The Leander Analysis

[caz]

It's a "cling-on" actually, Ben. I love the way that my goldfishes' stools follow them around as they swim, wafting gently like strands of mermaid hair.

Hi Sammypoo,

We knew that, but we can't expect Benny Boy to know the difference between a come-on and a cling-on, given that his two-woman fan club turned out to be one mentally ill person of unclear gender posting as two babes in order to cling on to his every word for a bit longer.

While I'm here, perhaps I ought to state for the record that when I call my daughter 'Carlypoo', or Suzi 'Suzipoo', I am not coming on to either of them. Ben would be better off washing his mouth out and learning not to pepper his posts with his wholly inappropriate and sick-making sexual hang-ups, so he can concentrate on his manly role as Hutch's hangman.

Love,

Cazzipoo
X

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"People who follow me around message boards with the same unusually aggressive brand of dogma coupled with an aggressive, hectoring tone cause me tremendous irritation"

Do they now? A few posts back, I thought you asked me never to stop. Howīs it gonna be, Ben? Iīll help you with this itch of yours, Ben. Letīs take a look at the pathology. This is it:

You constantly avoid the subject, and instead turn to personal attacks, trying to discredit your opponents on grounds that have nothing to do with the real issues. Your favourite scheme is to make people who criticize you out as stalkers – there cannot be any other logical explanation to the fact that they will not allow you to pull a fast one, can there?

Hereīs what you managed in that department over the last five pages, in posts adressed to me and Caz:

”I want you to stop starting irrelevant squabbles that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread purely out of a burning desire for me”

”I'll leave it to my shadows to discuss me”

”I simply found your stalkerish vendettas against people decidedly off-putting, especially when you follow them around like a crazed mandrill”

”I’m just so relieved it’s comical not-to-taken-seriously Fisherman that’s doing the cyber-stalking”

”One infatuated follower was flattering enough, but commanding the undivided attention of both of them is a rare treat.”

”I don’t understand what it is about my twin poodles that prompt them to keep appealing to imaginary crowd whenever they engage in debate with me. ”

”a veritable mecca for the unoccupied, pathologically obsessed and past their prime.”

”You're my obedient lap-dog, and I'd worry if you ever stopped sniffing round my ankles”

”You've finally had the gonads to admit to your intention to follow me all over a serial killer message board like a crazed mutt on heat”

”You follow me all the time, everywhere. It’s what obsessed people do”

”What a dangerously obsessed pathological lunatic you continue to reveal yourself to be.”

This, of course, serves not to discuss the issue at hand, but instead to desperately try and change the subject.

You of course also mix it all up with insults like ”smug arse-pit”, ”bumptious gibbon”, ”you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace”, and such things – all of that of just as little use to the real discussion.

You do not mind making jokes about journalists, just as you try to infer that being a Swede is something that makes me unreliable. You try to make us believe that Leanders being a Swede means that Iremonger would be the better bet in this case - but I do not see you stating that I am to believed over you when it comes to what Leander said. I am a Swede, and so is Leander - small wonder, then, that you misinterpret him. All the nuances of the Swedish language would go lost in translation, would they not?

You are not even opposed to the idea of accusing me of being a bad father, stating that you found it distasteful that I presented a photo of my son lying on a bed, in order to prove to you that one cannot see though a body lying on a bed – something you stated that you could do. The only thing that picture depicted was a human body on a bed, but you said that you found it ”nauseating” that I could put a child of mine in Mary Kellys place. Stylish, Ben!

Discrediting. Belying. Maliciousness. And NONE of it connected to the subject at hand.

Now, Ben, it may have gone unnoticed by you, but I do not do things like these.

I do not call you a sickening heap of pigshit and such things.

I do not state that your participation in this discussion – where you have posted just as many times as I have – has been led on by a mental deficiency.

I do not speak about the rumour that most male actors are either fags or narcissists.

I do not hint at any growing up on your behalf in a dysfunctional family.

Why do you think this is? Iīll tell you why. There are two main reasons:

1.It would have nothing to do whatsoever with the question discussed on the thread, and it would thus be improductive.

2.It would be very immature, and all possible drawbacks aside when it comes to growing older, one thing age does do for you is that it matures you. Iīm fifty-two, by the way. How old are you? Eleven?

You see, Ben, I COULD lower myself to the same level that you thrive at – but I avoid it. There is a Chinese proverb that states that the one who loses his arguments first is the one who first turns to insults, and I try to keep that in the back of my mind at all times.

This is why I recommend you to back off from the line of business you are conducting, and start respecting my right to post without being called a mad stalker. If you truly believed that I was deluded, you could easily refrain from answering every time I post, but no – you are all over me like a rash. And thatīs fine and dandy – as long as you discuss the issues only.

I will comment on the one thing in your post that is connected to the ongoing discussion itself: The cutaway. There are no other connections to the true issue in your post, for some reason.

You write:

”The link didn't work.

But no matter - it wasn't a convential cutaway.

A cutaway or morning coat is a type of TAILcoat.”

I notice that the link no longer funtions – the material is not on the net. But I trust you may remember the picture anyway. It was a picture of two gentlemen in the 1880:s. depicted from a 45 degree angle to their fronts. You cannot see the backs of them. The two men are wearing shortish black jackets, and the text to the picture goes:
”A cutaway jacket was introduced during the 80s that allowed the bottom of the vest and the watch chain to be seen. The jacket had three or four buttons that were buttoned to the top. Notice how the men's jackets in the image below are cut up from the bottom.”

The last time you commented on this picture, you wrote that it was useless to show it, since we could not see whether there were tails on the jackets or not. I protested at that time, and said that I believed that we could see enough of the back of the jackets to realize that they were tailless. This you did not buy – since we could not see their backs, they could well have tails. In a sense you were right – we could only see a small part of the back on one side, and although it would have looked ridiculous, the jackets MAY of course have had small tails.

Since then, one thing has struck me: That was a picture of two short jackets. The picture was taken more than a hundred years ago on some street somewhere.
Today, the picture is used to portray a common cutaway jacket of the 1880:s, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT SEE IF THEY HAVE TAILS OR NOT...?

Now, why would they be described as obvious cutaways, when there is no telling whether they had tails? How on earth did that come about?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Sod it if I am right or wrong, such considerations come second to the more important matter that I displease you.

A person can be correct, and behave like a bumptious gibbon.

A person can be wrong, and behave like a bumptious gibbon.

Were I to encounter examples of both behavioural traits, my first advice would be stop behaving like a bumptious gibbon, irrespective of the topic under scrutiny or whether I feel they stand on firm theoretical ground.

Surely that isn't all that complicated?

People who follow me around message boards with the same unusually aggressive brand of dogma coupled with an aggressive, hectoring tone cause me tremendous irritation, and wherever belligerence is used in preference to the more level-headed "Let's agree to disagree" approach, the aggressors are in no position to express either surprise or indignation at being accused of bumptious gibbonry.

Well, Ben, get ready for more!

I'm ready already.

But for what?

More threats to bombard a Hutchinson/handwriting thread with hastily googled images of Victorian men's coats? Well, if that's what you consider to be a productive expenditure of both your time and the message board's bandwidth, fill your boots if you're hell bent on it. I'm sure you still have enough respect for your fellow posters to take it to the relevant thread next time.

A conventional nitwit knows that we are speaking of a SPECIFIC cutaway here - the one on Marshalls man. And if that was a "conventional cutaway" the way conventional cutaways looked back then (take another look at the photo I sent you

The link didn't work.

But no matter - it wasn't a convential cutaway.

A cutaway or morning coat is a type of TAILcoat.

Vic was right all them posts back

Those posts, Fish. Do try to preserve your reputation as wordsmith extraordinaire.

I love the way that my goldfishes' stools follow them around as they swim

There's a tempting analogy in there, Gareth, but I'll save it for a rainy day in the interests of preserving what little remains in the way of peace.

[Sam Flynn]

Can I take it that you treat your mum in the same fashion? "Hello, Mum, you slowly rotting mammoth carcass"...

My mother would see through that ploy right away. There's no pulling the wool over her eyes.

[Sam Flynn]

P.S "Fishypoo" is a come-on, by the way.

It's a "cling-on" actually, Ben. I love the way that my goldfishes' stools follow them around as they swim, wafting gently like strands of mermaid hair.

[Fisherman]

Ben, charmingly:

"You behaved like a annoying smug little arse-pit on the Stride threads.
That was the top and bottom of my observation.
Were you wrong?
On the Kidney thread?
I don't know. You were the weaker debater by far because your posts are too long, fillibustering and ponderous as usual, but I'll have to revisit it I want to reacquaint myself with the actual arguments concerned."

More of the eloquence you normally offer. And what are you saying, is essence? You are saying that you feel that you are at liberty to smear and slander for the simple reason that you do not like my way of expressing things. Sod it if I am right or wrong, such considerations come second to the more important matter that I displease you.

Well, Ben, get ready for more!

You have also called me and Caz antiquities, making fun of the fact that we are apparently older than you. That is every bit as dumb, Iīm afraid - as time passes by, you will realize just HOW dumb.
Can I take it that you treat your mum in the same fashion? "Hello, Mum, you slowly rotting mammoth carcass", sort of? Since you find aging so distasteful?
Or is it just hilarious that people who word themselves in a manner you find displeasing are sometimes older than you? Please let me know! And mum! Why spare her? Share a precious laugh, Ben - if you still find aging laughable.

"The cutaway thread?
Well, I haven't revised my stance from when I left that wretched thread."

Oh, alright - so a cutaway is a garment with tails AND without tails, is it? That was your contribution, you know.

"A conventional cutaway has tails."

A conventional nitwit knows that we are speaking of a SPECIFIC cutaway here - the one on Marshalls man. And if that was a "conventional cutaway" the way conventional cutaways looked back then (take another look at the photo I sent you), then it was a cutaway without tails. But donīt strain yourself trying to puke over this statement again - I will find the evidence to nail it once and for all for everyone but you (I have reasonable ambitions only).

"Who are you hoping to intimidate here, seriously?"

Ah, I see: You call me "smug little arse-pit" and "subhuman" and "you little liar" and your "knee dog" - and then YOU ask ME who I am trying to intimidate! Vic was right all them posts back - there never was a larger hypocrite on these boards!

Fisherman

[Ben]

What the hell are you wasting so much valuable acting time here for then, playing the injured drama queen?

I have a full day's filimng tomorrow, Caz, so today's exercise in time-wasting will seem like tomorrow's vaguely memorable nightmare.

I'll leave it to my shadows to discuss me and my views all day long.

I have no objections to your having your say on this or any other topic. I just don’t understand why there was this sudden urge to revive it when this was all thrashed out and then repeated in excruciating detail previously. My objections are not going to change, and I haven’t revised my stance, and dredging it all up again will only lead to counter-repetitions. I cannot believe we’re doing the whole “cannot be ruled out” semantic silliness again, let alone cutaways in Berner Street. I personally see the merit in Vic’s suggestion of an impasse – a recognition that agreeing to disagree might be the best way forward, or even “Ben, you’re a bastard and I can’t believe you said that, but let’s agree to disagree”. But not more of the same repetition that will only prompt precisely the same counter-objections I provided before. What’s the point?

It won’t work against me. Nothing’s advanced, and we end up going round in circles.

I never claimed that you’re actually creating trouble for me. I said that you contributed to these threads in the interests of creating trouble, and while the content of your combined posts can be easily dispensed with – usually be inserting my previous objections wherever applicable – I find the behaviour evinced by them not only thoroughly detestable, but very much at odds with the unconvincing claim that you have no personal agenda. Let’s face it, I know you do, as your recent inflammatory post is also a testament to. Anyone who resorts to fussy belligerence is bound to treat anyone who beats them at that strategy as a challenge, and by claiming that I’d relishing “hitting” you with hard evidence if I had it, you simply expose your confrontational dogma for what it is.

But please keep trying.

Take turns if you like.

[caz]

I’m not especially eager to convince anyone of anything...

Oh grow up, Ben. What the hell are you wasting so much valuable acting time here for then, playing the injured drama queen?

And what's this 'trouble' you think some people are 'stirring up', which always seems to require your immediate attention? You must see this 'trouble' as a serious threat to your own position, or you wouldn't let it get to you to such an unhealthy extent. Your posts are no trouble to me at all, because I neither know nor care whether Toppy will turn out to be the witness or not, and have no position that needs constant defending against pesky troublemakers putting spanners in the works.

In case you hadn't noticed, I drop into threads across all topics and catch up with them as and when I feel like sparing the time. When I get bored here I'll be onto another thread and might not come back for a month or three. I certainly won't be worrying my devastatingly pretty head about what 'trouble' you might be stirring up here in my absence. You could never get your spanner near my works.

But I shouldn't really be surprised that you find my posts and Fishypoo's posts troubling. You can rarely afford to leave a Hutch-related thread long enough for more than a handful of posts to build up before steaming in with another damage limitation exercise. If your arguments were backed up with any hard evidence you would relish every opportunity to hit us with it, instead of describing us as 'trouble' and having the screaming abdabs whenever we appear. Very telling indeed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

I'd cheerfully settle for an impasse at this stage, Vic!

[Victor]

"cannot be ruled in"

...means "impossible", effectively.

Well that's certainly one explanation, an alternative would be "not enough information to confirm it", which most certainly isn't "impossible".

Just as "cannot be ruled out" essentially means "not enough information to rule it out".

And that's where the impasse has to remain, at least I think so.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

The first one is the more positive, Vic.

The other one means "impossible", effectively.

All the best,
Ben

[Victor]

Hi Ben,

Simple direct question.

Which is more positive "cannot be ruled out" or "cannot be ruled in"?

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

No, you donīt, do you? That question does not enter your world before you start burping out accusations of me having faulted. The smearing comes first, and the afterthought - comes not.

You behaved like a annoying smug little arse-pit on the Stride threads.

That was the top and bottom of my observation.

Were you wrong?

On the Kidney thread?

I don't know. You were the weaker debater by far because your posts are too long, fillibustering and ponderous as usual, but I'll have to revisit it I want to reacquaint myself with the actual arguments concerned.

The cutaway thread?

Well, I haven't revised my stance from when I left that wretched thread. All you're now looking for is any excuse to reignite that acrimonious thread. You've got a hard-on for me, and such behaviour would lend tremendeous additional weight to that fact.

This is it: If the Wikipedia entry states that ALL cutaways had tails, then I do not "think" it was wrong - I know so.

A conventional cutaway has tails.

If it doesn't have tails, it isn't a conventional cutaway, but a variant thereof.

A conventional cutaway, or morning coat is a type of tailcoat and those garments have tails.

You scurry along to Wikipedia and demand that they correct their entry, and don't forget to admonish all the contributory sources too.

I am offering to do the research you have been too lazy to do yourself. Thatīs why you are in this predicament now. So, how do you want it?

I want you to stop starting irrelevant squabbles that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread purely out of a burning desire for me, and you delude yourself once again by claiming that I'm in any sort of predicament. Who are you hoping to intimidate here, seriously?

[Fisherman]

Ben: " I don’t care whether you were right or wrong on the Kidney thread."

No, you donīt, do you? That question does not enter your world before you start burping out accusations of me having faulted. The smearing comes first, and the afterthought - comes not. Bennish as it gets.

"If you think the wikipedia entry was wrong"

This is it: If the Wikipedia entry states that ALL cutaways had tails, then I do not "think" it was wrong - I know so. I also know - from journalistic experience - that Wikipedia is not to be trusted: it gets things very wrong very often.

"You claimed to have found evidence of the cutaway most commonly seen and referred to in the East End of 1888 and that it was a garment with no tails."

Exactly - read the link again - that is evidence and nothing else.

"Are you threatening to "bombard" me again?"

I am offering to do the research you have been too lazy to do yourself. Thatīs why you are in this predicament now. So, how do you want it?

"I don’t covet stamina as a debating strategy"

Donīt start me laughing again, Ben - I canīt take any more!!

Now, Ben, on that joke about the strange animal with four legs and an arm...? Come on, you could do with some cheering up!

Fisherman
leaving this thread eternally - nah, just pulling your leg...where is that sodding leg again...? Hey, whatīs this collossal round shape..?

[Ben]

Sign up on one, then!

Ok, people who agree that Iremonger's analysis has the edge over Leander's.

So that's me, Caz...

Somehow though, Ben he managed to leave them out of his sentence "The expression CANNOT BE RULED OUT in my world means that THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS

But there were also obvious dissimilarities in certain respects, which is why he listed them specifically. No wonder he had to settle for "cannot be ruled out" on balance - a sort of middle ground between the two.