Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

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

Mike

Me? Moi?

i dont think so Mike...you must have me confused with someone else...someone else who's depraved...oh yeah, you!

[babybird67]

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

Mike

shouldnt that be "good for nothing"?

[Crystal]

NO.

I refuse to pander to your desire for endless keyboard combat any longer.

Fish, you typically do not respond to anything that doesn't suit you.

Apologise. As you said you would.

Then I might consider you more seriously.

As to what you make of my refusal to comply with your say-so: whatever.

If you want to go down that road, you'll lose. It's your call.

And BB, yes! You can ignore! Hooray! xx

[Ben]

Now who could have predicted this?

Fisherman recently made the dramatic announcement that he will be off the boards for a while. Turns out he meant he'd be back in less than 24 hours. There's just no resisting it, is there Fish?

Well, pardon me for being such a party-spoiler, Ben, but I would like to see some proof for what you muse about here.

Proof would be nice, but given the overwhelming probability that she did precisely that - compare the signatures and come to the conclusion that they didn't match - it certainly isn't necessary, especially when we know that the alternatives being bandied around are outlandish in the extreme.

I will also take the opportunity to point out that if Iremonger had been the careful, professional, discerning expert you tell us she is, donīt you think it is at least a tad odd that she never even saw to it that her efforts were correctly documented?

She certainly would have done, but given that it would have been written in the early 1990s, it shouldn't come as any grea surprise that they're not readily available now.

But if this is so, the fact still remains that a reluctance to record the whole thing, the neglectance to document what it was Iremonger worked with and the forgetfullness to even bring a taperecorder to the localities where she spoke renders her evidence useless.

No it doesn't. Her evidence counts for a great deal, since we're blessed with the near certainty that she examined the original documents, and the certainty that she came to the conclusion that they didn't match. All you're doing is coming up with the worst excuses imaginable for dismissing evidence that isn't convenient to your cause.

Of course, this is complete rubbish, as anybody who reads Leanders post will see. Leander tells us that he would be surprised if the future would provide any evidence that went against a match.

Yes, but that was after he changed his mind in a radical, suspicious, and implausible about-turn. The more you refer to this radical change, the more it cancels out his earlier, more circumspect, observations, and vice versa of course.

And that wording is not the wording of a man who does not think it probable that he has a match, is it?

It's the wording of a man who radically altered his mind, most probably as a result of your continued bombardment of his in-box. "Please Leander! Tell me, it's Toppy! It is Toppy isn't it? Please make your comments more Toppy-endorsing". If reflects as poorly on you as it does on him, because the fact that he "delivered" every time his original comments were quoted directly suggests that he was hapless and susceptible to bias and misinformation.

We really need to dismiss something else instead - the whole of the Iremonger examination.

You must be either delusional or dishonest for making such a gauche, immature, and unrealistic suggestion. The former, I sincerely hope.

I do believe that Toppy is Hutch. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

No it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a mismatch, as endorsed by the majority of experts to date. Your putting percentages on likelihood is unlikely to be taken remotely seriously, since you're about as far away from being an accurate barometer of "likelihood" as can be imagined. You claim that if anything goes against your Toppy-as-Hutch theory, you'd consider revising your stance. Iremonger is one good example of a piece of evidence that doesn't help your cause. You say Leander endorses Toppy, and he's an expert in his field. But Crystal is also an expert and doesn't endorse Toppy. Go figure.

[richardnunweek]

Hello friends[ are we?]
This thread has progressed from getting bad, to from HELL, it just provides proof that us humans are a argumentive breed.
Let me say one thing[ and no-one is more biased then me] if it could be proven almost beyond doubt, that Topping was not the witness Hutchinson , i like Fisherman would admit openly that i was wrong, and bin any further thought in that direction.
I have never worn blinkers during my years on Casebook , or in fact at any time during my intrest in this case, and i am very adaptable to swing into any direction.
But at the moment the swing is stationary, so i wait in anticipation....
Regards Richard.

[babybird67]

ohhhh superhero...i get it now

Hi BB,

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

Introducing...dada daaaaaaaa..."the Fabricator"...this femme fatale will stun you with her verbatim quotes and floor you with your own flaws...able to spin webs of accuracy, she will enmesh you with a web of unarguable logic from which there is no escape...

she will also make your underpants smell nice

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Like i said Fish i have only quoted what you said."

Like I said, Babybird, you have not. What you have done is to say one thing, and thereafter trying to bolster it with a quotation that does not tally with your original statement.

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

I thought you already did? I have urged you to, and I will do so again - please do report me to the administrators, and let them decide who is faulting who. It will clear the air, I believe.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"NO.

I refuse to pander to your desire for endless keyboard combat any longer."

As I thought - you have been making accusations you can in no way justify. I told you that this would be my stance if you failed to come up with something - ANYTHING - to bolster your accusations, and it seems we are there now.

Donīt do it again, Crystal. It serves no good purpose, and you will be revealed in the same manner whenever it happens. From now on, I must regard any further posts of yours as the posts of a participator who is ready to throw reckless accusations around her - but not able to bolster them.

Fisherman

Fisherman

Fisherman

[Crystal]

What?

Fisherman

BB quoted you VERBATIM. It means - she quoted your EXACT words. I should consider backing down for once, since anyone who wishes to can go back to check that she has done just that - and will find that she has.

Accusing her of effectively lying is unpleasant, untenable, and unacceptable. Nobody likes to be treated as such. People object when you call them a liar. And when you misrepresent their views. And when you falsely accuse them of posting assertions which they never have.

Please, stop being so aggressive.

And I think in describing me, you just very accurately described yourself.

[halomanuk]

Maybe this thread should be locked as it is getting a little silly now !!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Proof would be nice, but given the overwhelming probability..."

Blah-blah-blah, Ben. No. Your "probabilities" carry no weight. Taking into account what you seem to know (and not know) about the expression "probability", letīs forget about Iremonger, shall we?

"She certainly would have done, but given that it would have been written in the early 1990s, it shouldn't come as any grea surprise that they're not readily available now"

Flushed down the toilet? Or simply existing, but nobody knows where?

"Her evidence counts for a great deal"

Find it for me, and letīs see.

"It's the wording of a man who radically altered his mind, most probably as a result of your continued bombardment of his in-box. "Please Leander! Tell me, it's Toppy! It is Toppy isn't it? Please make your comments more Toppy-endorsing". If reflects as poorly on you as it does on him"

Then find that too - you have had the full wording printed out for you.

"As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a mismatch, as endorsed by the majority of experts to date"

Iremonger, Ben?? Or Crystal? Or the pair of them? Is that the "majority of experts" you speak of?

And hey, you forgot to comment on my revealing your plans for your next move - could it be that you were slightly embarrased? I do hope so, since it is not a very technique, though in some parts admittedly ingenous.
Anything to say on the matter, Ben?

Fisherman



Fisherman

[Ben]

Taking into account what you seem to know (and not know) about the expression "probability", letīs forget about Iremonger, shall we?

No, let's not forget about Iremonger.

Let's remember her, because she is an expert in the field of document examination who doesn't believe Toppy was the witness.

Iremonger, Ben?? Or Crystal? Or the pair of them? Is that the "majority of experts" you speak of?

Iremonger, Crystal, and another expert contacted by Crystal. That's three professionals in this particular field who believe that, on balence, Toppy was probably not the witness.

And hey, you forgot to comment on my revealing your plans for your next move - could it be that you were slightly embarrased?

I was a bit embarrassed for you, yes, I am forced to admit. I mean, anyone who darts straight back onto his PC at his first waking breath with what amounted essentially to: "Hey, if I repeat myself using the same arguments that didn't work yesterday, let's see if Ben repeats himself with precisely the same objections!", is deserving of my sympathy, especially after expressing the intention to be off the boards for a while.

[Fisherman]

Crystal, it is getting very confusing when you and Babybird side with each other to attack me. I would much prefer if you minded your problems (substantiating your faulty accusations), and left her to do her bit.

Babybird IS quoting me, and I have no problems with that. The problem lies in the fact that she tells me that her own stance - that I have stated that Leander has said that Toppy is Hutch - equates the quotation, which it does not.

Leander is of the meaning that AS IT STANDS Toppy should be regarded as the probable Hutch. He also believes that he will be proven right in that suspicion when more evidence surfaces. That is what he has said, and that is what I concur with.
...and that does not go to prove that I have thrown forward that Leander has said that Toppy is Hutch, without any reservations.

It is a silly point to press, and I think we would be wise to leave it by now. I have explained it numerous times, and the thought of doing so until they come from the Old Peoples Home to pick me up is slightly sickening. It is a bit like me telling you that you have said that I am your best friend and bolstering it by looking for the word "yes" in your posts. It donīt work that way.

Now, you go looking for all them faults of mine and publish them, and let Babybird report me to the administrators. I would be the happiest man on earth to get rid of these issues, since I know that I am on terra firma with them.
By the bye, how did that phone conversation with Leander go? You stated yesterday that you had him on the line, and it would only be fair to share the result with the rest of us.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, let's not forget about Iremonger."

Sorry - already have. Find the documents and I may remember her again.

"Iremonger, Crystal, and another expert contacted by Crystal."

Ah - one expert of whose work we have no documentation, one expert that has a nasty habit of accusing her fellow posters of being wrong multiple times - but with no further urge to bolster the accusations, and one expert of whom we know nothing. Thatīs quite a line-up youīve got there, Ben!

"I was a bit embarrassed for you, yes"

Thanks, Ben - you really shouldnīt!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Sorry - already have. Find the documents and I may remember her again.

Doesn't bother me if you remember her or not.

Your "forgetfulness" in this regard serves as a testament to your habit of dismissing evidence that isn't convenient to your cause.

Ah - one expert of whose work we have no documentation, one expert that has a nasty habit of accusing her fellow posters of being wrong multiple times - but with no further urge to bolster the accusations, and one expert of whom we know nothing.

Nope, that'll be one expert who actually examined the original documents, another whose professionalism and experience is beyond any doubt and who has expressed her intention to dedicate her time and abilities to assess the original documents. You're free to cast any aspertions you wish in the direction of the third, providing you don't expect anyone to care.

Leander is of the meaning that AS IT STANDS Toppy should be regarded as the probable Hutch. He also believes that he will be proven right in that suspicion when more evidence surfaces.

That's after radically changing his mind in a suspicous and implausible fashion, which you unwittingly acknowledge yourself in an earlier post in which you condeded that Leander said nothing about a match being "probable".