When does many become many?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"If you want to discuss Leander in the future, you are of course more than welcome to do so, as long as you don't keep repeating the same previously challenged assertions and expect them not to be challenged again in exactly the same manner."

I do expect to be able to reiterate what Leander said, since it is of vital importance to the issue, and since there will be new posters and new issues raised, that will touch on Leander and his findings. And yes, I do expect NOT to have that met with any suggestions that I wrote Leanders posts, and I likewise expect you to treat Leander with respect. I am quite fine with any suggestion from your behalf that Leander "changed his mind" if you stay by that position, but I am NOT happy about any suggestions that this so called change would have been lead on by anything that paints Leander out as anything but a discerning expert.
If you can only describe it as a rare phenomenon, or something unbelievable; be my guest. But the allegations of lying on Leanders behalf must seize. That is no way to thank a researcher of his caliber who has gone through a lot of trouble on our behalf.

On the issue of the "similar" and "many" case, it is but a trifle, and I will tend to it by contacting the linguistic department of Lund University when I get back home. I also have contacts with the Max Planck institute, where a dear friend of mine works at THEIR linguistic department, and so we shall be able to hear what the experts say about it in a few weeks time - unless it has all been settled when I return from my vacation!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Yes. That's why I posted that long post the other day. I suspected and now it's confirmed. Remember I talked about sabotage? That's what has been happening."

That, Mike, is about the saddest thing I ever heard. One can´t help - in the midst of the frustration - but to feel sorry for her.
Thanks for keeping me informed - though this was something I could have done without. I can do with that vacation now, though...!

Best greetings, Mike - I´ll catch a big one for you, using one of my twelwe year old son´s flies. His name is Tor, and he ties a pattern of his own called "Tor´s Hammer"!

Again thanks. Take care!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

That, Mike, is about the saddest thing I ever heard. One can´t help - in the midst of the frustration - but to feel sorry for her.
Thanks for keeping me informed - though this was something I could have done without. I can do with that vacation now, though...!

It's sad for all of us. It's sad because some people knew, but allowed her to carry on her sabotage, and sad for her because she's obviously got emotional problems. sad for me because she lied about me in chat. (actually I don't care about that. She has no credibility) sad that people would be misled. The trust level, especially with Hutchinson stuff, may be forever broken. Though we have proven beyond reasonable doubt, our case, it is deeply unsatisfying to have taken so long to do so because of lies and subterfuge. It has caused unreasonable anxiety and stress. As much as I feel sorry for this mentally ill person, the damage she has wrought is irreparable.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Oh for crying out loud, Fisherman. Go on holiday.

Mike gave you some sensible advice, and you seem strangely unwilling to embrace it. Every time you so much as hint at an intention to drop the subject, I keep seeing your name as the last poster.

I do expect to be able to reiterate what Leander said, since it is of vital importance to the issue

Well then, you can expect precisely the same objections that you received before from me, and that will include the observation that he offered radically contrasting views on the subject. But seriously, why would you wish to "reiterate what Leander said" when it has been discussed on many posts, in interminable discussions on numerous threads? What would be the point of repeating something that has been "reiterated" ad nauseam? Claiming that such unnecessary reiteration is in the interests of helping new posters in just nonsense, since all you'd need to do in that event is provide a URL to the threads or pages where it was discussed, as opposed to wasting bandwidth.

Sorry, but if I don't get any acquiescence to my requests, then I'm not inclined to help you out with yours, and if you return to the repetetive bombastic prolixity that often characterizes your posts, you can expect precisely the same degree of speculation with regard to Leander than you found distasteful before.

Don't repeat yourself and I won't.

That's my final offer.

I also have contacts with the Max Planck institute, where a dear friend of mine works at THEIR linguistic department, and so we shall be able to hear what the experts say about it in a few weeks time

That would be interesting. Bear in mind, though, that even if they expressed a view as to what would be the most appropriate phraseology in this instance, it wouldn't necessary follow that Leander himself used the most appropriate terminology, especially given my concerns about his application of unambiguous phrases.

[Ben]

Though we have proven beyond reasonable doubt, our case, it is deeply unsatisfying to have taken so long to do so because of lies and subterfuge

Again with the repetition, Mike.

I understand why you would encourage Fisherman to reel himself in a bit - you're naturally worried that anymore blitz-posting and brawls would have a detrimental effect on the credibility of Team Toppy. That's fine. I'd say precisely the same thing in your shoes, but don't lower yourself to the very level you cautioned against by doing the whole triumphalist rhetoric thing again and claim that you've proved your case "beyond reasonable doubt" when you clearly haven't. The idea that anxiety and stress has been created doesn't make much sense considering that nobody is being kept on these threads against their will.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"Well then, you can expect precisely the same objections that you received before from me, and that will include the observation that he offered radically contrasting views on the subject."

That, Ben, is fine and dandy - you are entitled to that wiew as long as you need it. You are not. though, entitled to suggest that leander lied to fob me off.
Long as you stay away from such suggestions, I´m fine with whatever conceptions you have.

"But seriously, why would you wish to "reiterate what Leander said" when it has been discussed on many posts, in interminable discussions on numerous threads?"

It could be a simple question from a new poster: "What did Leander say, and what did he mean by it?" Nothing stranger than that. And Leanders wiews belong to the discussion very much.

"you can expect precisely the same degree of speculation with regard to Leander than you found distasteful before"

If so, I must remind you that slander is not allowed by the Casebook rules, and I shall take what steps can be taken to keep the site civil.
I am glas though, that you now admit that it is nothing by "speculation" on your behalf - which of course makes it wo much more distasteful.

"That would be interesting. Bear in mind, though, that even if they expressed a view as to what would be the most appropriate phraseology in this instance, it wouldn't necessary follow that Leander himself used the most appropriate terminology, especially given my concerns about his application of unambiguous phrases."

...but since such suggestions could be put forward in any case (à la Schopenhauer was just joking; prove me wrong if you can!), we sjall just have to move with consensus - at least the rest of us will.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes, to Mike:

"don't lower yourself to the very level you cautioned against by doing the whole triumphalist rhetoric thing again and claim that you've proved your case "beyond reasonable doubt" when you clearly haven't."

That too, Ben, will be a matter of consensus. Wait and see.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That, Ben, is fine and dandy - you are entitled to that wiew as long as you need it. You are not. though, entitled to suggest that leander lied to fob me off.

"Fine and dandy". Okay, so we've established that repeating a previously challenged objection makes absolutely no sense when there is ample opportunity to provide a URL to earlier discussions. Good. Of course, if any repetition of repeated assertions were to occur, I'll first scratch my head in appalled disbelief before reminding you of the same objections to them I had before. If you then argue back at me, we'd be in a repetition fest, and I'd be decidedly upset if such a scenario were to occur, especially when I'm trying to be as complient to your requests as possible.

"What did Leander say, and what did he mean by it?" Nothing stranger than that

Then just provide a URL.

If so, I must remind you that slander is not allowed by the Casebook rules, and I shall take what steps can be taken to keep the site civil.

So probably better not to accuse me or anyone else of being dishonest and stupid, comparing me to leading Nazis, or accusing others of stepping over dead people to bolster their positions.

As I've said before, and as Mike has cautioned you on several occasions, don't go for the brawling repetative approach. It doesn't suit you, and it certainly doesn't help the Toppy cause.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

If, Ben, you just calm down and stay away from accusations of foul play on my or unethical ditto on Leanders behalf, we should be just fine.

If I choose to give my wiew to any poster, I see no reason why it should matter if I posted a URL or gave it directly on the thread; the latter seems the more courteous and accomodating way to me and the message will be the same. It is likely that differing methods will apply on differing occasions, and whenever I give my wiew, you are of course entitled to give yours too, to any poster you like to give it to, as long as your posts are cleansed from "speculations" involving foul play on my behalf and/or lying or being unethical on Leanders ditto.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

With all due respect to my friends....this issue is far from being a critical one, in fact its akin to arguing about whether Mary came from Ireland or Wales,......since neither can be proven, and neither answers anything about who killed her....I might suggest starting a George Hutchinson Forum somewhere and pursuing all these questions about him there.

But from my vantage point... he is irrelevant to the most pertinent questions we should be addressing here....whether he signed both documents or not.

All the best folks.

[Observer]

Hi Mike

Fisherman,

Yes. That's why I posted that long post the other day. I suspected and now it's confirmed. Remember I talked about sabotage? That's what has been happening.

Have a nice vacation.

Mike

It was pretty obvious really, the sytle was unmistakable. I reffered to her as Jane C, a couple of times but she didnt bite.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"With all due respect to my friends....this issue is far from being a critical one, in fact its akin to arguing about whether Mary came from Ireland or Wales,......since neither can be proven, and neither answers anything about who killed her....I might suggest starting a George Hutchinson Forum somewhere and pursuing all these questions about him there."

This thread, Michael, is in itself an anomaly - it should never have been a necessity from the outset as far as I´m concerned. That aside, though, it is exactly the correct thread for the type of discussion that is ongoing here.

It is instead the boards themselves that are not the correct boards for a thread like this - and I hope it is the first and last one of it´s kind.

...meaning that I can very well see what you are saying!

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

With all due respect to my friends....this issue is far from being a critical one

It is rather important, inasmuch as establishing the identity of one of the more interesting "suspects" in the case allows us to discern some aspects of his character, perhaps even his history.

akin to arguing about whether Mary came from Ireland or Wales, since neither can be proven

Oh, but this can be proven, Mike - it's one of the few aspects of the Kelly story for which one could reasonably hope as much. Opportunities like these don't crop up very often in this case, which makes it all the sadder when one sees the siege mentality kicking in. We should seek to build bridges to the past, not barricade the walls.

[perrymason]

It is rather important, inasmuch as establishing the identity of one of the more interesting "suspects" in the case allows us to discern some aspects of his character, perhaps even his history. Oh, but this can be proven, Mike - it's one of the few aspects of the Kelly story for which one could reasonably hope as much. Opportunities like these don't crop up very often in this case, which makes it all the sadder when one sees the siege mentality kicking in. We should seek to build bridges to the past, not barricade the walls.

Hi Sam,

Im glad you worded your post with "can" happen, in the case of Mary Kelly, as its my understanding that her birthplace registry or certificate or census data that confirms the story she told Barnett and others has not been located.

In the case of George Hutchinson, we need no bridge to the past...we see what was known of him and what was thought of him. He doesnt become a "suspect" as you say unless you talk to people who feel he is suspicious. There are no grounds for even considering him as suspect.

I suppose its perhaps my perception that we should be seeking out information that might relate to the Ripper killings if were members here....its not that I see harm in exploring tidbits of history "just for the jolly"...but this thing with Hutchinson is getting way too out of hand.

The only thing that is known about him is that the police changed their mind about his trustworthiness....Im assuming once they had investigated his story within the 72 hours after his initially giving it.

That doesnt equate to witness, suspect or anything of the kind...it equates to a perceived charlatan, thats all.

Cheers Sam

[caz]

Fisherman,

Yes. That's why I posted that long post the other day. I suspected and now it's confirmed. Remember I talked about sabotage? That's what has been happening.

Have a nice vacation.

Mike

Bloody hell, GM - I must admit I did have my own suspicions at first that all was not what it seemed, but if this has indeed been confirmed it became a classier act than some others I've seen.

I had an unexpected private message back in June from this poster and I thought I recognised a style from ten years ago, rather than just a few weeks. I did wonder if it was a fishing expedition so I responded with due caution - even dropped a hint, as you can see from this extract:

And don't let anyone take you for a ride. If you don't know someone is posting under his/her real name, exercising a bit of caution never hurts, just in case their motives are not entirely genuine.

Love,

Can't be too Careful Caz
X