that they could have done.

who toasted to Toppy, the Dorset Street witness, in amber-coloured single malt whisky from Aberfeldy earlier this evening.

So, when you were out socializing with friends at this, you were busy thinking about how to get one over on your opponent on an internet message board? You don't think that's a bit depressing?

[Fisherman]

"How crap must that party have been that you're back now?

Or did you excuse yourself early because you were so anxious to get back to an internet message board debate?"

The quality of a party is not judged by how long it is, Ben - especially not if half of the guests range from six to nine years of age. I enjoyed it thoroughly, and Iīm sorry if that is a disappointment to you!

"That's so hilariously illogical"

Donīt even go there, Ben - you would not recognize logic if you ever encountered it.

"If you cared "so little" about them, you wouldn't have been "battling" with me to the extent that this particular thread is 177 pages long."

I care little about you too, Ben.

"I'm not dismissing Leander at all."

No, you are just deperately trying to belittle him, and drag his name in the dirt. And although I have, time and again, pointed you to the fact that he at no stage has made contradictory statements, you will not give him the benefit of a doubt.
Earlier on this thread, you had the stomach to say that you were sad that I had contacted Iremonger, since you were sure that I had been discourteous to her. This, Ben, you said without knowing **** about how I had approached her. You knew effectively nothing about it, but that did not stop you to make slimy insinuations, did it?
Leander, though, different thing - he does not go your way, so letīs discredit him! Letīs say that he makes "complete turnovers" and lets call him unreliable!
Yuck, Ben - that is so low. You should be ashamed of yourself.

"you advised her to "butt out" of the discussion, having made digustingly crass insinuations about the extent of her professional credentials"

yes, since she managed to prove that she knew nothing about the relation between left-handedness and backwards leaning of the text, and since she published a tasteless poem where she said that the differences in the letters were so huge, whereas Leander quite casually said that there were a number of possible explanations, I pretty much perceived that her authority was somewhat flawed by this.

"Yes, what a wonderful world it would be for you if you were surrounded only by people whose opinions agree with"

On this thread, yes - it would be good to see sense. But, like you say, here you are - and suddenly the world is not quite as beautiful as it ought to be.

"I didn't say it made a difference, necessarily."

NECESSARILY? Come again, Ben, that question is still left unanswered, so here it is again: What possible difference could it make if it was another explanation than one of those listed by Leander? I need you to answer that it would make no difference at all, thereby showing us all that it was a daft point from the outset - or tell us about where any significant difference could possibly be hidden.
Still waiting on this one, Ben. Stop wriggling and slithering!

"So, when you were out socializing with friends at this, you were busy thinking about how to get one over on your opponent on an internet message board?"

Oh no - that was taken care of long ago. You did it for me. Goodnight, Ben!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Jean-Luc Godard: A bout de souffle.

[Ben]

And Fisherman responds, revealing once again that he cares desperately about my views. Not only does he care about them, they're a positive obsession, as his continuing and futuile vendetta aptly demonstrates.

No, you are just deperately trying to belittle him, and drag his name in the dirt. And although I have, time and again, pointed you to the fact that he at no stage has made contradictory statements, you will not give him the benefit of a doubt.

I do so love the mentality that insists that if you point something out "time and again", the argument somehow becomes more persuasive. No, I'm sorry, despite your insistence to the contrary, "cannot be ruled out" does not mean the the same thing as an "obvious likeness". If he said both of those things at different stages, I'm afraid that's a contradiction. I have no intention of discrediting Leander's initial "spontaneous" reaction. I believe his earlier observations have great merit, and I am grateful to him for sharing them.

yes, since she managed to prove that she knew nothing about the relation between left-handedness and backwards leaning of the text

She's an expert document examiner with vastly more experience than you'll ever hope to possess, and you are a nauseating disgrace of a hypocrite to cast aspertions in her direction. First you accuse me of ridiculing the views of an expert, and then you attempt, with sickening hypocrisy, to do precisely that with another expert who happens to disagree with you, and who offered to volunteer her time and expertise to examine the originals. The fact that you can be so insulting after she offered to disclose details of her credentials privately with you reveals you for the appalling individual you clearly are.

What possible difference could it make if it was another explanation than one of those listed by Leander? I need you to answer that it would make no difference at all

If that "another explanation" happened to be the most glaring one of all - that they're different because they were written by a different individual - it would make all the difference in the world, for obvious reasons.

Looking forward to your regular-as-clockwork lengthy excuse for a response tomorrow, proving once again that you care deeply what I think. Why, I'm even on your mind when you attend social gatherings!

[Crystal]

Butting In..

Fisherman

As noted above, you asked me to 'Butt Out' of your feud with Ben, which I have done. I don't think that means, however, that I have to stand by and say nothing whilst yet again, you make baseless and misleading assertions about me. Please stop it.

As regards the 'poem' - I have apologised to you, in public, on this thread, for any offence it may have caused you. I think that represents fair conduct.

You, however, regardless of the fact that you stated, in public, on this thread, that you would apologise if you had misrepresented my view, have made no such apology - indeed, you just keep on repeating the same slanderous nonsense. I do not think that represents fair conduct.

You have misrepresented my view, and continue to do so. I will ask you again not to, and not to drag me into your ongoing war of words with Ben when you yourself have requested that I stay out of it.

Once again, I have not placed myself in opposition to Leander. I want no part in this ridiculous squabble of oppositions. You do appear to think about all this in very simple terms, Fisherman. It may, ultimately, be a case of 'Yes' or 'No' when it comes to this infamous signature match, but there's a long way to go before we get there.

It is not so simple as you seem to believe. I do not say that Leander is wrong. What is there for him to be wrong about in this context ? His initial comments, as Ben (yes, him) has observed, were entirely reasonable and in accordance with what anybody working in the profession would say, including myself. He said a match could not be ruled out. How you are able to interpret that as a probable match I cannot say. The first is deliberately not exclusive; the second is positively assertive - there is a world of difference. And how the hell you would expect a professional man such as Leander to come to the second conclusion - i.e. an affirmation of your personal belief - based on third hand digital images is utterly beyond me. It is, always has been, and will remain, entirely ridiculous. Unless he comes over here and views the bloody originals in situ, he'll never be able to do as you wish in this respect. And all credit to him - his circumspect response, more than anything else, is what confirms his expertise.

Now then, as to this ridiculous assertion that I have 'proved' that I know nothing about left-handedness and the backwards slant. Please.

Fisherman, I am left-handed. If I was an utterly untrained birdbrain who really did prefer to spend my time colouring hearts in my notebook I'd still know about it, wouldn't I, having learned to write as a left-handed child?

Or does the logic of that escape you?

But, as usual, your baseless accusations reveal a lack of understanding. Here's a clue - the backwards slant is not a uniform trait. Not every left-handed child displays it, by any means. And not every right-handed child writes with a forward slant.

And not all blondes are stupid.

It's a silly, naive generalisation, and carries no weight whatsoever.

Now, if you want me to stay out of your fight with Ben, then don't drag me back in again just to score points off him.