All roads lead to Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

>>I thought he had an issue with very idea of Ed describing Lechmere as callous. <<

Since R.J. has made it clear what he meant, you don't have to hold onto that misconception anymore.


>>If so, does that count as yet another of those mistakes you never make?<<

So far, it's you who is currently making mistakes.


>>Do you recall stating on here that you never made mistakes? <<

Since I've never stated on here to "never" make mistakes, how could I recall it?

This fact has been pointed out to you before and you continue to make the claim, how should we regard your credibilty?

You have some interesting research to offer on various subjects, but you fall completely flat when you try to launch unprovoked person attacks.

[drstrange169]

>>No, the assumption is that someone, anyone, could approach without warning from that direction. <<

No, the narrator specifically says,

"P.C. Neil on his beat was going to come from that direction shortly."

and to confirm he specifically meant a P.C. he added,

" ... so if Lechmere fled in that direction ... he would have known what he was going to bump into."


>>You’re twisting things again. Your bias is in plain sight. (It’s never out of it). <<

The evidence actually tells us it you who has twisted things, with your bias apparently in plain sight.

[Ally]

What’s your take on Lechmere’s old Ma - Maria Louisa Roulson?

I have not yet arrived at any takes on any aspect of the subject. As I said, I am quite literally, just beginning to give this more than a cursory glance. It has not been an arena that has interested me up til now.

[MrBarnett]

It's Butler aka Stow, actually. BuTler....He's a racist bloke who puts out videos and other content on the subject of Lechmere. And as I stated before, seeing as how bigots are notoriously not the best in terms of critical thinking, it's quite a shame that he has become the face of Lechmere studies. I do not deny that his being the vanguard in this arena has up til now, quite put me off studying it. So I finally decided to take a sniff at what actual reasoning might go into propping up this subject, and of course, the lead post is .... not high on critical systems being fully engaged in the development stage. So far, not convinced, and with what "evidence" I've seen, I'm not seeing much.

What’s your take on Lechmere’s old Ma - Maria Louisa Roulson?

[Ally]

So who is this Buler bloke you’ve been banging on about?

It's Butler aka Stow, actually. BuTler....He's a racist bloke who puts out videos and other content on the subject of Lechmere. And as I stated before, seeing as how bigots are notoriously not the best in terms of critical thinking, it's quite a shame that he has become the face of Lechmere studies. I do not deny that his being the vanguard in this arena has up til now, quite put me off studying it. So I finally decided to take a sniff at what actual reasoning might go into propping up this subject, and of course, the lead post is .... not high on critical systems being fully engaged in the development stage. So far, not convinced, and with what "evidence" I've seen, I'm not seeing much.

[MrBarnett]

If you want to discuss Chris Scott's merits as a researcher, feel free to create a thread about it. This is a thread about Lechmere. Return to topic.

So who is this Butler bloke you’ve been banging on about?

[MrBarnett]

lol funny but the current play is under review.

The ruling is.. the call is reversed. No Ad Hominem was committed as the Offense was merely asking a hypothetical. The defense loses the challenge and their last time out. : )

Lol indeed!

[MrBarnett]

nope
alfred crow assumed she was sleeping there as many "tramps" as you called them, slept there. so he
let her be. imho he was sympathetic as many would have callously shooed her off.

albert cadoshe didnt here a "scuffle". he heard something brush against the fence, and since he said he knew they did work there, he assumed it was someone working.

yup israel shwartz was a coward. agree with you there.

Mizen wasnt callous. he went there after finishing his last knock up right after they told him. he did nothing wrong.

so not a platoon. but its a moot point anyway. whats right is right, regardless of of how many choose to do otherwise.

That makes perfect sense to me, Abby. I have a feeling that if you or I found a body in the street we would feel a sense of responsibility for reporting it. And if we had the slightest suspicion that the person might not be dead, we’d be knocking at every door in a panic.

And if we didn’t bother, but just carried on to work, we’d be callous.

[Abby Normal]

lol funny but the current play is under review.

The ruling is.. the call is reversed. No Ad Hominem was committed as the alleged Offense was merely asking a hypothetical. The use of the word "you" in this instance dosnt necessarily mean the first person personal you but could also mean the you third person impersonal hypothetical. The defense loses the challenge and their last time out. : )

[MrBarnett]

Your most original and intelligent post to date. Keep it up, one day you may make the grade.

[Fiver]

I thought he had an issue with very idea of Ed describing Lechmere as callous. If so, does that count as yet another of those mistakes you never make?

Do you recall stating on here that you never made mistakes? After that, who could take you seriously?

[Ally]

No, the assumption is that someone, anyone, could approach without warning from that direction. You’re twisting things again. Your bias is in plain sight. (It’s never out of it).

It’s great to see the banning of Lord O hasn’t disturbed the pack mentality too much.

I mean... really? You're going to stand on "pack mentality". That's a bold choice considering you defend an out and proud racist, and put JtR research as being more important than viewing all people as worthy of equal rights and protection under the law. I mean... as long a someone supports your theory, it appears you'll forgive them anything. That's not pack mentality?

The fact that the facts don't support Butler's claims is not down to pack mentality. It's down to weak argument and specious reasoning.

[Abby Normal]

It's the slums. It's the inner city. People become callous.

Alfred Crow callously stepped over the corpse of Martha Tabram and went to bed. He didn't know she was dead, probably, but he didn't care either. He was used to tramps sleeping everywhere.

Albert Cadosch heard a 'scuffle' in the next yard, but since there was no cry for help, he went inside. People became callous to their neighbors beating the brains out of their wives.

Israel Schwartz saw a woman actually being assaulted and ran away and didn't bother to notify a policeman until the next day, and only then came forward because a friend suggested it.

All in all, I think Lechmere was less callous than most. And Paul blamed the local constable Mizen for also being 'callous.'

More callouses that a platoon of foot soldiers.

nope
alfred crow assumed she was sleeping there as many "tramps" as you called them, slept there. so he
let her be. imho he was sympathetic as many would have callously shooed her off.

albert cadoshe didnt here a "scuffle". he heard something brush against the fence, and since he said he knew they did work there, he assumed it was someone working.

yup israel shwartz was a coward. agree with you there.

Mizen wasnt callous. he went there after finishing his last knock up right after they told him. he did nothing wrong.

so not a platoon. but its a moot point anyway. whats right is right, regardless of of how many choose to do otherwise.

[MrBarnett]

I do remember RJ not grasping my suggestion that Lechmere might have helped his old Ma out in her business activities. RJ’s father had never asked him to help out, apparently. Perhaps that explains why he doesn’t feel that leaving a possibly dying woman lying on the street is a callous act.

[MrBarnett]

>>‘Callous’ is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, whatever your politics. <<

You are missing R.J.'s point. If callousness, is a evidence of guilt, Paul must be guilty, because the video claims both men were callous. If Paul is innocent, then callousness (in this described incident) is indisputably not "evidence of guilt".

I thought he had an issue with very idea of Ed describing Lechmere as callous. If so, does that count as yet another of those mistakes you never make?

Do you recall stating on here that you never made mistakes? After that, who could take you seriously?