The Leander Analysis

[The Good Michael]

Wow! Thomas Hardy married a soldier? Whod'a thunk it?

Mike

[lynn cates]

Grandfer cantle

Hello. Well, at least his "Grandfer Cantle" did.

Come to think of it, since he married a 20 year old when he was 80,
perhaps . . .

LC

[Ben]

“You say "that was wrong", I disprove it, and we can move on.”

Which thread are you wittering on about now?

I’ve told you already. I don’t care whether you were right or wrong on the Kidney thread. I simply found your stalkerish vendettas against people decidedly off-putting, especially when you follow them around like a crazed mandrill and demand that they make a public admission of wrongness. It didn’t work there, and it certainly didn’t work on the “cutaway” thread since it was absurdly obvious that I was not wrong. You accuse me of babbering (?) around in circles, but my goodness do you get some unsettling thrill after joining me round those circles.

If you think the wikipedia entry was wrong and that your imaginary expertise trumps it because you’ve been frantically googling, why not write to them and instruct them in common sense and “rightness” Please try that, since we know that the site’s administrators are always eager to pounce on inaccuracies. I could do with more entertainment from my stalker.

“So, as usual, you are lying. You state that I have provided no evidence - but I have.”

You’re the liar, and a particularly virulent one and that. 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. I say bollocks, you’ve provided no such thing, and as with the lies you told Leander about there being a “relative dearth” of George Hutchinsons in 1888, you’re pronouncing weightily on matters that you can’t possibly know the truth about.

“1. Should I leave you with the possibility of claiming that I am wrong, or
2. Should a put a definite end to it, by digging out more?”

Are you threatening to "bombard" me again?

Priceless.

Is that really going to work against me, of all people?

My stamina is superior to yours, Fisherman. Always will be. I don’t covet stamina as a debating strategy, but if you think I’m going to be in the least bit intimidated by your threats to post more, you’re just deluding yourself.

“Not really, Ben. I follow up on your conscious misleadings (and a few unconscious ones too, while I´m at it) and correct them. Different thing.”

I’m just so relieved it’s comical not-to-taken-seriously Fisherman that’s doing the cyber-stalking and not someone whose debating prowess is likely to have a negative impact on my position.

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

No, you don´t, 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. That´s why you are in this predicament now. So, how do you want it?

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

Don´t start me laughing again, Ben - I can´t 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, what´s this collossal round shape..?

[Ben]

No, you don´t, 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. That´s 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?

[Victor]

Hi Ben,

Simple direct question.

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

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

The first one is the more positive, Vic.

The other one means "impossible", effectively.

All the best,
Ben

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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, I´m 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 don´t 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

[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.

[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.