When does many become many?

[Fisherman]

Finally had the time to go hunting on the net for a new collection of “similar” things and their grouping together. Now, let´s keep in mind your demands, Ben: If we are to allow for a grouping where the word “similar” can be used in an extensive manner, the context must be obvious to everybody.
If we do not have such an obvious context, I am saying that once the context IS provided, we are allowed to use the word similar – and we do so in a very large extent. It is common procedure, as will be clear using these examples:

“Vacations, museums, and similar things” (http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilfei...7600023445859/)

This is a photo collection. Vacations and museums are not similar at all, but in the given context of both relating to spare time, the construction works.

129. If the ground, cloth, or similar things are wet, then only that part will become najis where najasat reaches, and the remaining part will remain Pak.
(http://www.al-islam.org/laws/najisthings.html)

This is about islam religious purity; the ground and cloth are totally dissimilar things, but they both are listed as similar, being things you get in contact with body-wise - and the construction works!

Histoires d’oeufs et de paniers »
Of eggs, baskets, and similar things
(http://blog.oxado.com/2008/01/14/of-...imilar-things/)

Eggs. Baskets. Dissimilar. But it is about baking, and the similarity lies in that relation. The construction works.

“Q. Did any one commission you to paint Germans, buffoons, and similar things in the picture? A. No, milords, but I received the commission to decorate the ...”
(http://books.google.se/books?id=hecm...ngs%22&f=false)

Buffoons and Germans – similar? Yes, in the respect that they ended up on the same painting. Construction works.


“... painted by himself, a letter from Cromwell to King Charles I, an autograph of Benvenuto Cellini, the door from Machiavelli's house and similar things. ...”
(http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=APA.047.1253A)

In a letter from Sigmund Freud to Martha Freud, this list is presented. Is it obvious, do you think, that a letter from Cromwell should be considered similar to Machiavelli´s door? Nope. Neither do I. But the construction works, since the two Freuds had the context given; that of speaking artefacts.


“the personal information manager in Office 97 that handles appointments, tasks, notes and similar things”
(http://aroundcny.com/technofile/text...ycantms97.html)

In the computer office world, the similarity of tasks and notes is a clear one. But if you did not have the context, would the two be considered similar? Don´t think so.

“These screens are pretty nice, they show some comics, random facts, some headlines, weather forecast and similar things.”
(http://blog.drinsama.de/erich/2006/Dec/18)

Random facts and comics, Ben. Think about it; would you shout “similar”? No? Then why is it that the writer group these two things with headlines and weather forecasts as all being similar? Yes, correct; because they all belong to the world of tiny television bits and pieces. And as we have that context, we allow for the “s” word.

“Surprise parties, spontaneous getaways, gifts and similar things are likely to be a big hit with an Artisan mate. Artisans often like to redecorate simply ...”
(http://www.keirsey.com/personalityzone/lz33.asp)

You can see where I´m heading, can´t you?

“the case appear to have engaged in run of the mill socializing on Facebook: sharing photos, writing status updates and similar things. ...”
(http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/le...violation.html)

…and again…

“... the specific sense is concerned with honor, property, safety and similar things, while justice in the larger sense is concerned with virtue as a whole. ...”
(http://www.gradesaver.com/aristotles...uide/section5/)

Honor. Property. Safety. And similar things. Law and order is the clue. Present the context, and nobody will misinterpret what “similar” points out.

“The document interestingly holds some information on future dependencies, time schedules and similar things, and it quickly becomes clear that the solution ...”
(http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_..._in_the_middle)

…and on it goes…

“This museum beautifully exhibits various herbs, antique equipments, papers on ancient therapies and similar things. ...”
(http://www.articlealley.com/article_1043936_29.html)

…never ending. All the world uses the word similar to describe totally different things. The context is the key.

“equipment such as pitons, hooks, hammers and bolts; Ice skates; Meatcleavers; Axes, hatchets and similar things; Metal cutlery ...”
(http://travelsecure.infrastructure.g...ited_list.aspx)

A nice round-off, wouldn´t you say? Ice-skates and hammers. AND SIMILAR THINGS. Similar to BOTH ice skates and hamers, that is. How can that be? Ice skates and hammers are so, so…well, dissimilar, you know. But – Heureka! – we suddenly realize that we are dealing with a list of things that one cannot put in the hands of dangerous criminals, since they may be used as weapons.
Now, with your semantic take on things, we would only be allowed to add things similar to hatchets, since that was last mentioned. My hunch, though, is that screwdrivers and metal shoehorns would be just as similar.


So, what have we seen? Have we seen that people only group things that are related to each other in such an obvious manner that EVERYBODY will see the connection? No, we have not – it is very common practice to group things together that are not related to each other in any obvious fashion at all.
Then why is this done? How do we understand the message the groupings are meant to send?
We do so because of two things:
1. There is always an inherent common factor inbetween the things listed, and…
2. We are provided with the context in which the common factor comes into play.
And why does this touch on the Leander issue? Correct – because the exact same two parameters were at hand when Leander provided us with the sentence about “age of the writer, writing space afforded, function of the pen AND SIMILAR THINGS”. The three things listed had the inherent common factor of all being able to affect handwriting, and we all knew that they were presented in the context of a handwriting analysis.

Twenty pages of net googling was what it took to come up with these examples, Ben. There are hundreds of thousands of other groupings out there, where common practice allows us to speak of things that are dissimilar as “similar things”. Inherent commonalities in a given context is all it takes.
Actually, I think I am right about all of this. I can see only one factor that may affect that, and that would be if all of these sentences are syntactically incorrect...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Finally had the time to go hunting on the net for a new collection of “similar” things and their grouping together.

You "finally had the time", announces my obsessed stalker? Do you really not recall what factor dictated both your time and your internet activity almost all week? That would be me. So what you really mean is that you found time away from your hectic Ben-bothering schedule to try and google your way out of a mire of your own making, which not-so-coincidentally, was also tied into the Ben-bothering theme. The extent to which I can command your weekly undivided obsessive attention is warming to my soul, and I do succumb easily to flattery, so by all means continue.

But here's how Fisherman went about trying to prove Ben wrong - his ultimate goal, his cherished pursuit, his stalkerly obsession: In order to defend the factually and syntactically confusing sentence written by Leander, who we know for a fact revised his stance in response to pestering requests for clarification from Fisherman, he has decided to quote chiefly from a handful of blogs from random members of the public who do not purport to be experts on anything, let alone the correct application of the English language. Are these people suddently the barometers of linguistic prowess and thus a vindication of the flawed and desperate observations of a Swedish keyboard warrior who clearly prefers fighting with strangers over a long-dead serial killer on the internet to spending time with his family and friends on a Friday evening?

Well, my infatuated follower, to each his own, but let us start by having fun with the first one:

“Vacations, museums, and similar things” (http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilfei...7600023445859/)”

Yes, Fisherman, you’ve googled the personal blog of a random member of the public – in this case, a bloke photographed wearing a snorkeling mask – and used him as an example of a linguistic model that we should aspire to emulate, and you’ve just looked very foolish by doing so. Congratulations. His sentence is incorrect. It doesn’t make sense. Do I blame him? No. He’s an ordinary member of the public, not under any academic scrutiny from anyone in Sweden and certainly not purporting any expertise.

He’s wrong, forgivably so.

Next:

“the ground and cloth are totally dissimilar things, but they both are listed as similar, being things you get in contact with body-wise - and the construction works”

This from a website that was responsible for the following: “If an animal whose meat is halal to eat, is slaughtered in accordance with the method prescribed by Shariah, and enough blood flows out, the blood of which is still left in its body is Pak”. Do you think that “construction works”? Whoops, I’m asking the wrong person.

“Eggs. Baskets. Dissimilar. But it is about baking, and the similarity lies in that relation. The construction works”

Of course it doesn’t, but eggs and baskets acquired a widely recognised similarity over the years courtesy of the well known expression “Don’t place your eggs in one basket”. That’s just obvious. Don’t you remember what I told you about natural disasters and they way in which “similar things” are rendered so because you can instantly spot the theme without being told about it? Here is a case in point. If someone were to say “eggs, baskets” to you, you’d immediately think of that well-known theme – no prior explanation of why they are similar is necessary. They belong in a famous phrase.

“Buffoons and Germans – similar? Yes, in the respect that they ended up on the same painting. Construction works.”

It seems that whatever sense you may have of irony may have washed over you there. The naughty joking implication here is that Germans and buffoons are similar.

“... painted by himself, a letter from Cromwell to King Charles I, an autograph of Benvenuto Cellini, the door from Machiavelli's house and similar things. ...”

Actually, the link you provided had nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. Where is this list presented and why does it not appear on the page when I opened it? Could it be because none of the “things” listed have any similarity whatsoever with eachother and those at the helm of “PEP” consequently saw fit to remove such an odd and misleading sentence? Here’s hoping, but at least it doesn’t appear on the page when opened.

“In the computer office world, the similarity of tasks and notes is a clear one. But if you did not have the context, would the two be considered similar?”

Of course you would. Any list that includes “appointments, tasks and notes” immediately conjures up images of officialdom and bureaucracy. They are all irrefutably similar in isolation. You “appoint” people for jobs, and another word for a job is a “task”. These are getting easier, Fisherman, really.

“they show some comics, random facts, some headlines, weather forecast and similar things.”

Fine and dandy. No context required here to note the obvious independent similarity, just like natural disasters. I look at that list and think to myself; they could all be in reference to things that appear in a magazine of newspapers, which of course encompasses online equivalents. Comics and random facts are very commonly found in newspapers, and since newspapers have been around for some time, lumping them into the same category becomes simplicity itself. No prior explanation of context required.

“Surprise parties, spontaneous getaways, gifts and similar things”

Things to please a loved one or parter. Easy, and it belongs in the same category as natural disasters and magazine/newspaper context. Their context is so immediately apparent that nobody needs to tell you what it is first. That’s how they acquire their similarity, and why Leander’s list fails most spectacularly to qualify on that score.

“You can see where I´m heading, can´t you?”

An asylum for the criminally insane and dangerously obsessed.

“sharing photos, writing status updates and similar things. ...”

And where are you most likely to find a place where you both share photos and write status updates? Yep, that’ll be the social networking websites. Easy, and as with natural disasters and the other examples referred to previously, the central theme is instantly recognizable, which wasn’t the case with Leander’s dissimilar list.

“Both justice in the specific sense and justice as the whole of virtue are defined in relation to other people, but justice in the specific sense is concerned with honor, property, safety and similar things”

All you’ve provided is yet another example of clumsy and misleading phraseology, and I’m afraid two wrongs do not make a right, or in this case, two independent sources making the same linguistic ****-up do not suddenly alter the rules of acceptable phraseology.

“The document interestingly holds some information on future dependencies, time schedules and similar things, and it quickly becomes clear that the solution ...”

What’s the observation with this one? These two things share an obvious similarity already, unless you’re arguing that “time” is somehow unrelated to "future".

“This museum beautifully exhibits various herbs, antique equipments, papers on ancient therapies and similar things. ...”

Oh sweet merciful testicles of doom, Fisherman. There are papers on ancient therapies, and there are papers on topics that are similar to ancient therapies. Understand now?

“All the world uses the word similar to describe totally different things.”

Only most of the above examples demonstrated the precise opposite, rendering your latest foray into the exciting world of Google more pointless that it has ever been, undertaken as it was on Friday evening of all times. If you think any of the above are reflective or “all the world”, then you have my alarmed pity.

“hooks, hammers and bolts; Ice skates; Meatcleavers; Axes, hatchets and similar things; Metal cutlery”

These are so similar than they have two shared themes – items that shouldn’t be placed in the hands of a criminal (the one provided), and items that are made from steel. Sinch, Those are even more similar than natural disasters. Again, such a list allows the discerning reader (or even the not-so-discerning reader) to spot a similar theme instantly without having to be told what it is. When listed together with the other items, there can be no doubt as to which general category hammers and ice skates belong.

“Now, with your semantic take on things, we would only be allowed to add things similar to hatchets, since that was last mentioned.”

No, that has not been my take on it. My take on it is that “and similar things” should not be appended to a list of otherwise dissimilar items, unless you were referring to the last mentioned only. In the above case, we don’t have any such problem because they all similar even when dislocated from the “things that a criminal shouldn’t carry” context. Really, you are deluded to think that these frantically and obsessively googled examples bolster any other “cause” than the one I advanced.

“Correct – because the exact same two parameters were at hand when Leander provided us with the sentence about “age of the writer, writing space afforded, function of the pen AND SIMILAR THINGS”. The three things listed had the inherent common factor of all being able to affect handwriting, and we all knew that they were presented in the context of a handwriting analysis.”

Wait a minute, haven’t we been through this before. Why yes! I said this: It is only permissible to include “and similar things” if the things in question share a similarity with eachother that is entirely divorced from their influence they just happen to all exert on a specific entity, as we discovered from your examples. Similar is an irrefutably better word than “other” in that case. Not so for age, pen function and available space. Just like rhinos, the Eifel Tower and a meteor, they are not only not “similar things” to eachother, they are incredibly dissimilar, so if I wished to list them all as potentially contributory factors to one’s death, I might list them and many other different things. If I use the word "similar" instead, I'd be saying the opposite of what I actually mean.

It's a simple illustration of the fact that dissimilar things can have the same result, and the fact that the shared result doesn't bestow any more shared similarity amongst those things. The pertinent observation would be that death can be caused by X, Y and Z along with many other different things.

“There are hundreds of thousands of other groupings out there”

So far we’ve found one or perhaps two. By insisting that you know – somehow? – there must be “hundreds of thousands” more than that, I just know for a fact you’re lying, so why expose yourself to that criticism? Is your position then that tens of thousands of people are incapable of making the same linguistic error? Because that’s a long way off reality too.

“Well, Ben, I think we need to tell two things apart here - the ones who have had access to the ongoing discussion between you and me are very few”

Access has never been a problem. Anyone is free to “access” this particular thread, it’s just that most level-headed human beings have better things to do that concern themselves with a tiresome semantic debate that was created by one of my fixated devotees in an attempt to encourage more “battle”. It worked, and it’s alienating to most posters, but then that’s never really been your concern, and you’re still resorting to the ludicrous victory-by-numbers strategy. Fact is Fisherman, I don’t need help to make my points. You do. You’re ponderous, bombastic and inarticulate which is why a number of others have taken it upon themselves to follow-up with improved, filtered versions of your posts.

I didn’t call Vic or anyone else a follower. I said he called me correct, because I am, despite whatever else he may think about me. You call me bitterly lonely, but I’ve got you, so how can I be?

“off to more interesting issues”

No you’re not. Get your fibbing little Swedish bottom back here this instant and don’t be so disobedient. We’re aiming for 6000 posts in the Hutchinson thread and you’re jolly well going to join me.

[Ben]

Hi Vic,

I intentionally differentiated "pedantically correct" from "correct" in particular because the reverse is not considered wrong, it is "colloquially correct".

I'd have to respectfully beg to differ. I don't see how describing dissimilar things as "similar" could ever be described as correct. Easily made and instantly forgivable perhaps (if a little unusual coming from an expert), but not correct, and I'd dispute that any draconian measures are required to make that observation.

[Fisherman]

You´re a funny little man, Ben! Slightly pathetic, incredibly foul-mouthed, but never boring. I´m the first to admit that! Whomever identifies ice skates and hammers as being similar things simly must be something special!
They are both made of steel and may be used like weapons, therefore, they are similar! Haha!
Like one of the Boeings that flew into the WTC and a golf club, I take it? If those two parameters of your was what we should use to realize how incredibly similar these things were, then such a construction would work too, I guess?

Or does the size of the jet disallow me to use it? Ah, then let´s try a horseshoe and a bread toaster! They could both be used as weapons and they are both made of steel (yes, modern horse-shoes sometimes are). Therefore, by reasoning, nothing should stop us from dubbing them similar, correct?

You know, I am all for that reasoning! Put them in your hand, swing them against somebodys head, and there you are - you have got yourself a weapon!
But is a horseshoe and a toaster similar enough for us to immediately realize that they belong to a common group UNLESS WE ARE GIVEN THE CONTEXT?
No, they are not.

Same thing goes for age of the writer, writing space afforded and function of the pen; they are dissimilar to a significant extent on the surface, but in the context we were given, there could be no doubt what Leander meant.

Also, if we supply the man of the street with the combination bread toaster/horse shoe and ask him what connections he sees, he would probably come up with the fact that they both are made of metal. He would in all probability NOT, however, come up with the suggestion that they both could be used as weapons. It is an obvious thing that they could, but the range of other things that may ALSO be used as weapons (clubs, flower pots, pencils, spare tyres and similar things) is so wide that the suggestion would not enter most peoples minds.

On the other hand, if we ask the man on the street what the three factors:
1. Age of a writer
2. Writing space afforded
and
3. Function of the pen
would have in common, then I do not think that it would take people many seconds to come up with the insight that it all had to do with writing. Therefore, these three things portray a much more obvious commonality relating to possible areas of use than what an ice skate and a hammer does, or for that matter a bread-toaster and a horse-shoe. Meaning that a listing of age of the writer, writing space afforded, function of the pen and similar things would be an easier understandable grouping to most people than that of a bread-toaster, a horseshoe a hammer and an ice skate and similar things. That, however, does not detract from the fact that BOTH listings work eminently - if provided with a functioning context.

Yep, you are a funny little man, Benny boy! So far, you have managed to:

1. Point a leading expert in the field of handwriting out as unreliable, although nobody else commenting on his work has concurred with you. Instead the rest of us out here agree that he has been very discerning and totally reliable from the start.

2. Point the same expert out as unable to deal with syntax! This in spite of the fact that your suggestion rests totally on YOUR interpretation of what he said. If instead I, Mike, Sam and Vic are correct, you are totally wrong. And, of course, if Frank Leanders OWN assertion that you are wrong has anything to do with things - there are some of us out here that feel that he may know himself what he thinks - then you are not only wrong, but also incredibly rude.

3. Point your own interpretation of what syntax is out as superior to the wiew of miss Julien of Lund Universty. She tells us that no matter if one word in the phrase discussed points in the wrong direction - and you are, once again, the only one to think so - that still leaves us with a syntactically flawless sentence.

4. Pointing me out as "obsessed" with you (phew..!), just like you have pointed numerous other posters out as "shadows" following you. That is, you are faced with a situation where you everybody discussing the errand at hand but you say that you are wrong and where two experts in their respective fields also say that you are wrong, one of them adding that your "interpretations" are purely malicious, and instead of having the good sense of admitting that you may be a tad off the mark, you instead turn to the rest of the site and point those who criticize you out as "criminally insane and dangerously obsessed". The picture you try to sell of yourself is that of a man of such size and posture that those who dare oppose you only reach to nibble at your heels - no false timidity there!

That is an impressive list, Ben! Proud of yourself, are you? You really should not be. Although it may arouse you to try and humiliate other posters and although your wet dreams may include "fobbing me off", I think you remain in the same sort of desperate isolation in those respects as you do when it comes to rounding up disciples who agree with you that it is OK to try and diss experts who go against your wiews by implying that they are dishonest towards their obligations as discerning researchers and unable to express themselves syntactically correct.
How would you know? You would not recognize honesty if you tripped over it, just as you have a tendency of dropping a comma or two in all the wrong places.

And you call ME obsessed with YOU? I have yet to find one single post by me left uncommented on by you. I started this thread, remember? Since then, each and every time I have presented a post, you have pounced upon it. It would seem you collect all my posts like a manic squirrel - and afterwards you claim it is the other way around.
So, paraphrasing a big thinker and a discerning debater on these boards, "Get your fibbing little Brit bottom back here this instant and don’t be so disobedient!"

Bet it will work! Then I can start using your own pathetic methodology of - instead of looking at the facts and accepting the words of the experts - claiming that I am the victim of a stalker.

Then again, I am not the one who needs to resort to such tactics, am I? And why? Because I am the one who is supported by the other posters on the thread, and I am the one who have had corroboartion from the experts. That´s why, Ben. Not least, I am the one who Frank Leander has told you was correct from the outset. And therefore, I need not get bogged down in filthy accusations, lies and such things. In that respect too, you are quite, quite alone.

The very best - you need it!
Fisherman

[Ben]

“You´re a funny little man, Ben! Slightly pathetic, incredibly foul-mouthed, but never boring. I´m the first to admit that!”

Little?

I think you’ll find I’m taller than you, Fishy-poo. But once again, I can’t help remarking upon the paradox of spending practically all your internet activity on someone you classify as slightly pathetic and incredibly foul-mouthed. The fact is, if you really considered me any of those things, I wouldn’t be worth your time, but the fact that I can command your undivided attention and willingness to subscribe to the battle-to-the-end mentality is a testament to the high regard with which you hold me, and the fear that anything I say in contrary to your own opinion would be considered incredibly persuasive.

“Whomever identifies ice skates and hammers as being similar things simly must be something special! They are both made of steel and may be used like weapons, therefore, they are similar! Haha!”

All tiresome exclamatory bombast and belligerence aside, if someone provides a fairly lengthy list of small metallic objects that could easily be hand-wielded as weapons, nobody will have any trouble identifying the central theme without having to be informed of any context. That is the similarity-barometer, if you like - if you don’t need to be told what the context in order for the central theme to be discerned, then you have "similar things". Shove an plane in there, and the context is rendered instantly more ambiguous because it isn’t a small metallic object and it certainly couldn't be wielded by hand as a weapon. Same with a toaster – shove that into the equation and an independently similar list of objects is presented with an obvious odd-one-out – an item which does not have a shape and structure that remotely lends itself to weaponry in the way that the others do. If you include either of the last mentioned items onto a list, then it becomes necessary, all of a sudden, to provide a context in the interests of clarify.

“Same thing goes for age of the writer, writing space afforded and function of the pen; they are dissimilar to a significant extent on the surface, but in the context we were given, there could be no doubt what Leander meant.”

In which case, the pertinent observation would be that there are many “different” things that could account for the handwriting, many “dissimilar” things or even simply “other”. Otherwise the sentence doesn’t make sense. If they're not similar, but have a shared result on a specific phenomenon, they don't get any more similar. They don't lose their inherent dissimilarity courtesy of that shared result, which is why you'd say that a X, Y and Z can impact on a given phenomenon along with many other different things - different being the opposite of similar.

“On the other hand, if we ask the man on the street what the three factors:
1. Age of a writer 2. Writing space afforded 3. Function of the pen would have in common, then I do not think that it would take people many seconds to come up with the insight that it all had to do with writing.”

Yes, that is because you’ve told them the context. You’ve told them what result these three dissimilar things are having on a specific phenomenon. That still doesn’t make them similar in isolation, nor does it make “and similar things” more any more applicable as an observation. Age, space, and pen function are fundamentally dissimilar. That much is obvious, and they remain so, despite the fact that they just happen to exert a similar influence on a specific phenomenon. Hemorrhoids, fire and rhinos can all hurt your bum, but I wouldn’t dream of adding “and similar things” to that list unless I was an on-line blogger in a snorkeling mask, a weak and ineffective debater who doesn’t know how to change gears from the perpetually unsuccessful “all guns blazing” approach, or a member of the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team.

The rest of us are discerning enough to realize that dissimilar things don’t acquire any more similarity just because they happen to have the same result on a given thing.

“Yep, you are a funny little man, Benny boy!”

Again, I’m almost certainly taller then you, so by all means continue with the “little” references and invite further ridicule.

“Point a leading expert in the field of handwriting out as unreliable, although nobody else commenting on his work has concurred with you.”

But it is a fact on record that he gave conflicting stances, so any protestations to the contrary are an exercise in futility, despite your continued and rather desperate appeals to the “rest of us” as though there is some huge army of Fish-supporters. 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. I dare you to start a repetition war along those lines, though.

And speaking of repetition:

“Point your own interpretation of what syntax is out as superior to the wiew of miss Julien of Lund Universty.”

I didn’t. Here’s what I said: The sentence was syntactically incorrect if the intention behind the sentence was to convey the impression that there were many possible explanations for the differences between handwriting samples, since the word similar, when appended to the end of the sentence, gave the impression that the aforementioned “things” were similar to eachother. His use of syntax (which concerns the structure of sentences and the placement of words within that sentence) was responsible for conveying the opposite impression of what he allegedly “meant”.

As such, the confusion is inextricably linked with syntax – the placement of words within a sentence. The placement of the word “similar” conveyed the opposite impression to the one intended by the source.

“That is, you are faced with a situation where you everybody discussing the errand at hand but you say that you are wrong”

I’ve been told I was “correct” actually, and by one of the names you keep referencing in order to get me to say something critical of them so they can join the semantic squabble you created. I know that’s painful to you, but it’s a fact on record. Let’s just engage once again with this absurd fallacy of appealing to others in order to bolster and flawed and desperate position. You are resorting to the tedious and immature fallacy that X, Y and Z agrees with me, so that increases the chances of me being right. It’s exceptionally gauche and short-sighted if you think about it, since you know full well that others agree with my opposing stance, it’s just that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to do battle in a tedious semantic thread that advances nothing in the grander scheme of things, except perhaps a few undeserved egos. Occasionally your bombastic approach can be a bit of a liability for those who agree with you which is why a few of them reluctantly wade in from time to time, but that’s no excuse to keep naming them and claiming they all somehow “gang up” against my view. That’s just silly.

The difference is that your bombastic, exclamatory ranting approach to discussion necessitates the input of others who agree with you to ensure that the salient observations aren’t obscured by your posting rubble. You need help to make your points. I don’t. That’s the difference. Of course, if we’re playing the numbers game, shouldn’t your entertaining logic dictate that you relinquish your amazingly unpopular Tabram-scavanger theory?

“And you call ME obsessed with YOU? I have yet to find one single post by me left uncommented on by you. I started this thread, remember?”

Yes, you did, and it was in the interests of picking another fight with me that you did so, which is your cherished pursuit. If it wasn’t the reason you joined Casebook, it’s clearly your reason for sticking around. So yes, it is rather indicative of an obsession with me. I don’t go around starting pointless semantic threads designed to fuel your “Prove Ben wrong” agenda, and I don’t photograph my kids emulating Kelly’s death pose for that reason. Even at the start of this thread you were pleading for supporters, despite them making it clear in so many words that they didn’t share your agenda and certainly weren’t interested in starting another round of cyber ping-pong. You were dissatisfied with the lack of interest, so attempted to reignite the war, mentioning my name at every opportunity in an attempt to goad me. Despite an awareness of what your game was, I responded with courtesy – a brief thank you.

But a thank you wasn’t sufficient for a Swede in battle-mode, and battle-mode is just not your forte, which is why you’re often encouraged to reel yourself in. Of course, I know you’ll never do any such thing, which is why I’m counting on you to help me make it 6000 posts in the Hutchinson forums. Let’s make it another Hutch in the 1911 census. Whenever you try to engage me in battle, I will respond, Fisherman, and unlike you, I won’t lie about leaving the thread.

Follow me to perdition’s flames and beyond, while I thank my luck stars that it's you that's doing the following and not a creditable debating opponent.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I think you’ll find I’m taller than you, Fishy-poo."

I was not referring to physical size, Ben.

"Follow me to perdition’s flames and beyond, Fisherman."

Got better things to do! But I´ll look in on you every now and then!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

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

And what could they not care less about? The shoes, obviously, since they are wildly dissimilar to the school uniform – they may be tattered and torn. The schoolbags, too, may be dirty and in pieces. The school books too, of course. And you may arrive at every lesson with your bottom dipped in pig urine and with a face strewn with horse manure – since neither of these things are included in “school uniforms, neat hair, clean cut nails” - or anything similar to clean cut nails. A bottom is distinctly dissimilar to a nail, just like a face is dissimilar to a school uniform.

The best,
Fisherman

Sorry, I've only got as far as the above on this thread and Ben and Fish already have me in fits.

This topic just gets funnier and funnier - thanks to Ben's uniquely eccentric way of interpreting the written word. The funniest thing of all is that English is not even Fish's first language.

But I'm getting used to clever Swedish linguists because my daughter's best friend from uni is one. They both got firsts in English Language & Communication, but the Swedish lass beat my daughter by a couple of percentage points.

Fish beats Ben into a soggy pulp here.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Fish beats Ben into a soggy pulp here

Oh, I'm just bloodied and cowering in corner in the face of defeat from that masterfully clever Swedish linguist.

All he needed to do was mention the bowel movements of farmyard animals, and I'm well and truly on the ropes.

See, this is what I find so entertaining about internet cyber-stalkers. They may not have had much consideration for one another previously, but when they join forces against their mutual target of obsession, it becomes a case of egging the other on and convincing themselves of the patently false.

Of course Caz knows that what she said wasn't true. All she's doing is trying to encourage another aggressive round of cyber ping-pong, and once she moves onto some other poor bastard to fixate upon (it used to be a couple of gents from the Maybrick diary threads, if anyone can be arsed to remember), she'll be stuck with this post on record.

Until then, it is my embarrassed pleasure to fulfil my role as matchmaker.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Yes, and what happened to those two gents? They kept the kettle boiling for so long that in the end they couldn't stand the heat they created in the kitchen. One admitted on the boards to being an OCD sufferer so the poor dear is forced to come back once a year on a certain date or his anxiety levels would go right off the scale. I leave him alone to get it off his chest in his own special way on his own special day. Bless.

You really have a boner for Ben pretty badly, don't you?

Well well, it’s worse than I thought. I observed earlier today on the Leander Analysis thread that you would be better off not peppering your posts with inappropriate sexual insults and accusations, and what do I see here but more examples of your mucky-mindedness. If you took the ink blot test, I bet you’d accuse the psychiatrist of coming on to you with all his sauciest pictures.

I think you’ll find I’m taller than you, Fishy-poo.

You said on the other thread that calling him that was a come-on. Did you mean it in the pedantically correct sense, the colloquially correct sense or the politically correct, but inappropriately sexual sense?

You wrote:

‘I cannot possibly read "age, function of the pen, available space and similar things" and say to myself: Aha, he must mean similar to, I dunno, levels of anxiety! I cannot make the connection because levels of anxiety isn't "similar" to any of the three specifically cited differences. If on the hand, he had mentioned "other" things to those three, that would neturally [sic] encompass levels of anxiety. It's less restrictive.’

Well how about using that fertile imagination of yours and trying this for size: writer’s age, how well the pen was functioning at the time, available space to write in and similar things that could have affected the physical appearance of the handwriting?

That is, after all, what Leander was describing here, wasn’t it? Some things can surely be left unsaid if one is communicating with intelligent adults who are not only fully aware of the nature of the communication but have enough common sense and personal experience of signing their own name - and writing by hand generally - to know what factors have had an effect on the appearance or style of their own handwriting, and to imagine what other things could affect it too, without being spoon-fed a long and patronising list of all the possible variations involving one human hand at different stages of its life, picking up pens of varying quality, to write with different inks on different surfaces, under different conditions and circumstances.

Leander specified just three of the more obvious influences on the physical process of writing by hand with pen and ink that could apply here, leaving Fish and others to use their own experience of being human and literate to come up with other factors that could similarly have had an effect on that physical process in the event of Toppy being the witness.

Leander’s failure to mention personal style choices, for example, or physical, mental and emotional state at the time of writing (which would cover anxiety levels and a multitude of other conditions) does not entitle you to conclude that he rules those things out as having no possible influence. ‘Age…and similar things’ would cover it all nicely in any case, since age has its own direct influence on style changes as well as physical*, mental and emotional function, and they all come under the general heading of 'who, when and why'.

[*I know from personal experience of twice having had an overactive thyroid, once in 2001 and again in 2006 - and recovering each time after a course of tablets - that this condition, before the treatment kicked in each time, had a profound effect on the appearance of my handwriting.]

Similarly, anything to do with the physical writing implement and related materials can come under the 'what and how' umbrella that covers ‘pen function…and similar things’, while all aspects of the place and situation in which the writing took place would be part of the 'where', that covers ‘available space and similar things’.

We can therefore give Leander the benefit of the doubt and assume his language was both correct and concise, implying one or more things similar to age (who); one or more things similar to pen function (what and how) and one or more things similar to available space (where), giving us an absolute minimum of six potential influences to consider.

You addressed this gem to Victor:

‘You've heard of people describing things as similar to several other things that have no similarity whatsoever with eachother? [sic] I find it curious that nobody has ever provided an example of that phenomenon.’

Well let me do it for you now. You should have come on our school journey to Devon and joined in the treasure hunt. Ooh what fun I had pairing up with Elizabeth Jones, and finding all twelve items on the list, including a Dawlish Warren bus ticket, a feather, a four-leaf clover and other similar things - like, ooh I don't know, use your imagination - a page from a newspaper? a razor shell? a daisy chain? Only six more items to think of that would fit the bill.

But I guess none of this will penetrate, will it, Mr Malaprop? You’ll just do your utmost to claim the upmost (= uppermost) ground as usual.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/utmost.html

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Can't believe I missed this one...

The following post is addressed to Caz, and if anyone doesn’t think she has the ability to respond for herself without help, by all means chime in and respond for her. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be offended if the casual reader just skimmed through this as it consists almost entirely of repetition in response to yet another attempt to revive a done-to-the-death Hutchinson debate. Apologies in advance to combatants and casual lurkers alike.

“One admitted on the boards to being an OCD sufferer so the poor dear is forced to come back once a year on a certain date or his anxiety levels would go right off the scale.”

Ah, so we’re stooping to the all time low of ridiculing the mental disorders of others? Oh well, at least I now have a gem to present to the next well-meaning numpty who chimes in to defend your honour. I’ll keep in it reserve for the next time your Ben-baiting conduct elicits any more pugnacious commentary from me. The idea that you created so much heat for them that they were forced to back off may be your delusion, but it hardly reflected reality. Regardless of who you think you’re intimidating, it isn’t going to work as a debating strategy.

“I observed earlier today on the Leander Analysis thread that you would be better off not peppering your posts with inappropriate sexual insults and accusations, and what do I see here but more examples of your mucky-mindedness.”

Sorry, but if you live by the keyboard you die by the keyboard, and if you’re hell-bent of following me onto every thread in which I have participated with the same brand of sarcastic, combative, unsuccessfully gainsaying dogma, you have to learn to reap what you sow. If you find anything I’ve said excessively distasteful, it doesn’t make sense to spend more internet activity on me that any other Casebook poster. My hypnotic ability to coerce your lengthy emoticon-laden response to nearly every thread I post on suggests that you don’t find them, or me, particularly repulsive at all.

“Well how about using that fertile imagination of yours and trying this for size: writer’s age, how well the pen was functioning at the time, available space to write in and similar things that could have affected the physical appearance of the handwriting?”

Oh, please.

If you’d really read this thread from the beginning as you claimed, you would have noticed that this was all discussed in painful detail already.

Let us firstly deal with the “similar things” observation. Well, for starters, it is important to observe that none of the cited possible explanations for the differences had any similarity with each other, and as such, it stands to reason that the other unmentioned explanations could only have mean “similar” to the last mentioned difference for the sentence to make sense, and the last mentioned difference was “function of the pen”. Now just what, one wonders, could be a “similar thing” to the “function of the pen”? Well, there are bound to be a few things, but certainly not an infinite number, and certainly not enough to validate the observation that there were “many” differences.

If I provide a list of "things" that include hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes and tornados, you'd have no trouble recognising the inherent similarity and the obvious theme - natural disasters. Nor would you have any trouble thinking of "similar things" that also belong to that central theme.

We discovered from subsequent examples that "similar things" was used in precisely this context, i.e. in reference to objects, events and behavioural traits that share an obvious similarity with each other even in isolation from the given context. If you say that cancer, a heart attack, a stroke and similar things can result in death, the sentence would make sense, but if you replace cancer with "charging rhino" and heart attack with "enemy" fire, the "and similar things" is no longer applicable. You'd observe that all three might easily result in death along with many other different things, and so avoid confusion.

You can describe things as "similar" if you are able to identify both the central theme and "similar things" even in the absence of a specific context, and a list of natural disasters fir the bill perfectly in this regard. Age and "available space" simply do not. They are not similar to each other, so it makes better sense to say that these explanations might have come into play along with other/different things - not "similar", because they aren't.

Age is simply not a "similar thing" to pen function, but if he had stated that "other things" may account for the differences, a great many other possibilities are encompassed in addition to the sentence starting to make a good deal more sense. The “similar” reference effectively ruled out anything that could not be considered similar to age, function of the pen, and available space. If he wanted to rule other things in, he could easily have stated that there were other things, different things, but by using the expression similar, he restricts the options to a fairly limited set of “things” that could not, inferentially, be described as many.

“and writing by hand generally - to know what factors have had an effect on the appearance or style of their own handwriting”

But we’re not talking about our “own” handwriting, and nor was Leander. He was referring specifically to the explanations that HE thought COULD have accounted for the dissimilarities in THAT particular case. It wasn’t a generalized observation concerning the effects that might affect the average person’s handwriting. His observations were quite clearly Toppy-specific, and it really makes sense if you give it some serious thought: is it reasonable, for example, to argue that “surfaces” would prompt the writer to end his signature with an upwards-pointing n-tail? No, which is why he didn’t mention it, and which is why it would be silly to use it as one of the unnamed “similar things”.

Again, this is not an attempt to antagonise those who have battled this out with me previously. I respect their differing stances even if I can’t agree with them. What I do not respect, and what will not be permitted to pass without robust commentary, is the inflammatory goading of someone with no sincere interest in the topic, but who only wishes to stir up further animosity.

“But I guess none of this will penetrate, will it, Mr Malaprop? You’ll just do your utmost to claim the upmost (= uppermost) ground as usual. http://grammartips.homestead.com/utmost.html”

Glad to see you’ve taken the trouble to correct a few of your more outrageous gaffes. I hope you found the website instructive, and you were finally enlightened to the fact that “upmost” is indeed an abbreviation of “uppermost”, which is something completely different to “utmost”. I was wondering when the penny would eventually drop.

[scarletpimpernel]

Ben.

Stalked means being hunted but with you it is hard to see who is the stalking horse !

You talk about being chased by others, a touch of paranoia perhaps ?

[Ben]

Well, let's see, Pimpster:

This would be the second dormant Hutchinson thread you've attempted to revive today by addressing me personally and telling me, in essence, what a thoroughly bad egg I am, despite your complaint that off-topic arguing is a hinderance to learning and sensible discussion.

Don't you go justifying that paranoia of mine now.

[scarletpimpernel]

Ben,

It is clear that it is impossible to discuss anything about the Hutchinson suspect here because you are more interested in interrupting the discussion to talk about yourself. With you, it is always, ME,ME,ME the hell with the others who want to hear about this suspect and stick with the subject we are suppose to be discussing, which is Hutchinson Remember ??

[Ben]

Oh, for cying out loud.

Look, here are two very interesting Hutchinson threads, currently in session.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3377

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3367

I have been an active participant both, and in neither do I talk about "myself". Nor was there any unrelated squabbles or insults. You'll observe, in addition, that these two threads have far more to do with Hutchinson the suspect than the ones you've been reading.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Can't believe I missed this one...

[...blah blah blah blah -stick fingers in ears - blah blah - don't actually read or absorb any of the post I'm responding to - blah blah blah etc and so on and so forth - blah blah...]

...I hope you found the website instructive, and you were finally enlightened to the fact that “upmost” is indeed an abbreviation of “uppermost”, which is something completely different to “utmost”. I was wondering when the penny would eventually drop.

I'm rather sorry I missed this one, Ben. Could have done with the laugh at the time.

Loved the punchline, where you fondly imagined it was me who misused "upmost". It all started because you used it in a sentence where only "utmost" would do, and then tried to claim they meant the same thing! You don't know Caz very well if you thought she'd let you get away with that.

Toodle pip - for another few months.

Love,

Caz
X