Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

No, Babybird - I am denying your wrongful presentation of what I have said And I will do it again, whenever it happens.

pray explain how in quoting your own words back to you i could possibly have misrepresented you?

It was not slander - it was exactly what you did.

Once again, no i did not. I QUOTED you, Fish; i quoted your own words back to you. If you dont like those words you shouldnt have used them.

I have neve said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch.

I suggest you re-read the posts where i have QUOTED YOU VERBATIM, and you will see that you have said that you concur with Leander in concluding Toppy is Hutch. These were your words, not mine.

But this quibble is not what the boards are for.

You may call it a "quibble" (oops sorry did i misrepresent you again? oh no, you clearly called it a quibble) to accuse someone of lying; i personally do not appreciate it and find it a little like your assertion that those who have lost the argument resort to violence to try to gain a victory. Your verbal violence against me, because you cannot stick to the argument, is to accuse me of lying when i have consistently quoted your own posts back to you. That's not a quibble to me. Anyone who knows me knows that i would not lie or fabricate things. As i said, a gentleman would apologise. Our exchange today is indeed very telling.

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.

Done.

[DVV]

Hi BB,

you're a new SH in Mike's movie.

[babybird67]

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

Indeed Mike. I concur.

I have changed my mind from initially thinking the sigs did not match, to noticing that i perhaps wasn't the person best qualified to be so definite about them not matching because Crystal showed us sigs which didnt match but that looked like they did.

I am not against changing ones mind when new evidence comes to light.

However when we are discussing something in which one person cannot appear to present a consistent view from one post to the next, and even a consistent view in the same posts at times, trying to argue logically becomes almost impossible.

You can't counter that with logic as the argument is not following logical processes.

[babybird67]

?

Hi BB,

you're a new SH in Mike's movie.

I dont understand what this means.

[Crystal]

Forget it Fish.

You still haven't apologised to me for misrepresenting my view and making disparaging remarks concerning the independence of my view by your infantile suggestion that I was Ben's 'parrott' (sic.).

I, on the other hand, did apologise to you for any offence you may have felt over the 'poem'

So: who does have the respect, then?

Now I don't take your spurious accusations seriously, because I see you do it to everyone who disagrees with you.

It's a poor way to argue, Fish. It does you no favours and suggests very strongly that you are incapable of anything better.

Learn to be nice. Otherwise, you'll wake up one morning to find that anybody interested in serious debate has put you on ''ignore'.

[The Good Michael]

I am not against changing ones mind when new evidence comes to light.

Reminds me. I have to change my underwear soon, too... maybe Monday.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Forget it Fish."

No.

Letīs see your cards, Crystal. I am interested, and you owe it to the ones who read the thread.

If you do not present it, then I will regard is as an admittance on your behalf that you cannot find anything to bolster your accusations with, and that you have slandered me without any ground.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Reminds me. I have to change my underwear soon, too... maybe Monday.

Mike

Are you suggesting Mike that a man's mind is in his underwear????

[The Good Michael]

Are you suggesting Mike that a man's mind is in his underwear????

How dare you! Always concentrating on the naughty bits are you? I was just making a mental note, is all.

Mike

[babybird67]

Forget it Fish.

You still haven't apologised to me for misrepresenting my view and making disparaging remarks concerning the independence of my view by your infantile suggestion that I was Ben's 'parrott' (sic.).

I, on the other hand, did apologise to you for any offence you may have felt over the 'poem'

So: who does have the respect, then?

I think and hope everyone can see who argues with respect, Crystal, and who just gets so desperate to win the argument at any cost that they will stoop to any level.

It's a poor way to argue, Fish. It does you no favours and suggests very strongly that you are incapable of anything better.

Agreed.

Learn to be nice. Otherwise, you'll wake up one morning to find that anybody interested in serious debate has put you on ''ignore'.

wow there "is" such a facility?

love and hugs

[babybird67]

yeah yeah

How dare you! Always concentrating on the naughty bits are you? I was just making a mental note, is all.

Mike

pull the other one...and may i remind you, you brought up underwear first!

Corrupter!

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"pray explain how in quoting your own words back to you i could possibly have misrepresented you?"

Well, Babybird, when you stated that I have thrown forward that Leander has said that Toppy was Hutch, you were not exactly quoting me, were you?
When you quoted me, it suddenly emerged that what I said was that "AT PRESENT" Leander is inclined to believe that Toppy was the witness, and I concur with that - as it stands, Toppy holds the role of the Dorset Street witness.

Now that you had your explanation, letīs just refrain from any further quibbling, Babybird, and await what the administrators have to say! If they point me out as a part that has wronged you, I will immediately apologize to you. If not, I will simply make the assumption that they considered your accusation groundless.

Until whichever of this happens, please - PLEASE - letīs not torment the posters any further with what is a personal dealing between you and me.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

you brought up underwear first!

Only because I'd just had an accident. You turned it into something depraved... again.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

and await what the administrators have to say! If they point me out as a part that has wronged you, I will immediately apologize to you.

Can I just take the blame? I'm good for it.

Mike

[babybird67]

Like i said Fish i have only quoted what you said. If you hadn't said it i wouldnt have been able to quote it would i?

If they point me out as a part that has wronged you, I will immediately apologize to you. If not, I will simply make the assumption that they considered your accusation groundless.

With respect, a gentleman shouldn't need someone else to point out to him where he has engaged in ungentlemanly behaviour. Even when it has been clear that you have been changing the meanings of what Leander said to suit you, i respectfully attributed this to a mistake, not to deliberate falsehood. People who resort to slander, and then need it to be pointed out to them either by other posters or admin that they have unfairly slandered, have already lost any argument imo.

Until whichever of this happens, please - PLEASE - letīs not torment the posters any further with what is a personal dealing between you and me.

Fisherman

If i find it necessary to defend my character from baseless assassination, that's what i will do.