Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Once again, I have not placed myself in opposition to Leander. [/B]

That's the simple truth.
And neither Ben, nor you, nor I, have ever tried to twist his words.
Fish's translation had first failed to translate correctly "knappast", but once he had explained it, we've accepted it.
And it still has very little to do with "obvious likeness".

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Saying something cannot be ruled out can take either a meaning of very possible with an emphasis on understatement for political reasons, or it can mean that something is just a possibility. It all depends on what Leander wanted to say. This statement is vague enough to go either way. I suggest that an expert, not wanting to commit himself to something, would use it to mean very possible while covering himself by understating. Yet it is of course possible that he was just not sure and wanted to only say it was a possibility. Without further clarification, it becomes moot and inarguable.

Fish can always seek further clarification to see wherein the emphasis lies. I'm sure Leander wouldn't begrudge him that. Experts are often vague because they don't want to commit. There are other experts who will jump on them when and if they do. I no longer really care. I just want these interminably long posts of refutation that lose all meaning in their lengthiness and repetitiveness, to stop. Getting the last word only means self-satisfaction. It does nothing for the cause, whatever the cause may be.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The trouble is that "cannot be ruled out" carries a different meaning to "very possible", since the latter obviously verges on probable, and Fish and I at least agree that Leander said nothing about a "probable" match. He's saying it's possible, certainly, but with no more enthusiasm than that.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David writes:

" I'm here to discuss. With respect."

So am I, David - and whenever given a chance, I do so.

Leander said that there were a number of possible explanations to the discrepancies. He especially pressed that point, while not offering any alternative explanation to the likenesses.
That is why I tell you that you should not worry about the G - it would have it´s explanation. Leander never singled it out as being especially strange or anything along those lines, and I concur totally with Sam that progression AS WELL AS regression may occur in the style elements.

That is as respectful as I can be, David. You have raised this "Benjamin Button" point time after time, and you have done so in spite of Leander saying tht there will be explanations. I think it is futile, to be honest, and a no-go argumentwise. And I can only say that so many times before it gets tedious.
I am not sure what you are saying when you state that it is fortunate that I am not in front of you. If it is a hidden way to threat about physical violence, it is very much below you, David. I´d rather you dropped that immediately never to return to it, if I am reading you right, Then again, I would be very happy to learn that I am not.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

The trouble is that "cannot be ruled out" carries a different meaning to "very possible", since the latter obviously verges on probable,

No, it doesn't necessarily mean only possible. It can and has meant probable, but it depends upon the intention of the speaker. I just read today that "it cannot be ruled out that gold will reach 1100 dollars an ounce." That can be a understated prediction or it can just mean that it is possible. It doesn't mean it is hardly possible, and that's for sure. It must be clarified for there to be peace is all I'm saying.

Mike

[Ben]

No, it doesn't necessarily mean only possible. It can and has meant probable, but it depends upon the intention of the speaker.

I'd have to disagree, Mike. If there's one thing "cannot be ruled out" does not and cannot mean it's "probable". It means "not impossible", because if you rule something out, you're eliminating it; you're declaring it to be impossible. It can mean possible, certainly, but never probable.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Just a thought, but don't any of you have a dictionary?

[Ben]

He especially pressed that point, while not offering any alternative explanation to the likenesses

He wouldn't need to, Fisherman, because there's no question that there may be logical explanations behind the likenesses that don't have anything to do with their being written by the same person. No professional document examiner worthy of that name would ever need to come up with detailed reasons for why some signatures and handwriting samples share superficial similarities, simply because of the well-known fact that many signatures will reveal similar traits with eachother. Crystal recently produced an example of the name "George" written in a manner that resembled Toppy's "George" very closely indeed (more so that the witness George), but the writer was most assuredly NOT Toppy, nor was he the witness.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Here goes: " I really want tacos. I have tortillas. I have black beans. I have cheese. I have salsa and sour Cream." " Really? I suppose you'll make some then?" "Well, I wouldn't rule out that possibility."

Hey. I just used it and it means, "probably". Why? Because that's what I intended.

You can argue that it isn't used that way, but I just did it, so you'd be wrong. Everyone I know uses it that way at times. It is understatement. End of argument. Now, get the last word in if you wish, but you'll only sound like an a&&.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Here goes: " I really want tacos. I have tortillas. I have black beans. I have cheese. I have salsa and sour Cream." " Really? I suppose you'll make some then?" "Well, I wouldn't rule out that possibility."

Well, that would just be a really weird thing to say, that has nothing to do with how people usually communicate. Nobody I know used that phrase in that context, ever. You'd only use it in that context if you wanted to be unusually sarcastic, and I very much doubt that Leander wanted to convey that trait at all.

[Crystal]

He doesn't need to. I will. I fail to see how your food analogy makes the slightest impression or is of the slightest relevance to what Leander, in his professional capacity observed about the signatures.

Yes, fine, when you prepare food, in your everyday life, nobody cares if you use sloppy language - knock yourself out - but a man of Leander's professional standing, requested to give his professional opinion, is hardly likely to do so.

[Fisherman]

Ben, since you seem to have some difficultu laying of this brawl, maybe you should b a little more careful dubbing me the obsessed one? And if you think my posting points to a sad and obsessed life, then you may want to contemplate that you are the more frequent poster of us two. Just some frindly advice, bro!

"She's an expert document examiner ..."

Absolutely, Ben - an expert document examiner who posed a very strange question about the connection between left-handedness and a backwards slant. And who tells us that the capital G:s so very far apart that we must be very cautious about a comparison - whereas Leander never even shrugged his shoulders at it. There were differences - and there were explanations to them, end of story.
Such a very marked difference in judgment urges us to make a choice - and I go with Leander, knowing fully what HIS merits are. I notice that Crystal has posted too, and I will answer her separately.

"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."

That was never even hinted at, Ben - that is YOUR agenda showing again. Leander of course not meant that one of the explanations to why style elemnts changed could be that another writer was responsible. He was saying that style elemet changes on behalf of a writer could change and that there could be a number of reasons for that. So do not drag things in that are comletely without merit, please. That is just nonsense, and it does not belong to the discussion.
Not to my discussion anyway - and to no other logical and honest discussion either.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

Yes, you fail to see. I'm in agreement.

Mike

[Crystal]

Mike, I fail to see because it's nonsense. The contexts are entirely different, and therefore, it isn't a suitable or meaningful analogy.

[Ben]

And who tells us that the capital G:s so very far apart that we must be very cautious about a comparison - whereas Leander never even shrugged his shoulders at it.

That wasn't the case though, Fisherman, was it?

Crystal referred to the dissimilarity with the capital G's.

Leander referred to the dissimilarity with with the capital G's.

They both referred to them as militating against the possibility of a match, just as they both recognise that those differences are nonetheless insufficient to "rule him out" conclusively. That isn't a difference in judgement at all, so your "Crystal versus Leander" contstruct is a demonstrably false and misleading one.

Regards,
Ben