The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

There would be a loss less sour tastes in people's mouths if certain individuals didn't keep returning again to blitz-post certain threads with inflammatory goading, long after it was agreed that a bit of "cooling off" and mutual respect was the way forward. Now Fisherman is choosing to copy and paste a long post from another thread, and so as to avoid the impression that the post in question at the time went unchallenged, by response ran along similar lines to this:

What is very interesting here is that Leander tells me that the fact that Hutch was a young man may have played a role - for I never told Leander his age!

Leander stated that some of the differences could be explained on the grounds that the writer was "very young" when first writing his signature, and Toppy would not have been "very young" in 1888. At 22 you're a young man, whereas you're likely to be described as "very young" in your early to mid-teens which, not so coincidentally, is the age at which most people's signatures are created.

“Therefore, Leander did not know, for example, that the finishing n could be written by Toppy without that upward-pointing curl.”

Could have been, but extremely unlikely, considering that Toppy’s handwriting registered a remarkable consistency over a13-year time-frame, and that the upward pointing n-tail that was so conspicuous in his marriage signature was still there 13 years later, enabling the logical deduction that hey, maybe it was always there. That’s the problem with minimizing the significance of the differences for absolutely no good reason – the very differences that were present in the marriage certificate comparison remain different in the 1911 census comparison.

“Nor did he know that there was only a very limited set of George Hutchinson´s about at the right time and place.”

Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense that has been refuted at length, and in detail, on so any occasions? Nobody’s getting worn out, Fisherman. All you’re trying to do is recreate the 1911 thread, which means we’ll be here for another hundred pages. If it’s a battle to see who gets the last word, my money will always be on me, so if you want to keep arguing, either try another strategy, or do what you’ve been telling us you’re going to do for posts proliferate, which is to stop arguing and agree to disagree. As Jane pointed out, the last option seems never to work, and depressingly, she seems to be correct as this early morning barrage of Toppyism seems to bear out.

No, you do not know the number of George Hutchinsons in the East End in 1888, and to pretend that you do on the basis of a 1911 census is just maddeningly fallacious, since I know full well that there are several George Hutchinsons in the East End in 1891 and 1881 whose signatures I’ve yet to see, including that of the Cottage Grove ticker nicker, whose signature was believed by one registrar to tally with that of the witness.

“the one asking how he concluded that the writer of the police report signature was young”

He didn’t conclude anything of the sort. He stated that extreme youth might account for some of the differences. 22 simply cannot be described as “very young” as far as signatures are concerned, because most people of that age have been writing their signatures for the best part of ten years!

“Until that time, we can ponder that a top authority in the field tells us that although there are differences in a few singled-out letters and the tch-group (differences that can be explained and overcome by a number of things, according to Leander!)”

He didn’t say a “number of things”. He lists two or three reasons that could explain the differences., At no point does he ever claim that the suggestion reasons actually DID come into play here, a distinction that you never seemed able or willing to take on board.

Back to the present discussion:

“Yes, there is - we can always go back to the source that originally worded the verdict on the matter in such a fashion so as to leave room for a stalemate.”

Yes, but if you recall correctly, there was a difference in our approach. While I specifically quoted his actual words and reminded people what was meant by their dictionary definitions, you were busy “interpreting” what he said, placing unacceptable slants on them (no, not intentionally, necessarily) and then suggesting that a perfectly clear post required further “clarity. When armed with a dictionary and a knowledge of what words mean when they’re used properly, the need for clarification and interpretation is automatically eradicated. But since Fisherman is copying and pasting from earlier discussions, I’m going to do the same:

"It was illustrated, by quoting the above (and Fisherman's) translation verbatim, that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

Clearly dissatisfied with this, Fisherman started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post? But that wasn't the only example of this unsettling phenomenon. Shortly after publishing Leander's first letter, Fisherman argued that the letter spoke of an "overall likeness". I quickly pointed out that, as with the words "numerous and "many", Leander had said no such thing in his initial letter, so Fisherman re-established contact with Leander for a THIRD time, with the following result:

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

By some bizarre coincidence, "Leander" had now elaborated on his initial comments using the very expression, "overall likeness", that Fisherman erroneously attributed to him in his first letter.

Now, by post #4, one forms the very distinct impression that Leander is starting to tire of being asked to "clarify" continually by Fisherman, hence the observation: "I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail". If people are incapable of detecting a certain "Please leave me alone, I've already told you what I think a billion times already" subtext into Leander's words, I'm incredibly surprised. True to form, Fisherman was not deterred, and so he allegedly asked Leander to "clarify" again. Unfortunately, the gist of his purported observations in post #5 (yes, that's how many times Fisherman asked Leander to clarify a message that was abundantly clear the first time) were radically different to anything he said in his initial post, effectively cancelling out any worth in any of his posts."

That’s my stance on the issue, and if you think for one moment that you’re repeatedly interminable posts of accusation are either likely to deter me, you’re quite mistaken. I am entitled to find all the above incredibly odd, but I really hadn’t banked on you – even you” dredging up the issue again, and expecting it to be somehow conducive to a “ceasefire”.

“And as it has been suggested to agree to disagree, this is the explanation I offer for not accepting my counterparts stance as a legitimate one.”

I agree to disagree, Fisherman.

Sensible suggestion.

So there's almost an argument for sticking to that suggestion rather than making any more inflammatory posts?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Sorry Fisherman, agreeing to disagree isn't going to work-that should be clear by now. I think a third opinion is a good idea-with total transparency, of course, though I suspect it will remain theoretical. I sense reluctance from you though, I think. Why should that be? Surely if you are certain of your position then a third, fourth, fifth opinion etc, should not concern you? If the match is so strong and convincing, future analysis will only serve to confirm that, yes? "

You sense reluctance FROM ME on the transparity issue???

Jane, I am the one who posted ALL of the exchange with Leander in Swedish and English! I have NOTHIN against transparity, and I welcome any qualified experts opinion, if nothing else, so for the reason that I fail to see any of them gong against a very possible/probable match on this issue.
Bring them on - in thousands, if you can find them!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So, what will we get out of, say 3 more opinions all saying, "why we think this is the same man, but there's always a chance it's not"?

What if my auntie had bollocks? She'd be my uncle.

The only expert who has ever conducted a full analysis of the original documents using all three statement signatures is Sue Iremonger, and she came to the conclusion that the handwriting didn't match; that Toppy was not the person who signed the statement pages. This was attested to by several authorities on the Whitechapel murders, reputable sources in their own right, and there is no compelling reason for doubting the results.

The foundation of Toppy- isn't- Hutch rests upon opinions that Hutchinson lied, was seen by Lewis, and must be the murderer of Kelly with absolutely no evidence for that conjecture.

I don't know who gave you that daft idea, but I can assure you that the suspicion that Hutchinson may have been the murderer, and came forward after being seen by Lewis, is certainly not dependent on the premise that Toppy wasn't Hutchinson, since those suspicions wouldn't be reduced in the even of such an identification. As for their being no evidence, if you combine a knowledge of the murders themselves with other serial cases from history, you should find that the evidence - while certainly lacking as a means by which to arrest or charge him nowadays - is better than we have for most suspects.

Of course if Toppy is the witness, that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty, but it throws a wrench into things when a family man is a suspect and has no criminal record

Again, the fact that you think it "throws a wrench" into things only exposes your unfamiliarity with the topic being discussed, since other serial killers have been shown to have had families, just as other serial killers have been shown to have had no criminal record. I mean, really, just read a book or something - anything but repeat an argument proven to be baseless. Bob Hinton's candidate didn't have a criminal record either.

That camp can always scream "alias". There is nothing that can be done, save a lobotomy that can change things.

Yes, lobotomy might be useful in the cases where an alias has been dismissed for nothing like a good reason. Some of us have had tremendous fun demolishing the outrageous myth that all aliases-users resort to simple or "basic" names. The cases of Henry Howard Holmes and Roger Downs wave a permanent farewell to that spurious objection.

We don't know what the other expert, the 'world renowned' expert looked at exactly, but we do know she didn't see all the census signatures purportedly by Hutchinson

Which is a pity, because had she seen them, she'd have noticed that the dissimilarities with the statement signatures remained dissimilar (i.e. with the same specific dissimilarities) 13-years later. They could only have cemented Iremonger's opinion that they didn't match.

Anyway, just as it must be true because 'the Bible says so', so is Hutchinson's guilt because a book said so. It's ludicrous and offensive to existing members of the family who won't come forward either because (they say) their father (Reg) has been attacked.

It isn't remotely luducrous or offensive, since I'm not accusing Toppy of murder. I'm accusing him of being a late Victorian plumber who was probably plumbing away in Warren Street in the West End (where he can be placed in the 1891 census) at the time of the murders, and that his connections to the East End kick-started when he met his East End wife in a music hall.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"There would be a loss less sour tastes in people's mouths if certain individuals didn't keep returning again to blitz-post certain threads which inflammatory goading, long after it was agreed that a bit of "cooling off" and mutual respect was the way forward."

Don´t call me a "certain individual", Ben - you know who I am. And don´t speak of inflammatory goading, since there was nothing of that about in my last post - it was an honest effort to show exactly what problem we are faced with.
You are now commenting on the quotation I made from my first post, and that is something I will leave aside - I reposted it for one reason and one reason only; to point out that I was very certain of a positive verdict on Leanders behalf after having read his initial post. This I wanted to point to, since it makes it quite clear that we are not faced with a scenario where you must be right in assessing the post from Leander as neutral, but instead with a ditto where differing wiews are at hand. Therefore, we are also obliged to accept Leanders words when he expands to clarify who of us were right from the outset!
This is the issue that has lead things to get out of hand, and it is therefore also the issue that needs to be settled before any real opportunity of moving on in a friendlier and more productive manner can be reached.

"I specifically quoted his actual words and reminded people what was meant by their dictionary definitions"

I know you did, Ben. I was there at the time, it was wrong then and it still is. In a dictionary, "cannot be excluded" means that it can be either way, but in Leanders world "cannot be excluded" is a hit on the positive side of the scale, remember? So, from the outset we can tell that your dictionary does not apply here! We need to listen to Leander instead, and what he said!

I will only tuch on one more of the things you write here, to show why your semantic demands are totally misapplied in my mind:

"Clearly dissatisfied with this, Fisherman started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

This is what you one more time bring up. Leander did not say "many" in his initial post, but in a later one he did. To you, that proves that I "put words in his mouth"!

So let us, once again, take a look at what he DID say:

"The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."

He listed:
1: The age of the writer
2. The surrounding circumstances as available writing space
3. The function of the pen

..and to that he added

4: Similar things

...using the word "thingS, that is plural.

That implies to me that he has exemplified three different things, and then added that there may have been other things involved too, of similar character. And he does not even give any limit for how many these things may have been, Ben! He leaves it open!

So we have an absolute MINIMUM of reasons that ticks in at five - the three mentioned ones, plus the plural "thingS", meaning at the very least two.
But we have no reason to surmise that he would have meant two - instead he uses a phrase that leaves it open.

Now, how many more posters that you, Ben, do you think are of the meaning that this listing and it´s shape disallows me to say that Leander obviously was of the meaning that there could have been "many" reasons for the differences?
How many posters more than yourself do you think are of the meaning that Leanders use of the word "many" in a subsequent post means that we have to rule him not trustworthy?

What kind of quality is it on the material you try to use to discredit Leander? Surely you can realize that this will not hold up in any shape or form? If, for example and with no intention to irritate, Iremonger tells us that there were five reasons for not writing down her deductions:
1. She did not have that kind of task from the outset
2. She was of the impression that somebody else would document it
3. She had a clause in the contract saying that there was no need for her to take care of it
4. She did not have access to writing material
5. She never documented during WADE conferences as a rule, since she knew that they always taped what was said

...and was afterwards asked "Why did you not document the speach" - would she or would she not be entitled to answer "Well, there were many reasons for it".

I think that the answer is obvious - but would YOU agree with that??

I am sorry if you think that it is "inflammatory" to bring issues like this up - but it MUST be done, it MUST be dealt with. Your stance on this is designed in a fashion that puts Leander (and me) in a very bad light. Do you really think he has deserved it, in a matter like this? Was he really not entitled to use "many", after having listed three and lead on at the very least two more possibilities, and in fact have used a phrasing that opened up for an infinite number of reasons to the differences?

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Ok Dave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Lazarou

He has his own gibberish language called Gippog, that he makes up as he goes along to con people into doing what he wants - just like your doing.

Haha Victor...you really are so funny. You really cannot see the relevance of sarcasm or humour can you?

The relevance of the made up words, my dear, were because you assured us when the Swedish-speaking poster Fish, translated Leander's Swedish, we were unable to trust it...since you were disputing whether when Fish said Leander used the word "meagre" to describe his materials this is actually what either of them meant. I then extended this hilarious theory by quoting other words which Fish had translated for us and suggesting perhaps that you might think they had actually had completely different meanings, you being obviously more accurate, at least/most in your own mind, at translating Swedish into English than you give Fish credit for being.

Do try to keep up. Pearls before swine, I say, pearls before swine.

[babybird67]

you've doubted my identity once before Observer

oh oh does victor know something we don't

Observer

you apologised...i forgave you. To repeat the offence, based on the ramblings of an idiot, is this time, perhaps not so easily forgotten.

There is a photo of me on my profile. I am not a man. I am not anyone else. I am me.

[babybird67]

AP

could it be that the girls I have been tying to me main mast and lashing are now't but hairy arsed semen?

I am surprised at you. I have been nothing but supportive and solicitous for you and your welfare. You should know me enough to at least be sure of my gender.

I thought we were friends. Obviously i was wrong.

My photo is on my profile. I'm married, female, mother of five, intelligent, articulate, and thus a threat to someone like Vic who can barely string a sentence together let alone argue cogently, and frankly i am sick to the back teeth of people who should know me better making such pathetic comments.

you just lost a friend, Cap'n. I hope it was worth it.

[babybird67]

Ok Dave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Lazarou

He has his own gibberish language called Gippog, that he makes up as he goes along to con people into doing what he wants - just like your doing.

Thanks, by the way, for clarifying what you meant by your earlier badly-worded post, that seems to have given some posters the impression that your reference to Dave was a reference to my identity. Please try to be clearer next time you are making an allusion to something else. I had no idea what you meant, nor did anyone else by the looks of things.

[Ben]

There you go again.

Why do you keep duping the readership into accepting that you want to agree to disagree and move on, and say nothing further on the issue? You don't mean it, you know full well you don't. You are spoiling for a fight at any cost, and your contributions are absolutely antithetical to the "closure" and "end-to-the-issue" mentality you keep pretending to want.

"to point out that I was very certain of a positive verdict on Leanders behalf after having read his initial post"

That doesn't assist you in anything, except to reinforce the obvious reality that you were looking for anything to bolster your unwarranted certainty; to substantiate a conclusion that you rashly jumped to. You admitted it yourself. If you think that's anything other than a hinderance to your cause, you're sorely mistaken. There's no need to remind everyone that we have differeing views - everyone knows that. What they didn't need is another tiresome reminder that you think your interpretation is right, since you know full well it's only going to get argued against. If you're genuinely concerned that things got "out of hand", it only inflames matters again if you insist for the umpteenth time that you must be right.

You want the issue to be settled, so let's settle it, so as to avoid the need for further repetition:

I will never, ever agree with you that Leander conveyed the impression that he felt the match "probable", because the dictionary and his SKL manual both tell us explicitly that this could not have been the case.

I will never, ever, agree with you that Leander has been consistent throughout, since I've proven conclusively that he hasn't, with his comments about "amplitude".

If you disagree, fine, but don't expect any more settlement than that. Indeed, if you bring up the subject again - after it has been made clear that agreeing to disagree is the only possible way forward - I'll just know that you're spoiling for another repetition war, which might look especially silly in light of your claim that you rarely have any dealings with me "these days".

In a dictionary, "cannot be excluded" means that it can be either way, but in Leanders world

I do love that concept - "Leander's World". The dictionary provides an unamibguous definition, but in Leander's World, it means something completely different. What a magical place it must be. Meanwhile, back on our planet, "cannot be ruled out" only has one meaning, which is "not impossible", which certainly cannot mean "probable". I can't believe you actually said "the dictionary does not apply here!".

Looking forward to going round in ever widening semantic circles with this one. I don't like repetition wars, but I'm generally pretty successful at them when the occasion distressingly arises.

This is what you one more time bring up. Leander did not say "many" in his initial post, but in a later one he did. To you, that proves that I "put words in his mouth"!

Hang on - I brought this up?

I think you'll find it was you who brought the issue up when you copy and pasted one of your long-buried posts from an earlier thread. You started the whole thing again, and now we're arguing over that "many" reference from months ago - all because of you.

Leander did not say "many" in his initial post, but in a later one he did. To you, that proves that I "put words in his mouth"!

Yeah. Basically.

What else am I supposed to conclude?

Leander doesn't say "many" and couldn't possibly mean it.

Fisherman says that he meant "many", and goes off to check with Leander.

Suddenly Leander says "many".

If you don't like the implications here, don't keep blitz-posting me into expressing a view that you insist must be fallacious. I wouldn't have said anything otherwise.

3. The function of the pen

Yes, this one was fairly amusing first time around, and hasn't lost its mirth value since. "Function of the pen" - as though it has more than one function besides writing. I suppose I can think of one other function that might be appropriate here if people want to keep repeating themselves from earlier debates. If we're talking about "similar things" to how a pen functions in order to to make up the imaginary number required to validate the "many" reference, I can't envisage them being particularly good reasons somehow.

Then you embark on this strange line of questioning along the lines of "How many posters agree with me about X, Y, or Z"?. How on earth am I supposed to know, or care for that matter? I don't know how many people agree with me that Leander contradicted himself, but I know for certain that he did, so the issue of how many "other posters" agree with me is of questionable relevance here.

Iremonger tells us that there were five reasons for not writing down her deductions

The almost certainly did write down her deductions, and from other information, we discover that it was highly likely that she even detailed her findings during the course of a lecture. So those imaginative reasons for Iremonger not doing what she almost certainly did do could be construed as a bit pointless.

I am sorry if you think that it is "inflammatory" to bring issues like this up - but it MUST be done, it MUST be dealt with. Your stance on this is designed in a fashion that puts Leander (and me) in a very bad light. Do you really think he has deserved it, in a matter like this?

Well, we've settled the matter, as far as I'm concerned. You may not approve of me view, but it's the view I've been compelled to stick with in the absence of any decent reason to believe otherwise. Even if I'm mistaken as to to why Leander radically altered his stance, he still radically altered it irrespective of the reason. So really, you have two options here:

1) Resign yourself to our differing stances stance (taking as dim a view you want in the process) and we agree to disagree. Or:

2) Keep repeating previously challenged assertions, culminating in another war or repetition.

[babybird67]

Everyone of us has convictions, but the amount of venom spat around this thread had surprised even me, especially from Jenny, who seems to have really found her feet on Casebook, and i feel needs to 'cool' it a bit.

Richard

there is nothing wrong with sarcasm. Sarcasm and satire and wit are the staples of Mike's usual posting, and i enjoy reading his postings very much, so it is a little ironic that you are agreeing with him and yet singling me out for specific attack yourself.

Stupidity and the inability to look at oneself and make changes always get my back up. And yes, i agree, my back has been up on this thread, but you forget i was accused of being a liar by Fish and have had no apology for that whatsoever. I, on the other hand, made a specific point of cooling off, accepting the need for a truce and more mutual respect, and APOLOGISING to Fish for the personal comments i had made toward him. This was before your post here advising me i should cool off. Why advise me to cool off when i already HAVE and have APOLOGISED. You will notice i am the only one who has specified an intention to cool off, recognised my annoyance, not aided by the severely stressed private circumstances i am currently dealing with, some of which you do not know about, reflected on it, and APOLOGISED for it.

Is this not enough cooling off for you? Would you like me to wear sackcloth for a few weeks and self-flagellate as well?

I am the one who has cooled off. I am the one who has apologised. In the circumstances, your post would have been better saying, "It is nice to see that Jenny has cooled off and apologised for perhaps getting a little carried away at times." Or, even better, "It's nice to see jenny has cooled off and apologised...maybe some of the other posters could follow her example?" There is absolutely no point telling me i should cool off after the event is there? None whatsoever. And you have upset me by not recognising that I am the one who has cooled off and apologised.

Besides, I don't see any of those decencies emanting from any other poster in this debate right now, do you?

I dont have many qualities of which i am absolutely proud, but being able to reflect on my behaviour and apologise where i feel i have been less than perfect is one of them.

At least give me credit for that.

[Victor]

The relevance of the made up words, my dear, were because you assured us when the Swedish-speaking poster Fish, translated Leander's Swedish, we were unable to trust it...

Hi Dave,
No I didn't, I read Fish's post where he said that he had chosen the word "meagre" but could have chosen a different word, then I read your post where you said you had quoted Leander verbatim and then gave a quote in English, which is an impossibility.

...since you were disputing whether when Fish said Leander used the word "meagre" to describe his materials this is actually what either of them meant.

No, I didn't dispute that, Fish had already kindly explained that he had translated Leander into English and specifically mentioned that word. I disputed that Leander used the word "meagre" which he would have to do if you were quoting him verbatim.

I then extended this hilarious theory by quoting other words which Fish had translated for us and suggesting perhaps that you might think they had actually had completely different meanings, you being obviously more accurate, at least/most in your own mind, at translating Swedish into English than you give Fish credit for being.

And that's where you become one of Papa Lazarou's wives, Dave. By extending a misinformed and wildly inaccurate theory to ridiculous extremes, in an attempt to discredit by ridicule you made yourself ridiculous, Dave.

Do try to keep up. Pearls before swine, I say, pearls before swine.

I'm there already, Dave, just waiting for you to catch up.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Thanks, by the way, for clarifying what you meant by your earlier badly-worded post, that seems to have given some posters the impression that your reference to Dave was a reference to my identity. Please try to be clearer next time you are making an allusion to something else. I had no idea what you meant, nor did anyone else by the looks of things.

Papa Lazarou stars in one of the UK's most popular comedy sketches of all time, usually beaten only by Monty Python's dead parrot. He calls all his wives Dave, that is fundamental to the character. Anyone unfamiliar with him could find a reference such as the wiki entry I posted in seconds.

Your attempt at "humourous" mis-translation is exactly what the character does, so I firmly believe that YOU have identified yourself as Dave, one of his wives.

ps. Wives = Female. All called Dave.

[babybird67]

Hi Dave,
No I didn't, I read Fish's post where he said that he had chosen the word "meagre" but could have chosen a different word, then I read your post where you said you had quoted Leander verbatim and then gave a quote in English, which is an impossibility.

Right. So nobody can quote Leander whatsoever? Because none of us understand Swedish. You may note that myself, and other posters, have been quoting Leander "verbatim" for many months now, on the basis that, none of us being able to speak Swedish, we rely on Fish for telling us what he had said. Those are the words Fish has attributed to Leander. Those are the words Fish states Leander has used. If it makes you feel any better i shall ask Fish for the word which he translated into "meagre"...this obviously will be most helpful to discuss things on an English messageboard, won't it, with all the other non-Swedish speakers here. Still, if you think speaking in Swedish is a better way to conduct a discussion in English on an English message board, who am I to argue. I expect your quotes to be in Swedish too from now on where they reference Leander. Gee, you really talk sense sometimes Vic...i could get quite fond of you.

No, I didn't dispute that, Fish had already kindly explained that he had translated Leander into English and specifically mentioned that word. I disputed that Leander used the word "meagre" which he would have to do if you were quoting him verbatim.

See above. If you are going to take every English translation of Leander's comments and divest it of any meaning, what is the point of even bothering to contribute to the discussion? Unless you are planning to enrol on a language course, learn Swedish, come back and THEN start debating. According to Fish, Leander chose a word which in English means "meagre". Fish speaks Swedish and would have no reason to lie about this or to mistranslate, unless you wish to suggest otherwise. Therefore, translation aside, the quotation of not only what Leander said, but what he meant, "meagre", was verbatim. To try to argue otherwise is to take this whole discussion down into the realms of utter farce. And to argue otherwise means anyone other than Swedish speakers cannot refer to anything Leander said at all...is that what you want? I can assure you it isn't what Fish would want.

Like i said...own goal, spectacular one, too.

And that's where you become one of Papa Lazarou's wives, Dave. By extending a misinformed and wildly inaccurate theory to ridiculous extremes, in an attempt to discredit by ridicule you made yourself ridiculous, Dave.

Nope... you are the one doing that, Dick. Hope you dont mind my nickname for you. Only fair if you have one for me, methinks. The only difference is, yours suits beautifully.


A....B....C....

[babybird67]

Papa Lazarou stars in one of the UK's most popular comedy sketches of all time, usually beaten only by Monty Python's dead parrot. He calls all his wives Dave, that is fundamental to the character. Anyone unfamiliar with him could find a reference such as the wiki entry I posted in seconds.

Your attempt at "humourous" mis-translation is exactly what the character does, so I firmly believe that YOU have identified yourself as Dave, one of his wives.

ps. Wives = Female. All called Dave.

Anyone could find a reference if they realised it was an allusion; unfortunately, the way you express yourself is not particularly clear at the best of times. Why do you think some posters thought you were referring to me as a man? Because they didnt get your allusion. Neither did i. None of us wiki'ed it because nobody had a clue what you were going on about.

How could i identify myself as someone i have never even heard of? You can choose to insult me all you like, Dick. I know i can run rings around you and frequently do, and that's good enough for me. I can live with being alluded to as something i am not...as long as the allusion is clear. hence my advice to be a little clearer next time Dick.

Speak soon i am sure, mwah mwah.


D....E....F...keep up.

[Jane Welland]

Hello All

Some contributors to this thread seem to have lost their way a little - Can we start again?

This thread is here to discuss Mr Leander's 'analysis', right?

As I think Garry has said, what Leander has done here cannot be claimed as anaylsis for the reasons that it was an informal view by him - not an 'examination' or anything so detailed. It was an 'off the cuff'view. That's all. It stands for what it is, no more, no less.

It is diminished, without question, by the fact that Leander did not have the full number of examples known to exist, particularly in respect of the Dorset Street Witness. I have heard no argument from anyone that mitigates this fact.

Leander's view was skewed because of it. Arguing that it wouldn't have made a difference is redundant. Nobody here is an expert. Nobody here is Leander. Nobody here knows what difference it would have made to Leander's view.

Arguing the toss over how important Leander's informal opinion is will not advance this debate any further.

What is clear, and unassailable, is that his is not, and can never be definitive - see above.

Two options remain regarding Leander, for whom I have a good deal of sympathy for having been unwittingly dragged into this debate:

Leander can be consigned to the annals of Casebook History as an interesting exercise. In which case let's move on.

Or -

BB can contact Leander and, should he respond, can share his response with us here. As she has already said she would do.

What I think it would be good to avoid is further wrangling, sniping and finger pointing - at times without apparent reason - where will that get us?

I believe myself that progress can be made here, but it will certainly be helped along if we're able to at least be civil to one another.

Best to All

Jane x (awaiting canonisation )