Lechmere misinterpreted

[Pierre]

Letīs disagree, then.

I really think it is very funny.

Give me another reason for Lechmere saying he told Mizen about seeing a policeman in Buckīs Row. Give me another reason than the so called "Mizen Scam"!

Have you really been trying to understand the sources, Fisherman? Or do you want them to say what you think they should say?

As you can see, I am gladly "sacrificing" another small piece of indication for what I think happened, when I question the police sighting in Buckīs Row. But of course, your whole case is built on this.

[Pierre]

I posted the below list on this forum last year in a thread "Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence" #47 based on my analysis of the various newspaper reports (so it is not in any way affected by any tendency or desire on my part to prove Pierre wrong!). It attempts to show the number of different reporters in the courtroom on 3 September 1888:

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C1 (Daily News)
Reporter C2 (East London Observer)
Reporter C3 (Daily Chronicle, Illustrated Police News)
Reporter C4 (Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, Lloyd's Weekly News, Weekly Dispatch)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Evening News)
Reporter H (Evening Post)
Reporter I (Globe)
Reporter J (Birmingham Daily Post, Pall Mall Gazette)

You will see under Reporter E that I have identified the Daily Telegraph reporter as the same reporter for the Lloyd's Weekly News and the Weekly Dispatch because the latter two weekly newspapers simply repeat the Daily Telegraph report.

So I'm afraid Pierre there is no corroboration here at all.

How many of them wrote extensive dialogue and which ones had the least errors?

If you tell me this, I will discuss your little list.

And the discussion will begin with the question: "What can explain the so called "Mizen Scam"?

[David Orsam]

How many of them wrote extensive dialogue and which ones had the least errors?

If you tell me this, I will discuss your little list.

To be blunt with you Pierre, I have no interest in you discussing my "little list" nor was I requesting you to do so. I was pointing out for your information that the report in Lloyd's Weekly News is the same as in the Daily Telegraph therefore one does not corroborate the other.

As for the answer to your first question, that is something you can answer yourself with a little bit of work, especially now that you have a list to guide you to ensure you won't waste time on duplicates.

[John Wheat]

I'm not sure how sound your reasoning is Pierre however anyone that says Lechmere is the Ripper is misrepresenting Lechmere who was a witness, nothing more.

Cheers John

[Henry Flower]

This should be sufficient proof for anyone here that Pierre is not in any sense a historian, except perhaps in his own imagination:

"In The Daily Telegraph you have extensive dialogue. For an historian this means that The Daily Telegraph has a much higher quality than the rest of the papers."

Utter. Bollocks.

This morning I read those words to a friend of mine, a professor of history at Leeds, and his response was - literally - to laugh out loud.

[GUT]

This should be sufficient proof for anyone here that Pierre is not in any sense a historian, except perhaps in his own imagination:

"In The Daily Telegraph you have extensive dialogue. For an historian this means that The Daily Telegraph has a much higher quality than the rest of the papers."

Utter. Bollocks.

This morning I read those words to a friend of mine, a professor of history at Leeds, and his response was - literally - to laugh out loud.

If anyone actually believes that he is an historian, I've got a bridge down here in Sydney I'll sell them and people pay you (about four bucks) every time they drive across it,meal little money spinner.

Still haven't figured out how he went from being a great sociologist to a great historian.

[Henry Flower]

By the way, Pierre, I want to ask you something.

Why do you say "For an historian, that means ... " etc?

Do you think the other contributors here are all semi-educated paperback-mongering hacks with no research skills, and you are the only properly trained academic here? Really? The quality of your reasoning gives no hint that you are any more skilled than anyone else.

I maintain you are a student or recent graduate at best. You are not an historian. And even if you were, do you really think that your credentials are going to solve this murder case?

I know of no historian who feels the need to include appeals to their own authority and status 'as a historian' in every other sentence they write. That alone marks you out as a desperate amateur at best. I know of no other true historian or scholar who constantly talks down to people and lectures others on the superiority of his/her methodology. This again marks you out as a desperate wannabe amateur, and - though you could be a good person and good company in real life - on this forum persuades many readers that you are an unbearably arrogant dickhole.

In real life you're probably not, so why not stop acting like one? Why not just state your reasoning or your arguments without constantly inserting "as an historian" etc? No-one is going to be persuaded to meekly accept your faulty reasoning simply because you repeatedly assert your entirely unproven (and likely fictional) status as a historian. Just grow up, man.

[GUT]

By the way, Pierre, I want to ask you something.

Why do you say "For an historian, that means ... " etc?

Do you think the other contributors here are all semi-educated paperback-mongering hacks with no research skills, and you are the only properly trained academic here? Really? The quality of your reasoning gives no hint that you are any more skilled than anyone else.

I maintain you are a student or recent graduate at best. You are not an historian. And even if you were, do you really think that your credentials are going to solve this murder case?

I know of no historian who feels the need to include appeals to their own authority and status 'as a historian' in every other sentence they write. That alone marks you out as a desperate amateur at best. I know of no other true historian or scholar who constantly talks down to people and lectures others on the superiority of his/her methodology. This again marks you out as a desperate wannabe amateur, and - though you could be a good person and good company in real life - on this forum persuades many readers that you are an unbearably arrogant dickhole.

In real life you're probably not, so why not stop acting like one? Why not just state your reasoning or your arguments without constantly inserting "as an historian" etc? No-one is going to be persuaded to meekly accept your faulty reasoning simply because you repeatedly assert your entirely unproven (and likely fictional) status as a historian. Just grow up, man.

Post of the year.

[Henry Flower]

Still haven't figured out how he went from being a great sociologist to a great historian.

Exactly. I think he was claiming also to be a great composer at one stage also. Or was it a chemist? Maybe he was channeling his inner Borodin, who was both.

Maybe this is the explanation:

http://www.instantdegrees.org/

[GUT]

Exactly. I think he was claiming also to be a great composer at one stage also. Or was it a chemist? Maybe he was channeling his inner Borodin, who was both.

Maybe this is the explanation:

http://www.instantdegrees.org/

Yeah Mrs Gut sees those and says she wasted eight years of her life, could have just splashed out some cash (not that we had any at the time) and got her PhD, but then she says the same every time we go to a graduation and some movie star, politician or football player gets an honorary doctorate.

[Henry Flower]

Yeah Mrs Gut sees those and says she wasted eight years of her life, could have just splashed out some cash (not that we had any at the time) and got her PhD, but then she says the same every time we go to a graduation and some movie star, politician or football player gets an honorary doctorate.

Wait, what? You have colleges in the colony now?

[GUT]

Wait, what? You have colleges in the colony now?

Yeah, they give out degrees in the dunny on a roll.

[Henry Flower]

Yeah, they give out degrees in the dunny on a roll.

Good to see you're following the English model

[GUT]

Good to see you're following the English model

I think at my Universities every roll holder had graffiti above it

"BAs please take one"

I'm told BA has been replaced by

"hospitality degree".

We did have some creative types.

"what did the Arts grad say to the law grad?

Would you like fries with that?"


Or the good old

"the painters work was all in vain,
The shithouse poet strikes again"

Usually followed by "Shithouse describes your poetry perfectly".

And in and in and in, most of which would be censored here.

[Mayerling]

I think at my Universities every roll holder had graffiti above it

"BAs please take one"

I'm told BA has been replaced by

"hospitality degree".

We did have some creative types.

"what did the Arts grad say to the law grad?

Would you like fries with that?"


Or the good old

"the painters work was all in vain,
The shithouse poet strikes again"

Usually followed by "Shithouse describes your poetry perfectly".

And in and in and in, most of which would be censored here.

G'Day GUT,

It happens here all the time too - a celebrity will get some degree for his achievements (as a sports hero, movie star, television star, rarely for something academic or involving some type of improvement for the human race). They usually make a speech at the spring graduation ceremonies regarding their views or what the graduating class should aim at bringing to the future society. Real uplift (yeah, really!).

I have only come across one American who actually demonstrated some really sensible humility about this kind of crap! Of all people Millard Fillmore. Fillmore had been our 13th President from 1850 to 1853, and had done a mostly forgettable job at it, but by pushing the Compromise of 1850 through he did delay the American Civil War by 11 years (and he did send Commodore Perry to "open" Japan to western trade). To put his ratings (usually low among U.S. historians) as President, he is probably the best President who served in the 1850s. However, that means little. His alternatives are the two inept successors Pierce and Buchanan, and his predecessor (General Zachary Taylor) actually might have been the best President of the decade had he lived because he was an unswerving nationalist who would have crushed any secession attempts - but he died in 1850 during the debates over the Compromise. Unlike Taylor's committment to keep the Union in tact (come hell or high water) Fillmore was more maleable. He also did not mind really enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act because he had little use for the rights of African-Americans.

Fillmore failed to be nominated in 1852 to run for the Presidency by his Whig Party. In 1856 he ran for President as the candidate of the anti-Catholic, anti-Immigrant "Know Nothing" Party, and while defeated, he had actually got the electoral votes of the state of Maryland - an achievement for a 19th Century "third party" actually. But he was a realist about himself, and knew his limitations.

In 1858 he and his second wife were vacationing in Great Britain, when he was offered a doctorate by Oxford University. Did he eagerly seize the opportunity and accept it? No. For a change, Millard did the right thing - he thanked them for the offer, but said he didn't deserve such an honor because he never had any achievement that merited it. That, to me, is possibly the most honest assessment on these honorary gifts anyone has ever given for them.

Jeff