When does many become many?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But those charming epithets that you delight to hurl in my direction have a good deal of obvious similarity with eachother, so it would make sense to include "and similar things" in that amusing volley of abuse."

They are just as dissimilar as pen function and writing space afforded - at the very least. "Illogical" for example does not relate in any way to "dishonest" - one points out a lack of ability, the other maliciousness, and they are quite, quite apart. Loads of posters have presented illogical suggestions on these boards, but only the fewest have been dishonest.

The only thing that tie my combination of illogical, dishonest, stupid and ridiculous together is that THEY ALL APPLY TO YOUR SUGGESTION. That is what forms them into a group applicable to the same thing - you.

Same goes for Leanders three listed things - they are similar in the fashion that THEY ALL APPLY TO HIS SUGGESTION OF THINGS THAT MAY ALTER THE HANDWRITING.

You are stalling, obfuscationg, hindering, misinterpreting and similar things, Ben. That is another perfectly useful grouping. And it is exactly what you are doing, no matter that you have it pointed out to you by posters and language teachers alike: You are wrong. Again.

"Safeguard yourself in events of fire, flooding, earthquakes and similar things" What does that tell you, Ben? That you need not worry about malaria, dysenteria, volcano eruptions, thunderstorms, hurricanes, the onslaught of mad killers or stampedes?

Down and out, Ben. Not that you will ever understand it, and not that you will share the laugh I am having at your expense, I know that full well. Now, explain to me how the above sentence relates to your grand scheme of misunderstanding and tormenting the English language. Please do! It will be ever so amusing to hear you state that dysenteria and stampedes are quite, quite similar.

Psst. If you are having trouble understanding it all, Iīll give you a hint: Itīs all about perils to your safety this time.

"I'm not the one spoiling to start a new round of "cyber ping pong" the moment the old one starts to die off."

Of course not. You would very much like it to b accepted that both sides have produced viable arguments in this conflict.
But that we have not. You have been wrong on virtually everything. And it is fine and dandy to be wrong; like I said, illogical posters are thirteen a dozen, and thatīs quite alright by me.

What is NOT alright though, is when people are dishonest, and when they try to stal and hinder, and when they accuse authorities of lying in order to fob people off. Getting away with such things is something I will not allow you.

Now, you can begin your repentance by admitting that you are totally wrong on this, the latest issue of what Leander would have meant by similar things, and then you can add all the rest of your charade to it, preferably publically apologizing to Leander for your malicious attacks on him.
But letīs begin with the question of whether dysenteria and a stampede are "similar" things. Once you have given an honest answer to that question, we can start to untangle the rest too.

Dysenteria and a stampede, Ben. Similarities, please?

Fisherman
even more fed up

[Fisherman]

Ah, I see that you have already made an effort on the other material, Ben! Letīs just use the Pakistani school example, where you suddenly realize that the common factor of good-looking school uniforms, nice hair and cut nails is:

"Cleanliess, tidiness. That's the strong similarity shared by all of those features referred to, so the "similar things" would naturally be other details that relate specifically to cleanliess"

Bravo, Ben! Bravo, bravo, bravissimo! THATīS the spirit! Thatīs how it works!

Of course, a bottom is not similar to a school uniform per se (at least I have never seen a uniform that resembles a bottom, or a bottom that could be mistaken for a school uniform). But there IS a built-in similarity in this context: the school wants both to be tidy! And so, there is no need for any similarity between the objects described, as long as they share a commonality! And in this case, that commonality was the demand for tidiness and cleanliness. Exactly so, Ben! Well spotted!

Spot on!

Head of the nail!

That means that we have only one more step to take, and you will be in the clear on the Leander grouping too! Now, letīs hear it - the common factor inbetween the age of the writer, the space afforded to him to write on and the function of the pen was .... come on, come on, you can do it, nearly there....! YES! Yes, yes, yes: It was their ability to cause changes in the handwriting of Hutch/Toppy! That was where these things proved similar within their group, and that is why all other things that ALSO may have had an impact on the writing are legitimate suggestions for a membership in that same group!
The restgives itself: A rabbit falling from the sky onto the head of the writer may influence the writing, and so that rabbit belongs to the hitherto unnamed objects that may lay claim to a membership in Leanders "similar" group. So does a sudden push, an intoxication, a decision to try and write in a different fashion, a sneeze, a fart that made the writer reel and Charles Lindberghs dad, flying through the police office in a preconceived miniature replica of "Spirit of Saint Louis".

In other words, things can be totally dissimilar on the surface, AND STILL HAVE INHERENT COMMONALITIES THAT ALLOW FOR THEM TO BE GROUPED! And when such things are listed and followed by a "and similar things" the similarity lies not in a reasonable comparison to the last named object, but instead in that inherent commonality. In that Pakistani school, it was cleanliness and tidiness (again bravo, Ben!), and in Leanders case, the only commonality inbetween a pens function, a writig space afforded and the age of the writer IS THAT THEY MAY ALL CAUSE DIFFERENCES IN THE WRITING - as may virtually thousands of other things do!

Does this, Ben, mean that we are through with this particular issue? Does it mean that you finally recognize that you were wrong to believe that the one and only thing "similar" would have pointed to in Leanders case was similarities to the function of a pen? Am I to - finally - understand that you admit that the similarity Leander spoke about was the similarity of a possible tendency to cause differences in a persons manner of writing?

Please tell me this is so!

Fisherman

[Ben]

“They are just as dissimilar as pen function and writing space afforded - at the very least. "Illogical" for example does not relate in any way to "dishonest"

Except inasmuch as they both relate to negative personality traits. In that sense they are most assuredly “similar”. They also all happen to bask under the canopy of “accusations made by Fisherman that make him look like a total kock blizzard”, since the last time you claimed I accused you of lying, you threw your rattles out of the pram and pestered the moderators by “reporting me” and others, despite the rules being very clear in requesting that reporters make clear which rule the offending post supposedly violates. Now you’re claiming that a perfectly acceptable observation concerning the (il)logicality of describing something as similar to things that aren’t even similar to each other constitutes an example of “dishonesty” of my part. If it were the other way round, you’d be lashing out and “reporting me”.

You’re entitled to your opinion of my motivations; it also happens to be an outrageously shallow one, but then you’d look for any excuse to pick a fight with me, despite the fact that you’re so prolific, ponderous, bombastic, exclamatory and inarticulate than you tend not be very successful in that format either. It’s little wonder that one of your staunchest Toppy allies told me that he always felt awkward and embarrassed whenever he agreed with you.

“they are similar in the fashion that THEY ALL APPLY TO HIS SUGGESTION OF THINGS THAT MAY ALTER THE HANDWRITING.”

But a meteor landing near Toppy’s house and burning his hand is an example of something that may alter the handwriting, but I’m sure you wouldn’t seriously argue that it has any real similarity to the “function of the pen”, would you? I’d hope not, because they aren’t similar at all, unlike “neat hair” and “clean nails” with all belong so obviously to the category of personal hygene.

“And it is exactly what you are doing, no matter that you have it pointed out to you by posters and language teachers alike: You are wrong. Again.”

The all too familiar Fisherman-esque fixation with stalking Ben around the message boards like a dog on heat attempting to prove him wrong. I realise you have a long, sordid history of that tactic, even to the point of using your children as photographic pawns for that purpose (which I found both insipid and repulsive) but since it never works out well for you, it’s about you took your own advice and “gave it a rest”. There certainly hasn’t been any language teachers telling me I’m wrong, so I’m not sure where that piece of nonsense derived from.

"Safeguard yourself in events of fire, flooding, earthquakes and similar things" What does that tell you, Ben? That you need not worry about malaria, dysenteria, volcano eruptions, thunderstorms, hurricanes, the onslaught of mad killers or stampedes?”

Fire, flooding and earthquakes enter into the obvious and specific category of natural disasters, as any idiot will appreciate. If you’re arguing that flooding and earthquakes have an equal degree of similarity to each other “age” and “function of the pen”, then you’d be factually incorrect. But thanks for once again illustrating my point most beautifully.

“your grand scheme of misunderstanding and tormenting the English language.”

It’s my language, you despicable fraud, not yours. Look no further that Scandinavia for the most spectacular examples of “misunderstanding and tormenting the English language”, when we hear the revelatory piece of news that “cannot be ruled out” secretly means “probable”. Not in the actual English dictionary of course, but in “Leander’s World”, we’re told. That magical place where age-old definitions suddenly acquire a new meaning; the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team.

“What is NOT alright though, is when people are dishonest, and when they try to stal and hinder, and when they accuse authorities of lying in order to fob people off. Getting away with such things is something I will not allow you.”

Setting aside for a moment the obvious fallacy of the above, and the hideous slur on my motivations, let’s all laugh at your belligerent prediction that you will “not allow” me to get away it. Let’s face it, Fisherman, if I wanted to get away with any devious tactics, you would hardly be in a position to do anything about it. In fact, your omnipresent blitz-posting, bull-in-a-china shop approach to debate will ensure that any salient post are buried under the rubble, and I’d get the last word eventually. Although I don’t like this debating strategy that has become your preference, I’m certainly better at it than you. Stamina, prolixity, wear-‘em out tactics – I dominate in those particular fields, despite the fact that I don’t like them. So if the object of the exercise is to get one over on big bad Ben, try one of three things; cultivate an awareness of the fact that you’re not the best man for the job, stop patronizing the readership with the veiled claim that they all need your help to guide them (i.e. that they’re too stupid to make their minds up themselves), or try a more successful debating strategy.

At the moment, if I wanted to “get away” with something for whatever reason, you’d help those efforts rather than hinder them.

“Now, you can begin your repentance by admitting that you are totally wrong on this, the latest issue of what Leander would have meant by similar things, and then you can add all the rest of your charade to it, preferably publically apologizing to Leander for your malicious attacks on him.”

Or I can just point and laugh at the continued attempts to cyber ping-pong me into submission that fail miserably all the time, and once again I notice you’ve gone for the triumphalist approach. Again, not a sustainable strategy in the long term.

“But letīs begin with the question of whether dysenteria and a stampede are "similar" things”

Who said anything about “dysenteria” (?) and a “stampede”? You did, so let’s ignore that and examine what the actual source said: “Safeguard yourself in events of fire, flooding, earthquakes and similar things". The named occurrences listed were extremely similar to each other – they are all natural disasters, so adding “and similar things” afterwards would make abundant sense in this context. Not so in Leander’s.

“Of course, a bottom is not similar to a school uniform per se (at least I have never seen a uniform that resembles a bottom, or a bottom that could be mistaken for a school uniform”

Who said anything about bottoms? Just you. There may be an arse in the equation, but it certainly wasn’t one of the named “things” so kindly take your bottom-fixation elsewhere and consider the original source:

“Schools also place a lot of importance on school uniforms, neat hair, clean cut nails and similar things”

They have an obvious similarity with each other, thus validating the “similar things” addition. Neat hair and clean-cut nails share a very strong and very obvious similarity – they all relate specifically to personal hygiene. They are similar to each other, most importantly, in isolation from anything else. If you saw those two things alongside each other, you’d recognise immediately that they both related to the same category. If you saw “function of the pen” and “age” alongside each other, and in isolation from anything else, there’s no way you’d be able to deduce: “Ah, yes, they’re both similar in the sense that they impact upon penmanship”.

“Exactly so, Ben! Well spotted! Spot on! Head of the nail!”

Excessive use of exclamatory language!!

Not very well respected in mainstream journalism!!!

“YES! Yes, yes, yes: It was their ability to cause changes in the handwriting of Hutch/Toppy!”

See above. They wouldn’t be considered remotely similar in isolation from anything else, unlike the examples you naively expected to enhance your cause, which were very similar to each other even when taken out of context. With that in mind, and given the otherwise dissimilar nature of Leander’s suggested explanations, it would have made far better sense to add “and OTHER things”, not “similar”, unless of course he meant similar to the last mentioned difference which concerned the function of the pen. In which case, you’re very unlikely to end up with “many differences”.

“A rabbit falling from the sky onto the head of the writer may influence the writing, and so that rabbit belongs to the hitherto unnamed objects”

Oh I see! So when Leander changed to "many", he was secretly encompassing the truly ludicrous suggestions in order to come up with “many”, and in order to justify his decision to appropriate – all of a sudden – the very terminology and phraseology that you erroneously claimed was all there in his first post. That would certainly explain a great deal.

“In other words, things can be totally dissimilar on the surface, AND STILL HAVE INHERENT COMMONALITIES THAT ALLOW FOR THEM TO BE GROUPED!”

So your examples were patently bogus and wholly inapplicable then, since they all featured “things” that were totally similar on the surface, rendering it unsurprising that they have inherent commonalities that allow for them to be grouped. I think you’ve googled yourself once again into an indefensible position, since a rabbit falling down from the sky (as per your colourful example) doesn’t have any commonality with “age” or “function of the pen”, just as those two have no commonality with eachother.

“Does this, Ben, mean that we are through with this particular issue? Does it mean that you finally recognize that you were wrong to believe that the one and only thing "similar" would have pointed to in Leanders case was similarities to the function of a pen?”

I dearly hope that we're through with this particular issue, but you tend to be of the persuasion that blitz-posting people into submission and demanding that they agree with you is the way forward, but your 100% failure record at that particular strategy should have given you enough self-scrutiny to try something else. Rational people get “through” with a particular issue by sensing a stalemate and agreeing to disagree. You’d be better in that format, since you’re not inherently suited to the continued brawling style.

Ah, but that would be boring for me.

Write a mega post.

Then I'll do a longer one.

I enjoy dictating your internet activity.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fire, flooding and earthquakes enter into the obvious and specific category of natural disasters"

...and so do you. Get help.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

A caution: At least two people on these threads have declared their unflagging faith in Hutchinson as a murderer. They aren't going to change their minds, and things are becoming, from their direction, similar to the Crystal/Ben scenario of a few months past. I leave it to you to realize who they are. Try looking at their profiles for clues. Anyway, our case has really been proven as far as a certain level of probability goes. I think we need to let the flames of argument die out a little, don't you? No one really needs to get in the last word about this. It's frustrating when one has near certainty about an issue and still rams his head against the pillars of stubbornness. I know. We all know. Both camps feel this, I suppose. Let's see what we can uncover from the relatives and leave this thread as it is. Plenty of time to come back when we have new info.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

At least two people on these threads have declared their unflagging faith in Hutchinson as a murderer.

I haven't heard anyone make any such declarations, Mike, and as I have tried to explain patiently on several occasions, the issue of Hutchinson's potential culpability should be considered in complete isolation from the Toppy-as Hutch premise. Despite assurances that the latter impacts negatively on the former, that most assuredly is not the case.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"At least two people on these threads have declared their unflagging faith in Hutchinson as a murderer. They aren't going to change their minds, and things are becoming, from their direction, similar to the Crystal/Ben scenario of a few months past. I leave it to you to realize who they are. Try looking at their profiles for clues."

See what you mean, Mike.

"Anyway, our case has really been proven as far as a certain level of probability goes."

It has.

"I think we need to let the flames of argument die out a little, don't you? No one really needs to get in the last word about this."

Oh, yes, Mike - there is someone who would rather jump of the Matterhorn with a locomotive tied to his neck, than let somebody else than him have the last word. And I leave it to YOU to find out who THAT is!

" It's frustrating when one has near certainty about an issue and still rams his head against the pillars of stubbornness."

I am in no way frustrated about the development on the Hutch/Toppy issue - I am very pleased with it! I have, though, tried to do what cannot be done; talk sense with a condition instead of with a theory. Thatīs frustrating, admittedly - whereas it should truly be compassion-evoking.

"Let's see what we can uncover from the relatives and leave this thread as it is. Plenty of time to come back when we have new info."

Yes, Mike, letīs do that. I very much hope that we can lay the you-know-what-but-I-have-not-got-a-word-for-it behind us and forget about it as any forthcoming evidence further clinches ehat has already been very, very nearly clinched by the signatures.

Like I told you, Iīm off on a fortnights vacation come Wednesday, but it will be very interesting to return and see how things are coming! Happy hunting!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I am very pleased with it! I have, though, tried to do what cannot be done; talk sense with a condition instead of with a theory. Thatīs frustrating, admittedly - whereas it should truly be compassion-evoking

Again, Fisherman, it is perhaps not the wisest of ideas to accuse me of having a mental disorder which you then attempt to ridicule, especially after having "reported me" for far less serious "offences". I disagree most profoundly that your case is anywhere near "probable", and I disagree most profoundly that anything has been "nearly clinched", except perhaps Iremonger's view that the signatures didn't match.

Enjoy your hols.

Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"it is perhaps not the wisest of ideas to accuse me of having a mental disorder which you then attempt to ridicule"

To begin with, I am not saying mental disorder - I am speaking of a condition, Ben. What kind of condition it is lies beyond my comprension of such things, and so I will not sort it into any special field.
Furthermore, I am not ridiculing you or anybody with such a condition - if you once again read my post, you will see that I find it compassion-evoking and nothing else.

I shall try to refrain from contributing to discussions where you take part in the future - as long as you refrain from hinting at me writing Leanders posts myself, and as long as you do not point experts and authorities out as unethical and prone to lying, it should pose very few problems. You just tend to yourself and we should both be fine.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I shall try to refrain from contributing to discussions where you take part in the future - as long as you refrain from hinting at me writing Leanders posts myself

I can assure you that I have no intention of discussing the Leander issue any further, providing others refrain from starting that particular ball rolling again. I will gladly fulfill my side of the bargain, and if you can avoid starting "Why Ben misinterpreted the source" type threads based on discussions that were thrashed out months ago, and which I would not otherwise have touched upon, I too would be most appreciative.

Thanks for the compassion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I can assure you that I have no intention of discussing the Leander issue any further, providing others refrain from starting that particular ball rolling again. I will gladly fulfill my side of the bargain"

There is and can be no bargain involving any agreement not to speak of the Leander analysis again, Ben. Nor has any such thing been suggested.
In fact, I suspect I will be discussing Leander very much in the future - but not with you, if I can avoid it.

And how do we open up for such an avoidance on my behalf? We open up for it by no more hinting at the possibility that I wrote Leanders posts myself, and by no more attributing any unethical behaviour of any sort on Leanders behalf.

If you can manage to steer clear of such things, I see no reason at all for us to have much more dealings with each other on the Leander issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

I imagine that Jane (Crystal) will be gone soon, so there will be less animosity on this thread.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Fisherman,

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. We want to avoid going round in circles, because it inevitably leads to a repetition war consisting of you repeating a controversial conclusion and me repeating my argument against it. I just hope that repetition is not what you're envisaging when you expressed that intention to discuss Leander "very much in the future".

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"I imagine that Jane (Crystal) will be gone soon, so there will be less animosity on this thread."

Good grief, Mike - not again...?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

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