Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

The pity is that these exchanges have rendered further debate on this thread difficult to achieve with any reasonable detachment.
I, for one, am done. And unlike Fish, I do mean it.

Hi Crystal,

now that everybody has expressed his amateur opinion about the signatures, what can we do except waiting for experts' opinions for further discussions ?

You're an expert, and we're therefore awaiting your conclusions.

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Hi David

No, I didn't mean to give the impression that I wouldn't view the contested documents. Of course, as I said so, I will.

I simply have no desire to go around in futile and ever-decreasing circles with Fish.

So I won't.

[DVV]

Two good news, Crystal.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"You wouldn't ascribe it to the mods just being busy having lives and doing important things would you?"

If you had read my posts, I opened up for that possibility, Babybird. Apparently you did not - or you just decided to try and scora a cheap point.

As for apologies, I owe you no such thing. The reason I said you fabricated was that you did exactly that, as you should know full well.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Your credibility is in grave doubt"

It should be, Crystal, since I lied about that telephone ca... No, wait, that was not me, was it?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi everyone,

I'm just smooching with Leander.

You can check to verify.

[babybird67]

i already said Fish

I cannot read your long posts other than skimming them...it's made harder by the fact that you quote people in the body of text so there it is made harder on the eye to read.

Babybird:

"You wouldn't ascribe it to the mods just being busy having lives and doing important things would you?"

If you had read my posts, I opened up for that possibility, Babybird. Apparently you did not - or you just decided to try and scora a cheap point.

Hmmm. At the risk of once again being falsely accused of fabricating your posts, Fish, this is what you said:

Originally Posted by Fisherman
Finally, I have not heard a word from the administrators. I take the liberty to interpret this as a clearance from the allegations made by Babybird.”

I've highlighted the relevant part for you Fish just in case you cannot see or remember what you did actually say, as you seem to suffer from this affliction constantly.

if you opened up for the possibility that you had not heard from the mods and that this could have been for a number of reasons, you would not have come to the conclusion that you did in the above sentence, QUOTED VERBATIM, NO ROOM FOR DISSENT. It is you that continue to labour the illusion that black is white and cold is hot...and as for cheap points...well, you would know.

As for apologies, I owe you no such thing. The reason I said you fabricated was that you did exactly that, as you should know full well.

Fisherman

And as you well know, i did not. I suggest you stop accusing me of it Fish. That you wont apologise is bad enough but that you keep repeating the allegation when the evidence is there for all to see that i did no such thing...well, it really leaves you coming out of this very poorly indeed.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

Then, David , I think it should be equally easy to point it out! Please do so, and we can finish this matter.

My guess, though, is that the readers will be in for some more twists and turns. The last one you presented was that Leander had never said he thought Toppy was the witness. Just how do you explain his stance that he would be surprised if Toppy was NOT the man who signed the police report?

Adolf Hitler, David, was none too fond of jews.

But if we go through the sources, we will find that they nowhere state that Hitler ever in his life said : "I am none too fond of jews".
Would you say, David, that the lack of an exactly phrased sentence like this, means that we can ru´le out that Hitler disliked jews?
There are those who do so, in fact. They do precisely this - they say that since the phrasing cannot be found, the evidence is not there. These people are called historical revisionists, which is of course rather a funny name, since what they ought to be called is UNhistorical revisionists.
Those of us who have cared to read up about Hitler, will know that he called jews "Untermensch" and that he ordered to have as many of them killed as possible. We therefore look away from the fact that we have no quotation from Hitler saying exactly "I am none too fond of jews". We know this to be a fact in spite of that lack.

So, David, in light of this, I would like to ask you if you agree with me that when Leander states that he would be surprised if Toppys signature and that on the police reportwere not a match, he is in fact saying that at present he believes that Toppy WAS the witness? You are free to disagre, of course, but I would very much like to have a motivation if that should be your choice. What I do NOT want you to do, is not to answer the question. And, as I said in the beginning of my post, I also want you to write down and quote the instances where I have misrepresented Leander or exaggerated his wiews. Myself, I think you misrepresented him very much by saying that his wiew was that some letters looked the same and that he never had said that he believed Toppy to be the witness. I thought that very much pointed to an agenda on your behalf thats smacks of playing down the evidence and discrediting both me and Leander.
Do correct me if I am wrong.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Fish

even if you truly believe that Leander hinted that he thought Toppy and Hutch might very well match, he stressed himself that his view was not to be taken as a professional report or opinion which he stressed to you that he could not give without seeing the original documents.

In light of the above, you really need to stop using Leander as if he has submitted a professional opinion on the matter, because he has not.

He has kindly given you an off the record personal, note, he himself says, NOT professional opinion.

In such a case Leander's opinion should carry no more weight than mine, yours, Ben's, David's etc etc.

[Ben]

So, Fish, is this an official come-back?

Can you give me your solemn promise that you'll stick with me until the bitter end, and that you'll go many more rounds with me on this? Please give me that assurance, because I'm a Hutch-obsessed zealot whose existence is sustained by interminable battles such as these.

Just how do you explain his stance that he would be surprised if Toppy was NOT the man who signed the police report

Simply on the grounds that he radically revised his stance after being supplied with erroneous information and an obvious bias. I don't wish to speak for David, but in for a penny, and all that. If the above reflects Leander's current thinking on the subject, one seriously has to wonder why he didn't convey that thinking in his initial post, which, as we learn from the recent translation shared with us by Crystal, betrayed not the vaguest insinuation that he thought Toppy remotely "probable". The urgent and pressing question remais: Why did Leander leap majestically from conveying no impression that he thought the match "probable" to being surprised that the similarities reflected anything other than a match?

Whenever you fancy mentioning the latter comment again, you can reasonably expect most of us to draw attention to the fact that it constituted a radical change of stance. Whether it reflects dishonesty on anyone's part is a matter for interpretation, but that fact is that his words reflected a radical change of stance, and everyone is entitled to draw attention to this, irrespective of whatever unsettling inferences are made as a consequence. If you didn't want those unsettling inferences, maybe you should have left his comments alone, rather that continually contacting him to "clarify" a stance that was perfectly clear from the outset.

Oh, and Hitler comparison not apt, by the way. Hitler expressed his lack of fondness for the Jews through his actions. If Leander did something similar, such an erecting a statue of "Toppy: The Dorset Street Witness", then we'd have an apt comparison, but Leander did no such thing.

[DVV]

Myself, I think you misrepresented him very much by saying that his wiew was that some letters looked the same and that he never had said that he believed Toppy to be the witness. I thought that very much pointed to an agenda on your behalf thats smacks of playing down the evidence and discrediting both me and Leander.
Do correct me if I am wrong.

Fisherman

No need to correct you, Fish,

just read again your own posts.

As to my having an "agenda", is it a mere fit of paranoia, or do you seriously believe this, even when you're peacefully fishing in the Baltic ?

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If you're sick of us all, and don't want to have any further dealings with us and all the rest of it, don't read the thread. "

I AM sick of you, Ben - and that is a sign of good health. But you must keep in mind that if I had not read the thread, I would not have seen for example when Crystal stepped in and said that I had misused Leanders confidence by publishing what would have been meant as a private excchange between him and me. You were very fast to concur with that garble, as I trust you will remember?
And that allegation was something that need never have been published, since there was always the possibility to ask me FIRST, whereupon I would have been able to prove that this was wrong.
But scoring cheap points has always been more interesting to you than the truth, and so you opted for the slander and deceit, just as usual.

So you see, Ben, just like I say I nourish a genuine wish to leave the thread - but your campaign to discredit me and Frank Leander puts an effective stop to this wish.

"When Crystal expressed her intention to post "what (Leander) said" in "due course", she was referring of course to the translation that she had earlier promised to divulge with us. This is obvious.."

No, Ben, it is not. She replied to a post in which the translation was not mentioned at all, and everybody who thinks that an answer given to a question that was never put is the obvious thing to do needs to have his head examined.

"She certainly wasn't talking about a phonecall, since you can hardly "post" a "phonecall".

What she wrote was that she would post what Leander had said. That, Ben, you CAN post. Your defence is taking in more water that the Titanic, Ben, and since you fallaciously are trying to defend a posters right to lie, that puts you in the same league.

"Crystal was clearly joking"

Oooh, yes, Ben - of course! This HAS been a thread crammed with jokes and good humour. "Light-hearted", was that not what you called it?

"That isn't worth taking seriously"

Wrong again, Ben - it is you that are not worth taking seriously. Leander has been totally consistent throughout, and he has offered an extremely good reason for anybody bit the mindbent and the fanatics to stop by the junkyard on the way home from this thread and drop off Flemchinson. And THAT is where it hurts so badly that you are ready to make a complete fool of yourself not to have to admit it.

Think I will leave the thr...Or, on second thoughts...

Well, we shall see.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"No need to correct you, Fish,
just read again your own posts."

As for fishing, David, I won´t let you off the hook.
Now, you be a nice guy and give me what I asked for:

1. Show me where I misrepresented Leander.

2. Tell me if you agree with me or not that when Leander states that he would be surprised if Toppys signature and that on the police report were not a match, he is in fact saying that at present he believes that Toppy WAS the witness?
If you reply in the negative, I want a motivation.

After that, you can aske me anything YOU would like to - I have nothing to hide and no agenda, so I can promise you a fair answer each and every time.

Can you do the same for me?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Simply on the grounds that he radically revised his stance after being supplied with erroneous information and an obvious bias."

Nope, he did not. And the question does ONLY relate to the exact thing Leander is saying - that he would be surprised if Toppy was not the signer.

"I don't wish to speak for David"

Oh, but YES, Ben - you wish to speak for anybody! Crystal, Babybird, David - anybody! If you had not had that wish, you could easily have refrained from it.

"If the above reflects Leander's current thinking on the subject, one seriously has to wonder why he didn't convey that thinking in his initial post"

I think we safely can conclude that this is not only his current thinking, but also his overall ditto, since he from the outset put the match on the positive end of the scale, as later proven by his wording on what "cannot be ruled out" stands for.
Do you remeber what it stands for, Ben? Of course not - you have "forgotten".

"Oh, and Hitler comparison not apt, by the way. "

Believe me, Ben - it is VERY apt.

Fisherman

[Ben]

I AM sick of you, Ben

Well, no you're not, Fisherman.

You've just proved you're not, because you're responding to me.

Doesn't bother me, quite the reverse, but no, it is an absolute certainty that you're not sick of me. If you take a bite of a rancid apple, you don't keep eating it. I guess I must be a tasty apple, albeit one that doesn't agree with you. Not easy to digest. Makes you fart. One of those.

But scoring cheap points has always been more interesting to you than the truth, and so you opted for the slander and deceit

All I did was express my due and appreciative thanks to Crystal for taking the trouble to contact her friend and obtain this very useful translation.

No, Ben, it is not. She replied to a post in which the translation was not mentioned at all

And nor was the phonecall.

But you rashly assumed that she meant the phonecall that she intended the post, when it shoud be blindingly obvious that she could have done so such thing. The fact that she provided the translation a few posts thereafter is proof, as far as I'm concerned, that she was talking about the tranlsation, thus making good her intention to post "what he said" in "due course".

I think everyone just a bit realises that now, apart from one or two, and I'm dubious about the intentions of both of them.

Wrong again, Ben - it is you that are not worth taking seriously.

Well don't take me seriously then.

By responding to everything I say, you are taking me seriously.

But you'll never acknowledge as much, despite it being so amusingly obvious.

Leander has been totally consistent throughout

Not if he was reponsible for the observations you say he was responsible for. If he really wrote all that you claimed he wrote, then he hasn't been consistent without, as you acknowledged in an earlier post - the one where you admitted he gave no impression of thinking the match to be "probable".

Up for continutd hostilities if you are, Fisherman.

You who takes me so desperately seriously.