Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

oh Crystal

And besides - you'd lose

Crystal

That is perhaps one of the funniest things i have ever read in my life...or do i mean AT THIS PRESENT TIME...the possibility that something funnier might pop up "cannot be ruled out".

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Your complaint that Crystal and i both share disdain and disgust of someone who accuses them of lying has much more to do with your own behaviour than either of ours..."

When you stop misrepresenting me and Crystal publishes her compilation of my wrongful assertions, I will discuss that further. And let´s await what the administrators have to say. Anything yet? No?

""At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander
quoted verbatim, not fabricated in any way shape or form."

..and it means that AT PRESENT, as things stand, Toppy is our man. But it ALSO means that we both leave the door open for the possibility that he may prove not to be so.
We do not have all the evidence we need to be quite certain, but what we DO have is enough for us to point the finger at Toppy. If nothing new emerges, he remains our man.

Surely, Babybird, you can see that there is a difference in "as it stands" and "proven beyond all possible doubt"? It is not all that subtle a difference, you know!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Crystal was talking to ME Fish, ME ME ME ME."

Well, so much for wishful thinking!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

No, Bb!

Do i need to draw you a diagram?

Please don't. It's a private matter between us...

Things are quite heated enough on this wretched thread.

I'm up for a re-match though - if you are....xxx

[Ben]

That we do not have the investigation available, Ben - did I not say so?

No, Fisherman.

You claimed that Gareth found the expression "total mismatch" to be mysterious and very damaging, despite the fact that Iremonger never used the phrase "total mismatch".

Do you, Ben? A few posts back you settled for it being very incredible that you did not have the truth - but now it seems you have changed your mind?

No, Fisherman.

I said I know it reflects the truth - the truth being that Ms. Iremonger having viewed the original documents can only be viewed as an overwhelming probability, since the alternatives are completely outrageous and safely discarded for that reason.

Wrong - again! He simply clarified later that "cannot be ruled out was a hit on the positive scale. Up til that, we could not know very much about just how much in favour...

So he didn't say what he meant the first time round.

Sp that means he wasn't consistent.

There's no evidence that he thought the match was "probable" in his first letter, as you acknowledge. The whole "probability" angle comes in later, or alleged synoyms thereof, despite nothing of the kind being insinuated in his original latter. Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the ability of this expert to make clear his feelings on the subject.

[Fisherman]

"That is perhaps one of the funniest things i have ever read in my life...or do i mean AT THIS PRESENT TIME...the possibility that something funnier might pop up "cannot be ruled out"

You ARE catching on finally, Babybird! Oooops, that post was meant for YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU.

I seem to remember you barging in on post meant from me to Crystal before- or is my memory illuding me?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi BB,

So Crystal's got me in her clutches, eh?

See, I was labouring under the delusion that the reverse was true, hence our song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WbzTfCh6xc

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"No, Fisherman.

You claimed that Gareth found the expression "total mismatch" to be mysterious and very damaging, despite the fact that Iremonger never used the phrase "total mismatch"."

This is interesting - I was only using Sams post to show that there was a discrepancy. It is rather an irrelevant thing how that discrepancy looked, since I was proving a principal point.
But now that you bring it up, Ben - how do you KNOW that Iremonger never used the expression "total mismatch"? Have you - at long last - been able to find the documents, and are now able to see what was said and what was not? Or are you just trying to quoute and unqoute from it - without having it. Ugh!

"I said I know it reflects the truth - the truth being that Ms. Iremonger having viewed the original documents can only be viewed as an overwhelming probability, since the alternatives are completely outrageous and safely dicarded for that reason."

In that case, Ben, all it reflects is your good faith that she was the real thing. If we do not have the truth, I fail to see how it could be reflected.

"So he didn't say what he meant the first time round."

He did - he just did not expand on what "cannot be ruled out" meant to him professionaly. It was there from the start, regardless of your writhing and slithering.

See you around, Ben. I´ll be gone for A WHILE!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Ben says: Hi BB, So Crystal's got me in her clutches, eh?

See, I was labouring under the delusion that the reverse was true

Of course. You tell yourself that.

Zealot.

Kisses - Defender of the Hutch

[babybird67]

Babybird:

When you stop misrepresenting me and Crystal publishes her compilation of my wrongful assertions, I will discuss that further. And let´s await what the administrators have to say. Anything yet? No?

I have already stated to you that if you need your bad behaviour pointed out to you by someone from admin, i dont think much of your moral compass.

Personally, when i believed Mike yesterday thought i may have paraphrased his argument incorrectly, my first response was TO APOLOGISE to him and to assure him that i would not misrepresent his views knowingly. This is because I respect Mike (Lord knows why...he doesn't appear to have a logical bone in his body either, apart from the one in his underpants loves ya really Mike ) and i acknowledge where i may have made a mistake and immediately make an apology for it, no questions asked, no prevaricating, no delay, no trying to wheedle out of it with irrelevancies and idiocies. Anyone who needs to win an argument by distorting the words of others is not worth debating with imo. That is why i quoted what you said verbatim. So both you and others could see that what you were saying was not consistent.

..and it means that AT PRESENT, as things stand, Toppy is our man. But it ALSO means that we both leave the door open for the possibility that he may prove not to be so.

I dont know if this is simply a matter of translation or what. When you say something "IS" something else, as above where you have said Toppy is our man, you are stating something definite. I have already demonstrated to you that you cannot assert something like that, which is 100% equivalent of one thing with something else, where there is any room for doubt. Your wording is wrong.

If you are meaning to say that on balance you accept a match has not been proven but you are fairly convinced of one, then say that!!! Don't keep saying that both you and Leander think Toppy is Hutch but only at this present time...we can only discuss this present time, not some maybe future event that may or may not throw up further evidence whenever. It is not necessary to use the phrase at this present time; all the threads on here all discuss the situation at this present time...we can do nothing else.

Surely, Babybird, you can see that there is a difference in "as it stands" and "proven beyond all possible doubt"? It is not all that subtle a difference, you know!

Fisherman

Believe me, Fish, I am not the one having a problem with subtle differences here.

[babybird67]

"That is perhaps one of the funniest things i have ever read in my life...or do i mean AT THIS PRESENT TIME...the possibility that something funnier might pop up "cannot be ruled out"

You ARE catching on finally, Babybird! Oooops, that post was meant for YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU.

I seem to remember you barging in on post meant from me to Crystal before- or is my memory illuding me?

Fisherman

Probably your memory, Fish, as i doubt it sincerely.

I dont mind you responding to Crystal when she has posted something to me...what i was wary of was you depicting Crystal somehow as someone threatening you with wrestling, hence my post to clear that up.

[babybird67]

Ben says: Hi BB, So Crystal's got me in her clutches, eh?

See, I was labouring under the delusion that the reverse was true

Of course. You tell yourself that.

Zealot.

Kisses - Defender of the Hutch

Crystal....let him think that. All men like to think they are in charge. We all know the reality though, don't we.

and Ben, lmao at the youtube thing!

[Crystal]

Where did Fisherman go?

Off to see Leander?

Anybody up for a bet?

[babybird67]

nahhhhh

Where did Fisherman go?

Off to see Leander?

Anybody up for a bet?

Leander has probably moved house and changed his telephone number by now.

I reckon he's gone to get a costume to do battle with us both.

You need a battle name, Crystal...I've already got one, "The Fabricator", i'm dressed in glittery pink latex with the image of a fabric softener splurged across my back...

hmmm now what can you be wearing, and what can we design for Fish?

[Ben]

But now that you bring it up, Ben - how do you KNOW that Iremonger never used the expression "total mismatch"?

There's no evidence that she did, and the indications from Messrs. Begg, Fido and Hinton are to the effect that she was far more circumspect than that. Or you are you seriously faulting Iremonger on the basis of what you erroneously think she might have said?

If we do not have the truth, I fail to see how it could be reflected

We have overwhelming likelihood in the absence of remotely credible alternatives.

He did - he just did not expand on what "cannot be ruled out" meant to him professionaly.

But you didn't think he meant probable, because he didn't say anything that could possibly construed as meaning probable in his first post, as you've acknowledged. If he said something that meant "probable" later, he clearly didn't say what he meant - or anything like it - first time around.

I´ll be gone for A WHILE!

Okay. I'll see you in a couple of hours then, Fish.