Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

fish

your adroit use of doublespeak could have been lifted straight from the pages of "1984"! It's amazing and i see no logic can move you at all.

You have quite clearly said at different points in the discussion, that Toppy = Hutch, that Leander states that Toppy = Hutch (not true at all), that you concur with me when i state you cannot "close the case" (or be 100% certain in other words) that Toppy does = Hutch, that Toppy is probably Hutch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

I asked you what was controversial about with-holding judgement that a match has been made, and you clearly agree with me, stating that the materials we have DO NOT ALLOW for us to conclude that a match has been made.

Then Mike pops up, and suddenly, Toppy is most definitely Hutch once again.

It makes me dizzy just contemplating it.

At least Mike has been consistent in his delusion that Toppy has been proven to be Hutch; you, however, say different things to different people, to try to make your argument sound reasonable when faced with the undoubted logical position that nothing has yet been proven regarding the identity of Toppy with Hutch.

It's very very clear.

And it's a very very silly way to argue.

[Fisherman]

Babybird, trying to confuse things:

"You have quite clearly said at different points in the discussion, that Toppy = Hutch, that Leander states that Toppy = Hutch (not true at all), that you concur with me when i state you cannot "close the case" (or be 100% certain in other words) that Toppy does = Hutch, that Toppy is probably Hutch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..."

I do believe that Toppy is Hutch. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That has remained my stance throughout. I have just posted and told you that I regard it a 99 per cent plus chance. The remaining fraction of a per cent means that I am honest enough to admit that no absolute certainty can be reached as yet, but that owes mostly to the lack of more signatures. I have every faith that when such signatures surface, they will confirm what I say - that Toppy in all probability is Hutch.

I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch. It is semantically twisted to begin with, since Leander has never used any of these names. Furthermore, he has never - and would never, as a discerning expert - said such a thing. He speaks in probabilities and possibiliteis only, and if you have not yet seen this, I fear you will never do so.
If you want to point me out as not being steadfast, Babybird, then you really ought not fabricate things.

Leander has stated that he would be surprised if the man (Toppy) who wrote the wedding signature and the census signatures, was not the same man that signed the police protocol back in 1888. That means that he sees the match as a probable one, and he is careful to tell us that he puts the hit on the lower side of the positive scale.

Can I be much clearer? I donīt think so.

In a fashion, you were also quite clear when you posted things that I have never said. It makes for quite a telling story too.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

I think I said "At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander - the signatures are so alike that it would surprise me too, if it was NOT a match.
So "at present", Toppy is Hutch. But since we do not have all the material we need - like Leander states - new material MAY surface that tells us another story. After that, I may be saying "Toppy was probably NOT Hutch". Yoy see, I am not adverse to admitting when the evidence goes against something I have formerly thought. I try to stay openminded.]

In this quote you are saying both you and Leander "concur" that "Toppy is Hutch." Equating things is saying they match 100%.

This contrasts with what you say here:

"If I am that "other side", BB, I am not saying 100 %. I am saying a very probable match, whereas Leander seem to be saying only a probale one. My reason for adding the "very" is the context."

because in this quote (above) you say Leander says there is a "probale(sic)" match, and you go one better and say "very probable" because of the context.

In the juxtaposition of these two quotes IT IS CLEAR, very clear, that you are changing your mind seemingly almost every time you post a response up. Probable and very probable do not allow someone to identity one thing as 100% the same as something else; if it is your stance that there is a probable or very probable match, you cannot also have the contradictory stance that identification is certain. You keep using mutually exlcusive terminology and curiously expecting everyone else to forget the meanings of words and agree with you. Anyone who does agree with you does so at their own peril, because it is nigh on impossible to establish what you DO actually believe on your merry-go-round of disparate yet seemingly equivalent opinions.

If you do currently believe Toppy and Hutch are the same person, what a curious position to take: from the above quote, while we do not have "all the material we need" apparently to be absolutely sure that Toppy is Hutch, you appear to be claiming that you ARE sure that Toppy IS Hutch (definite position); you then go on to say, if this unknown material does surface which may cast doubt on the present certainty, established with such aplomb, you will move from a position of certainty to a position of uncertainty. Doesn't it make more sense to BEGIN with the position of uncertainty, since we have sigs which cannot be proven to match, and then move your position towards certainty, or at least greater probability, the more evidence emerges?

This is amazing...i just do not know how to counter such an illogical and ever-changing stance. Words cannot mean whatever they want you to mean Fish; saying something IS something else is not the same as saying something MAY BE something else. One is definite, the other is speculative and indefinite, and is the wise approach imo to take when the truth has not yet been established, as in this case.

Once again, the only logical stance to take, when basing identification of one thing with another based on a very inexact science, is to approach the matter with circumspection and not equate one thing with another unless 100% proven. If there is the smallest portion of doubt, even 0.001% of doubt, it is not wise to claim that something definitely equates with something else, because there is always that little bit of chance that may make them a mismatch.

Curiously, though, your position seems now to be, that Hutch IS Toppy. Then you say you said Hutch is Toppy because you concur with Leander; to my knowledge, Leander has never said Toppy and Hutch are one and the same. He has said he cannot rule out a match, that's it; that's a very big maybe with a lot of room to doubt.

Please, Fish, make up your mind. It's a pain having to work out which stance you are taking and then demolish it every time...at least if you keep your opinion consistent i can keep my bulldozer on standby and just cut and paste why you are still wrong! And if you were open-minded as you claim to be your mind would already be so open to the possibility that there isnt a match that you wouldn't have to keep saying "is a match", "is probably a match", "is very probably a match"; you could just say, I dont know, and leave it at that.

[Crystal]

Fisherman, let's be clear : you and the Casebook are not synonymous. I owe you nothing. What I owe the Casebook is immaterial.

In all seriousness, you might do well to take a step back from this row, stop obsessing over Ben - that's my job - and recover your dignity.

Nobody engaging with this thread could fail to notice your arguments, since you drive them into the ground with ceaseless determination.

Don't you get it yet? Some people disagree with you. All the posturing and shouting in the world won't change it.

And so what if they do? Why can't you accept it?

As this thread has devolved, so has your apparent ability to argue logically. You're not doing yourself any favours.

For your own sake, don't say things like 'Toppy Is Hutch'.
It makes you look ridiculous.

I don't mean offence, Fish. I'm just thinking maybe you're taking this all a bit too personally?

It's never a good idea.

[babybird67]

Babybird, trying to confuse things:

i dont see how i can be trying to confuse things; the only confusion that is arising is from your own wildly changing views. Which i have quoted in full, in juxtaposition that the discerning reader might see WHO exactly is confused and confusing things.




[quote]I do believe that Toppy is Hutch.[\quote]

you're entitled to your opinion but stop trying to claim that you are circumspect in your appraisal by changing this to probably, and very probably when it suits you.

The evidence for it is overwhelming.

No it's not. It's distinctly underwhelming.

That has remained my stance throughout.

no it has not, as i have demonstrably proven by using your own words, exactly. In fact the only consistent thing about your posts is their lack of consistency.

I have just posted and told you that I regard it a 99 per cent plus chance. The remaining fraction of a per cent means that I am honest enough to admit that no absolute certainty can be reached as yet, but that owes mostly to the lack of more signatures.

Right. So we've moved from Toppy is Hutch at the beginning of this post to what? Toppy is very probably, i.e. 99% Hutch? There is your consistent inconsistency again.

I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch.

Right. You never said:

I think I said "At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander

Funny how i am able to quote something you said, as you apparently now never said it.

If you want to point me out as not being steadfast, Babybird, then you really ought not fabricate things.

i am not dishonest Fish and i strongly object to this sentence, especially as i have been quoting YOUR OWN WORDS and in doing so have been able to establish that you do not maintain a consistent argument! I suggest you are man enough to apologise for trying to accuse me of lying or substantiate your claim, which you will be unable to do because i do not fabricate what i post.

Can I be much clearer? I donīt think so.

hahaha...that made me laugh so much!

In a fashion, you were also quite clear when you posted things that I have never said. It makes for quite a telling story too.

Fisherman

point this out or apologise; if you do not i will report you. I cannot abide liars.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Fisherman, let's be clear : you and the Casebook are not synonymous. I owe you nothing."

You are correct on one point - and wrong on another.

Me and Casebook are not synonymous! That is very correct. Casebook is extremely much bigger than any of us - it is a fantastic meeting place where people who have caught the Ripper disease may discuss and deepen their knowledge.
To be frank, me and Casebook are not even remotely alike - but then again, I would never state such a thing either.

You owe me nothing? Oh, yes, you do, Crystal. And I will have it. You have said that I have been demonstrably wrong in many cases, and I have asked you to provide the proof for it. If you fail to do so, you will make a very miserable character, Iīm afraid.
You owe the goods to Casebook - that you seem to treasure? - or an apology to me.

Itīs called decency, Crystal.

Fisherman

[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.

[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."

[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 donīt. 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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

I am fighting a hard battle here, but I donīt 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