When does many become many?

[Ben]

Fish for breakfast it was.

Oh, but this is depressing.

It's now 9:50 at time of writing and the above was posted over two hours ago. I'm not sure of the time difference in Sweden, but it seems as though I must have been a first priority upon waking. Thanks for the effort and the continued attention, but frankly, you're just not very good at explaining things. You're good at re-igniting old arguments in a blatant attempt to draw me into long drawn out posting "battles", but such is my apparent magnetism, I guess.

That means that it rules out anything that could not be consider similar to age - whereas it rules IN anything that could be considered similar to age.

No, it doesn't. That sentence of mine that you quoted doesn’t say anything about ruling anything in, so kindly refrain from telling me it did. It rules out anything that could not be considered similar to age, available space and function of the pen, but in this specific semantic scenario, where the three things referred to have no similarity with eachother, it would seem he meant “similar things” to function of the pen only, or else he was phrasing himself in a very confusing manner, not necessarily becoming of an expert. It first rules out anything that could not be considered similar to the three of them, but because they have no similarity with eachother, it seems he was referring to the last mentioned “explanation” when he spoke of “similar things”.

You haven’t found a hole in my argument, Fisherman. You just wasted your time, and obsessing over commas only makes you look desperate. You’ve now expressed your intention to “drop that particular issue”, but I just know you won’t follow through with it. I’d even place money on it.

“Have you ever pondered, Ben, how people who are not honest to their true beliefs have a way of tripping over semantical elements?”

Well, I’ve noticed the phenomenon, yes, since you ask. I suspected that it was occurring on the 1911 thread, which is why I raised the objections you found so distasteful. “Cannot be ruled out”, and all that. Hey, there’s an idea! Let’s dredge that all up again if dredging up long buried threads is your current fixation. I’d better prepare a few copy and pastes at the ready. What’s worse, though, is when obsessed people are so eager to score points that they pathetically imagine they’ve found a “slip-up” in their opponent’s arguments and go about “exposing” it in a confusing and incomprehensible manner.

“By the way, you have not yet answered my question about whether you really believe that Leander was of the impression that the only credible explanations to the changes would have lain in either space availabe, age of the writer, the function of the pen or things similar to the function of the pen.”

I’m working from the basis of what he actually said, and if what he said did not convey his true meaning, I’m afraid that’s his problem. The simpler explanation is that he said what he meant, and in this instance, it would follow that he did not consider that “quality of paper” of “intoxication” to have been reasonable explanations for the differences in this particular case. That’s not to say that intoxication or paper quality cannot have the effect of altering aspects of a person’s handwriting as a general rule, only that they did not appear to be valid explanations in this particular case.

Given the likely extent of Leander’s experience, I’d say he’s the best judge (at least better than you or I) of which “explanations” were likely to have come into play for this specific comparison.

“or, for that matter, admitting that you slipped up, something that would be a lot easier, considering that it was precisely what happened”

No, my infatuated follower, it did not.

Tell you what, why don't you respond with one of those rambling 60-liners that ensure that your central bullet-points are obscured by the rubble?

Make me feel important.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"That sentence of mine that you quoted doesn’t say anything about ruling anything in, so kindly refrain from telling me it did. It rules out anything that could not be considered similar to age, available space and function of the pen, but in this specific semantic scenario, where the three things referred to have no similarity with eachother, it would seem he meant “similar things” to function of the pen only, or else he was phrasing himself in a very confusing manner"

Did you not notice, Ben, that you wrote "function of the pen" in the middle of your phrase? Are we still to realize that you mean that Leander allowed for things similar to that parameter - but not to the ones you placed first and last?
Considering this, who are you to speak of expressing things in a confusing manner...???

You are once again wrong. Blatantly, obviously and unmistakably wrong. And still, you are unable to admit it. Itīs a pathology of itīs very own.

"You haven’t found a hole in my argument, Fisherman."

I havent found an argument in your hole, Ben. Different thing.

"if what he said did not convey his true meaning, I’m afraid that’s his problem."

Youīre the one with problems, Ben. Heaps of them.

"in this instance, it would follow that he did not consider that “quality of paper” of “intoxication” to have been reasonable explanations for the differences in this particular case. That’s not to say that intoxication or paper quality cannot have the effect of altering aspects of a person’s handwriting as a general rule, only that they did not appear to be valid explanations in this particular case"

...and your own stance on this would be...? For example, your, ehrm, "Toppyism" of the last letter making a counter-clockwise turn upwards - donīt you think such a thing could have been led on by a grain in the paper, making a straight line impossible. And donīt you think that Leander would have realized this too...?

"I’m working from the basis of what he actually said"

Nope. You, my friend, are working from the basis of never admitting that the overwhelming evidence, expertise and the collected knowledge of semantics and lingusitics all point you out as ridiculously wrong.

"Make me feel important."

You donīt need me for that, Ben. Or anybody else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Did you not notice, Ben, that you wrote "function of the pen" in the middle of your phrase? Are we still to realize that you mean that Leander allowed for things similar to that parameter - but not to the ones you placed first and last?

I realise that "function of the pen" appeared in middle of the phrase, yes. That's because the order wasn't relevant for the purposes of the point I was making at the time. It rules out anything that can't be considered similar to the three of them - that's our first restriction - but because they shared no similarity with eachother, he must have referred to the last mentioned "thing" only when he spoke of similar things.

You are once again wrong. Blatantly, obviously and unmistakably wrong.

You're fixated with trying to prove me so, and unsuccessfully at that, but then you have a fairly long history of this tactic after latching onto certain posters.

I havent found an argument in your hole, Ben. Different thing

Amazes me why or how you can, y'know, argue with me in that case. Think about it.

For example, your, ehrm, "Toppyism" of the last letter making a counter-clockwise turn upwards - donīt you think such a thing could have been led on by a grain in the paper, making a straight line impossible

Are you serious? Fish, we know for certain that the above cannot possibly be true. Toppy's skywards-pointing n-tail was present in every example of his handwriting that we know about, spanning a 13-year period. Are you saying there just happend to have been a grain in the paper in the same place that forced him to veer his n's upwards every time?

Or was this a slip-up on your part?

Either way, if this is the sort of thing you're resorting to in effort to procure that prized and cherished goal of "proving me wrong", you'll have to try harder.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I realise that "function of the pen" appeared in middle of the phrase, yes. That's because the order wasn't relevant for the purposes of the point I was making at the time. It rules out anything that can't be considered similar to the three of them - that's our first restriction - but because they shared no similarity with eachother, he must have referred to the last mentioned "thing" only when he spoke of similar things."

The order was not relevant?? Impressive! So no matter what order you used, you would be right, regardless of the fact that you started out by writing "It rules out anything that could not be considered similar to..."?

Come on, Ben; real life does not work like that. All of us get things muddled up every once in a while (you should know), and that means that a simple "I got the internal order wrong, thereby conveying an impression that did not reflect my stance" would go a long way to clear things up. If one really wants to, that is.

"Are you serious? Fish, we know for certain that the above cannot possibly be true. Toppy's skywards-pointing n-tail was present in every example of his handwriting that we know about, spanning a 13-year period. Are you saying there just happend to have been a grain in the paper in the same place that forced him to veer his n's upwards every time?"

No. I am saying that such a thing would be an alternative explanation in an isolated case - just as there may be hundreds of other alternative explanations in other isolated cases, proving that Leander would be completely wrong in stating that only the three parameters he listed plus things similar to the last one could be responsible for the changes he saw. It is called conducting a theoretical discussion and it is often useful to elucidate matters. You may have noticed that I have spoken of intoxication and other things before, and that was not because we had an actual case of such a thing proven.

"if this is the sort of thing that you're resorting to in effort to procure that prized and cherished goal of "proving me wrong", you'll have to try harder."

Actually no; I already HAVE proven you wrong, Ben. That was an easy thing to do, as is often the case when somebody argues the way you try to do. The trouble in your case is that nobody seems to be able to make you realize/admit it. Thatīs why I spoke of a pathology of itīs own.

Right now, I have better things to do - but I will return, Ben. Of course!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The order was not relevant?? Impressive! So no matter what order you used, you would be right, regardless of the fact that you started out by writing "It rules out anything that could not be considered similar to..."?

I don't know if you're deliberately trying to mislead or just confusing yourself now, but I've made myself perfectly clear. The order isn't immediately revelant for the general point I was making that if three suggested explanations share no obvious similarity with eachother then any "any similar things" reference appended to the end if the list must logically refer to the last one. The specific order was most emphatically not relevent for that general observation.

And a billion times more, if necessary. Naturally

No. I am saying that such a thing would be an alternative explanation in an isolated case

But it's not an isolated case. Leander would have known full well that such an explanation could not possibly have come into play in this case, given the nature of the material supplied, thus validating and bolstering my earlier observation: Given the likely extent of Leander’s experience, I’d say he’s the best judge (at least better than you or I) of which “explanations” were likely to have come into play for this specific comparison. Of course there may be "many" explanations for the differences in a hypothetical "isolated" case, but it's clear that Leander was able to narrow down the list of possibilies in this specific case.

Actually no; I already HAVE proven you wrong, Ben.

Well, that was the mantra you embarrassed yourself with on other threads, and with other people you followed around before they lost interest in communicating with you. Doesn't make it true. But ask yourself why you would relentlessly pursue someone who you insist will never change his mind, realise or admit anything?

[Victor]

None of that made any sense whatsoever, I'm afraid. There's obviously some criticism of me in there somewhere, but it was all too ponderously phrased to merit much attention, and probably wasn't really worth Victor's while to make, especially if he's decided that the argument is over.

What don't you get Ben? I quoted you and then gave my interpretation of your words. As you're the only one who doesn't get it maybe I can explain it better for you, if you tell me which bit you don't understand.

The pertinent observation would be that death can be caused by X, Y and Z along with many other different things. Not "similar", because they're not. It's wholly irrelevant whether that specific sentence is likely to be used. I could have used any number of sentences, objects and events to illustrate the point.

No the pertinent observation is that you are literally and pedantically interpeting each word of a phrase, which is leading you into semantic gymnastics to defend what you've previously said, despite it's obvious inaccuracy.

Well that's it for me, this dead horse has been flogged enough...

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

despite it's obvious inaccuracy

Nothing inaccurate about it, Vic.

I've never heard of anyone describing something as "similar" to a list of things that don't have any similarity with eachother. Whenever "and similar things" is appended to a list, it is in reference to objects, events (etc) that share an obvious similarity with eachother. That way, it doesn't require any great stretch to conjur up a few other things that also share that similarity. In situations where the "things" haven't the slightest similarity, you list them and refer to "other" things, different things, diverse things. Not similar, because they're just not.

All the best,
Ben

[Victor]

Nothing inaccurate about it, Vic.

Okay, add the qualifier "to everyone except Ben".

I've never heard of anyone describing something as "similar" to a list of things that don't have any similarity with eachother. Whenever "and similar things" is appended to a list, it is in reference to objects, events (etc) that share an obvious similarity with eachother.

Right, we're getting somewhere! You've never heard... that means that if the rest of us have, then you can see why we think as we do.

I'm not saying it's linguistically or grammatically perfect, it's not, and your interpretation is probably pedantically correct, just like double-negatives, but it's useless to interpret someone elses words at your high standards.

KR,
Vic.

[The Good Michael]

Man: Honey, I'm going to go to the store to buy those things you wanted.
What an odd list. You have me purchasing milk, carrots, raspberry jam, and non-alcoholic beer!

Woman: Similarly, you have me buying some strange things at the stationery store: A stapler, corrugated cardboard, one pencil, and a bottle of pepsi from the vending machine.

Man: Wow! That is a strange coincidence that we would come up with similar, incongruous lists.

Woman: Can you add beef juice and arsenic to the list I gave you?

Man: Yes dear.

[Fisherman]

"Jag avsåg de uppräknade anledningarna som representativa för några av flera tänkbara anledningar, dvs det var inte bara knutet till pennans funktion!

Med hälsning

Frank Leander"

That - of course - is Frank Leanders answer to the question that has been debated on this thread. In translation: "I saw the listed causes as being representative for some of many possible causes, that is to say it was not only tied to the function of the pen".

This time over, though, I will not make the mistake to say that this clears things up once and for all - instead I fully realize that this will not be enough for Ben to accept that this particular matter is settled. And since he (Ben) has recently been spending some substantial time on another thread putting words in my mouth, I thought I may just as well return this courtesy by offering a few suggestions, grounded on Bens earlier exploits, for cutting and pasting.

1. I canīt believe this! Fisherman has gone and harassed Leander for the umpteenth time!!! When will he understand that Leander hates his guts by now, and will say anything to get rid of him? (Of course, Frank Leander remains the same amiable man that he has been from the outset, and of course, there has never been any fobbing off, but instead a very helpful attitude throughout on Leanders behalf).

2. He did not say that from the outset! Clearly Leander has now once again changed his mind, making him even more unreliable than before! (As everybody but Ben knows, Frank Leander has never changed his stance, and it has from post number one been quite apparent to the rest of the world that he has come across as a very discerning man).

3. The fact that he keeps on confirming Fishermans stance, to the degree where he even uses the very same words, is EXTREMELY untrustworthy!!! (There are only so many words that can be used, of course, and anybody but our sad islander realized from the outset how this question would end up...)

4. What Frank Leander is saying here is clearly that he sees the dispute out on this thread as a "tie". That is why he uses the expression "tied" when speaking of the function of the pen - and that is why he uses that expression in connection with the very parameter that was the only one we may look for similarities to. (I, for one, would not be surprised...!)

5. So I was perhaps slightly wrong here - but the fact remains that I was linguistically right from the outset, and one must demand a clearer verdict from someone who aspires to professionalism in this respect. As it stands now, we shall never be able to say what Leander REALLY meant. I think we need to rule all of it out, from beginning to end. But for my own interpretation of post number one, that is!

Now, Ben - please, PLEASE, think before you write this time. Or just leave it. Donīt humiliate yourself any further. Put an end to the pantomime - the rest of us have. I have yet to see anybody else but you who subscribe to the things you have lowered yourself to in this thread. Nor do I think I will ever see anybody else do so, for very obvious reasons.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

free yourselves of this evil curse!!!

follow my example and become my disciples! You know it makes sense!

[Ben]

Right, we're getting somewhere! You've never heard... that means that if the rest of us have, then you can see why we think as we do.

Woah there, Vic, you just said that was "it" for you, and you had no intention of flogging this dead horse any further. Now you're back to flog it some more. I really don't know why I induce this behaviour so much in people.

You've never heard... that means that if the rest of us have, then you can see why we think as we do.

You've heard of people describing things as similar to several other things that have no similarity whatsoever with eachother? I find it curious that nobody has ever provided an example of that phenomenon. I mean, we've had Fisherman provide some inapplicable examples that only served to bolster my observations rather than his, i.e. that "and similar things" is almost universally appended to "things" that are similar already. And can you try to avoid this “the rest of us” “everyone else” confusion as though there were some huge chorus of posters enthusiastically championing your cause?

Fisherman,

Nobody has suggested that Leander has not been “amiable” or "helpful" in his attitude. The majority of individuals in possession of those qualities don’t automatically sacrifice them the moment they realize they’re dealing with a pathologically obsessed lunatic who delights to stalk certain people around message boards like a dog on heat, it’s just that some are more robust in their dealings with such people. I personally rather like the attention, especially when I can command it so easily, which is why I fall into the latter category.

Donīt humiliate yourself any further. Put an end to the pantomime - the rest of us have.

No you haven't, Fisherman. I will make sure of that. I will take up most of whatever you may have left of mental energy tomorrow. That’s the pet and owner relationship we have.

You've bombarded the hassled Leander for the 8th time now, and that's after he expressed his fervent wish (in response to bombardment #3!) not to be asked to elaborate any further based on the flawed nature of the material supplied to him, and once again, he's appeased a nuisance. Here's the stinkingly obvious hint for anyone who didn’t pick up on the subtle nuance: notice the brevity of Leander’s reply in contrast to his first post. If you remember correctly, you’ve already depicted me as the villain, so I ask you, what other response could you possibly have expected when you waded in with what could only have amounted to: “That nasty so-called ripperologist who accused you of lying has now interpreted your words as follows. Do you agree with him?”

Anyway, let’s see if Leander’s latest really contradicts anything I’ve said:

From the previous page: It rules out anything that could not be considered similar to age, available space and function of the pen, but in this specific semantic scenario, where the three things referred to have no similarity with eachother, it would seem he meant “similar things” to function of the pen only, or else he was phrasing himself in a very confusing manner, not necessarily becoming of an expert.

That’s not a contradiction. It’s just a reinforcement that one of my “either/or” options was the correct one - the latter in this case.

“As everybody but Ben knows, Frank Leander has never changed his stance”

Oh, I do love the “everybody”.

The whole “lots of imaginary people are all queuing up to agree with my brilliance” is just another extension of the triumphalist rhetoric approach, which I’ve told you before is an insipid and demonstrably unsuccessful debating strategy. As a journalist, someone really should have clued you in on that before. Same with the fallacy that “Ha, if anyone agreed with you, they would have contributed to the thread!”. You just need to grow out of these things. Frank Leander did change his stance. That is an irrefutable fact. Here we go again (and a billion more times if necessary):

He specifically referred to dissimilarities that don’t concern amplitude in his first neutral post, but later stated that there were no differences other than those concerned with amplitude. That’s an irrefutable contradiction, and no amount of Leander-hassling will change that, nor will attempting to google your way out of the problem. Did Leander fob you off? I don’t know. All I know if that a) he contradicted himself, and b) you continued to hassle him many more times after expressing his intention not to elaborate further.

I demand a nice long meaty blitz-post from you tomorrow, Fish, and I want it bright and early, first thing. Then I’ll do a longer one. It’ll amuse me.

“Man: Wow! That is a strange coincidence that we would come up with similar, incongruous lists.”

But they didn’t, Mike.

They came up with dissimilar incongruous lists.

See the difference?

[Fisherman]

Ben chooses option 1:

"You've bombarded the hassled Leander for the 8th time now, and that's after he expressed his fervent wish (in response to bombardment #3!) not to be asked to elaborate any further based on the flawed nature of the material supplied to him, and once again, he's appeased a nuisance."

...in combination with some linguistic acrobatics, aimed to hint at Leander expressing himself in a "confusing" manner.

But just like I have written at numerous occasions, Leander is not the type of guy who fobs people off. Instead he helps out in a very courteous and friendly manner, to Bens increasingly amusing dismay and desperation. And just like Vic points out, Ben seems to be the only person around who is confused by Leander. Everybody (yes, Ben, "everybody") else seem perfectly fit to comprehend.

Bens goal with this pantomime of his is, of course, to try and hinder ANY material or evidence that goes to disprove his own suggestion that Hutchinson was in fact an imposter of a murdeous mind, preferably Joe Fleming in disguise. In order not to have this obvious misconception taken away from him, he is ready to go to any lengths, including trying to convince us that his own expertise surpasses that of Frank Leanders and that his own grip of the language cannot be challenged, not even by the linguistic department of the University of Lund! Some guy, our Ben!

"I demand a nice long meaty blitz-post from you tomorrow, Fish, and I want it bright and early, first thing. Then I’ll do a longer one. It’ll amuse me."

Hope this will do, Ben, though it is not so long and meaty - there are only so many ways one can say "baloney"... But you are correct on the amusement factor - I can hear the laughs very clearly!

Now, Ben; I have done what I can in this thread; I have pointed out the Swiss cheese multitude of holes in your reasoning, I have had corroboration of the fact that the linguistic bit we were dealing with as a rule involves all the bits listed when somebody writes "and similar things", we have had Vic telling you that your "never having heard" of these things adds up to what YOU never have heard, wheras EVERYBODY else seem to effortlessly understand, and I have rounded off by having Leander confirm that WHATEVER significance your ramblings may or may not have had from the start, the FACT remains that Leander throughout meant that MANY reasons may have lain behind the alterations inbetween the police report signature he saw and the 1898 and 1911 Toppy signatures.
This thread that would never have been created, had it not been for your misconception in combination with your total unability to accept that everybody else but you understood what Leander meant - and has now confirmed. And is that not the best of ways to end it: By pointing out that the answer to the question posed in the name of it - When does many become many? - is: "Now that we have had confirmation from Leander himself!"

I understand, Ben, that you will go on "fighting" and that your "stamina" will suffice to make the Thirty-year war of the 17:th century fade into oblivion. But since it would be a very strange thing to do, to quibble over what Leander meant now that he has told us, I think that is a "battle" you will have to sort out yourself. And I have little doubt that you will state that you known all along what Leander meant, whereas he has never himself been able to get a grip on it. But why would I - and everybody else - mind? It is an indecency and intellectually corrupt, of course, and the boards could have done without it - but it has the merit of perpetually pointing your dedications in Ripperology out for what they are.

Bye, bye for this time, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

“...in combination with some linguistic acrobatics, aimed to hint at Leander expressing himself in a "confusing" manner.”

Well, it could just as easily have been your poor translation for all I know. All I know is that the sentence, as translated by you, cannot possibly be used as a synonym of “many” and that it makes no sense whatsoever no provide a list of wholly dissimilar things before appending “and similar things” to the end of that list. Generally speaking, there has not been a single observation I’ve made that has not been vindicated in this pointless semantic battle that you decided to dredge up out of nowhere. I observed that the sentence was either intended to mean similar only to the function of the pen (i.e. that his sentence made sense) or that it didn’t make sense and the word “similar” was used in the wrong context. That observation has proved accurate, and no, the expert from Lund didn’t contradict anything I’ve said either.

“But just like I have written at numerous occasions, Leander is not the type of guy who fobs people off. Instead he helps out in a very courteous and friendly manner”

…Which is why it was so unfortunate that you took such crass advantage of those two very qualities that you purport to admire. When he expressed his friendly and courteous wish not be asked to elaborate further given the flawed nature of the material supplied, you completely ignored it and bombarded him five more times anyway in pursuit of clarification. When you resort to this tactic, and make it obvious time and time again which answer you wanted him to provide, you become a fob-off waiting to happen. You nailed your biased colours to the mast, and the man's contributions became progressively more Toppy-endorsing.

“In order not to have this obvious misconception taken away from him, he is ready to go to any lengths…”

Again with the delusions and the triumphalist rhetoric. Even if Leander shouted from the rooftops that Toppy was the witness, the weight of expertise would still favour the non-match, given that Iremonger was dealing the actual documents and all three statement signatures. But please give me any excuse to discuss this all over again.

“Everybody (yes, Ben, "everybody") else seem perfectly fit to comprehend.”

But when you make statements like these that cannot possibly be true, I just know for certain that you’re lying, so what was the point? You’re assuming that everybody decided to visit this thread, let alone read it all in meticulous detail, and of those who read it but decided not to get involved in another round of Fish-generated cyber ping-pong, you cannot possibly know whose argument they favoured. Don’t make it obvious that you’re looking to score points, because crass exaggerations give the game away big time in that regard. You need to know when to change gears.

This thread that would never have been created, had it not been for your misconception in combination with your total unability to accept that everybody else but you understood what Leander meant

Wrong. If you remember correctly, this thread would never have been created if you hadn't copied and pasted from a discussion that was buried months ago. It was most assuredly you who decided to churn out the "many/similar" semantic silliness.

“I have had corroboration of the fact that the linguistic bit we were dealing with as a rule involves all the bits listed when somebody writes "and similar things"

Generally speaking, that’s absolutely correct, and I’ve never disputed as much. An obvious and glaring exception would be if the “bits listed” had no similarity whatsoever with eachother, because in that event, “and similar things” would cease to become applicable. It turns out that he supposedly “meant” the opposite, which was that many different things could have an effect. Slightly baffling then, then he didn’t say what he meant, or anything remotely like it first time around, unless he changed his mind or subsequently upgraded to placate the pesterer with the biased stance.

“Bye, bye for this time, Ben!”

Oh, I think we both know that’s a big fat lie, Fisherman.

Back you come.

[Victor]

Woah there, Vic, you just said that was "it" for you, and you had no intention of flogging this dead horse any further. Now you're back to flog it some more. I really don't know why I induce this behaviour so much in people.

Hi Ben,
You directly contradicted something I said, prompting me to comment.

You've heard of people describing things as similar to several other things that have no similarity whatsoever with eachother?

Yes, usually in the context of qualifiers typically of the form Factors that affect {something} are X, Y, Z and similar [things].

i.e. that "and similar things" is almost universally appended to "things" that are similar already.

Swap "almost universally" for "typically" or "usually" then you're there. Even your "almost" leaves room for the alternate. And then the similarities are predominantly that they cause the effect being examined.

And can you try to avoid this “the rest of us” “everyone else” confusion as though there were some huge chorus of posters enthusiastically championing your cause?

Well you are a lone voice, so "the rest of us" is correct, until someone states that they agree with you.

KR,
Vic.