The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

You can look for and tell us about as many incorrect uses of the word "ooze" as you wish, but it will not make any of them accurate. We have given you the correct dictionary meaning numerous times, and you ignore it, looking always for possible misuses to quote.

To "ooze" means to trickle, dribble or flow slowly. If "blood ran profusely" it wasn't oozing.

Your answer oozes with charm, Whatsit.

That means that it is brimming with charm, that there is a lot of charm in it.

Heard the expression?

If so, did you ever wonder about why ooze must mean a slow trickle when it comes to blood, while instead pointing to a profusion in the other end? Yes, I know that bleeding is another matter than charming me, but as you cans, there are heaps of people who use the expression " blood oozed profusely". Let me offer a few examples:

- ... blood oozed profusely from his right eye and nose. The man was a frequent visitor in Stacy's residence now was a prey and victim of ...

- Blood oozed profusely on bare grounds. Face swollen and arms left with lasting scars.

- I jumped to lean on him, touching him and crying for help as blood oozed profusely from his head.

- Butler fell and blood oozed profusely from his wound

- Blood oozed profusely like water from her nostrills, mouth and other parts of her body as she sat at a street corner in the city center of Accra

- Blood oozed profusely from her vaginalia. That's when others claimed that the pregnancy was aborted

- Blood oozed profusely from his neck, and he fainted when he came out of the toilet

- Blood oozed profusely from the cuts and when he called for help, a witness went to the scene and succeeded in snatching the knife from the ...

- Blood oozed profusely and so Frederick was rushed to the nearest hospital for treatment where he died

- Blood oozed profusely from the area of attachment when the leeches were re- moved. Closer inspection showed deep wounds, circular to bulbous cavities ...

- blood oozed profusely from the gaping wound on his neck; his time was running out.

- .. blood oozed profusely from the wound.

- His left leg was gone, cut crudely from his body, and blood oozed profusely from the wound.

I could of course go on and on here, but it should be obvious that not everybody bows to your "correct dictionary meaning". Of course, you could claim that these are probably examples of people who misuse the British language, but there are authors and suchlike amongst the material, people who are very well read up on language matters.

But lets´look at a few others! This one is from the site actualfirstaid.com, a site devoted to medical matters:

Wounds to a major vein may "ooze" profusely.

This is from "AN UNCLASSIFIABLE TUMOR OF THE ESOPHAGUS", A Case Report by Victor Hay-Roe, M.D., Rogers Lee Hill, M.D., and W. Harold Chin, M.D., Honolulu, Hawaii. So we are dealing with medical doctors here and their language. The paper was written in 1959, by the way:

The patient was prepared for esophagectomy and, through an upper abdominal incision, the stomach and lower esophagus were mobilized. A right thoraootomy disclosed a lung densely adherent to the chest wall, and much bleeding was encountered in mobilizing it. The esophagus was freed and the tumor palpated within it, just inferior to the aortic arch. During the procedure, the blood continued to ooze profusely from the right thoracic cage and the patient required multiple transfusions.

This is from "Open Thoracic Surgery", by Marco Scarce, Alan D L Shine and Benedetta Bedetti:

"... very vascular structure that can ooze profusely."

This is from United States Armed Forces Medical Journal, the year is 1951:

A letter from his family physician stated that many methods of controlling hemorrhage were used, but he continues to ooze profusely from his gums."

You are of course at liberty to go on flat out denying that nobody with any sort of insight into language matters would ever use the phrase "ooze profusely" about blood flows. But the fact of the matter is that there are examples a plenty of how the phrase IS used, even by medically trained specialists and doctors writing academic papers.

To me, that trumps your dictionaries, because while they (and I won't read them all, just as I'm sure that you have not done either) recommend how we should use the language, my examples are all about how we actually DO just that.

If we must move further back in time, this is from the Old Bailey in June of 1846, concerning a manslaughter case:

In three or four hours after his decease the fluids filled the chest and throat, and oozed copiously out of the ears, nose, and mouth."

If you dislike all of this - and I am sure you do - you are as welcome to ask any questions of me on the adjacent "Prototypical life of a serial killer" thread. I suggest you don't start out by claiming that body in his right mind would use the expression if you do. You are going to have to wait for your turn, of course, I am not interested in taking on the whole flock of naysayers all at the same time.

[rjpalmer]

Nope, R J, that did not work for you either. What Andy Griffiths and I did was to show that IF Lechmere started out at 3.30, he should have been at the site at 3.37, presupposing that he kept a normal walking speed. The aim of the exercise was to show that - guess what: a time gap is suggested.

Well, if push comes to shove, I deny that your stopwatch experiment even 'suggests' a gap.

What I think your experiment really 'suggests' it that there are bound to be discrepancies in the time estimates given by various honest witnesses, and further (though the documentary failed to address this point) it is obvious enough from the inquest depositions that Robert Paul is the odd man out, giving a wildly problematic time estimate that is directly at odds with the accounts given by Mizen, Thain, and Neill. Thus, Griffiths' use of Paul as his second reference point in your experiment was too simplistic and misleading to be valuable and is thus not 'suggestive' of any gap. It is suggestive of a bad time estimate by Robert Paul, coupled with too much reliance on Crossmere's 3.30 departure estimate as absolute.

In reviewing the inquest depositions, it might be noted that both Neill and Mizen gave evidence before Crossmere did, and in the case of Neill, who said he had discovered the body at 3.45, and if memory serves, this appeared in the press the day before Crossmere took the stand. That would have given a dishonest CAL many hours to ponder what he was going to say at the inquest.

In my opinion, knowing this, a dishonest man would have reasoned backwards, and then shoved his departure time as far forwards as he plausibly could, leaving no potential 'gap' in his account of the events.

Yet, Crossmere doesn't do this. One could even argue that his failure to do this shows his inherent honesty.

The person who actually did this was Robert Paul. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Paul's 3:45 estimate is the true discrepancy, running directly against the accounts given by the other witnesses. A suspicious person might conclude that it is Paul tweaking the chronology, not Cross.

[Fisherman]

Well, if push comes to shove, I deny that your stopwatch experiment even 'suggests' a gap.

What I think your experiment really 'suggests' it that there are bound to be discrepancies in the time estimates given by various honest witnesses, and further (though the documentary failed to address this point) it is obvious enough from the inquest depositions that Robert Paul is the odd man out, giving a wildly problematic time estimate that is directly at odds with the accounts given by Mizen, Thain, and Neill. Thus, Griffiths' use of Paul as his second reference point in your experiment was too simplistic and misleading to be valuable and is thus not 'suggestive' of any gap. It is suggestive of a bad time estimate by Robert Paul, coupled with too much reliance on Crossmere's 3.30 departure estimate as absolute.

In reviewing the inquest depositions, it might be noted that both Neill and Mizen gave evidence before Crossmere did, and in the case of Neill, who said he had discovered the body at 3.45, and if memory serves, this appeared in the press the day before Crossmere took the stand. That would have given a dishonest CAL many hours to ponder what he was going to say at the inquest.

In my opinion, knowing this, a dishonest man would have reasoned backwards, and then shoved his departure time as far forwards as he plausibly could, leaving no potential 'gap' in his account of the events.

Yet, Crossmere doesn't do this. One could even argue that his failure to do this shows his inherent honesty.

The person who actually did this was Robert Paul. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Paul's 3:45 estimate is the true discrepancy, running directly against the accounts given by the other witnesses. A suspicious person might conclude that it is Paul tweaking the chronology, not Cross.

The other thread, R J. Sorry. But I can already tell you that you are grasping now - and that you don't know that Pauls time was "an estimate" to begin with. Estimates are rarely given as "exactly 3.45".

[Fisherman]

Again, I will answer questions on the Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer thread once I am through with Fiver. And then I will go one poster at the time.

This is my very last post on this thread. And for today.

[FrankO]

And indeed, I am not deciding for you - it is my view I am giving, not yours. And just like you do, I disagree.

OK, then I misunderstood your "Not so" for "It is not so", but no worries - we disagree and we'll leave it at that.

[rjpalmer]

But I can already tell you that you are grasping now - and that you don't know that Pauls time was "an estimate" to begin with. Estimates are rarely given as "exactly 3.45".

I'm not grasping in the least.

I think most reasonable people would know from personal experience that if asked what time they had left for worked some days earlier, or even earlier the same day, they would be inherently giving an estimate and not an exact time.

I suppose it is possible that Robert Paul could have been a rare obsessive/compulsive who religiously recorded the time of his every action throughout the day in a notebook, but this does not seem very likely.

But you seem to have missed my main point or are avoiding it. Which is fine; I'm merely stating my opinion. Whether Paul meant this departure time to be exact or to be an estimate, it is still reasonable to wonder why he is giving a time of departure that clashes with the times given by three independent witnesses: Mizen, Thain, and Neill.

I find it odd that you and Griffiths chose to accept the word of the most problematic witness of the bunch in conducting you stopwatch experiment.

But it's good that this conversation is coming to an end and look forward to our future discussion: Charles Allen Lechmere--the Evidence of Psychopathy. See you then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock: Because now, you’re saying that it’s obvious that most said ‘about 3.30.’ Why wasn’t this obvious when you wrote the above?

It has always been obvious, and it was not intentionally omitted in my book. I hav e already explained a large number of times that there was no intention to mislead, and that I have the ”around” in a quotation from a paper plus that I urge people not to take timings as gospel. I also never say that SINCE he left at 3.30, he MUST have …, I say that IF he left at 3.30 and so on. So the only misleading there is, is if you call it an intentional effort to deceive.

An embarrassing attempt to try and wriggle out of it.

You deliberately omitted it from the documentary.
You deliberately omitted it from the dossier given to Scobie.
You deliberately omitted it from the appropriate section of Cutting Point.


If it was OBVIOUS to you in this thread then it was OBVIOUS to you in the documentary and OBVIOUS when you wrote your book. But you DELIBERATELY AND WITH CLEAR INTENT wrote that most of the papers said that Cross left the house at 3.30.

Its IMPOSSIBLE for this to have been an error and everyone knows it.

ABSOLUTELY 100% PROVEN MANIPULATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer, you have been given the dictionary definition - the same from numerous sources. Anyone who uses the word differently is using it incorrectly. Many people do use words incorrectly, that is a fact of life.

As for phrases like "oozing charm", I explained that way back in these pages, but I will repeat it as we all know that you don't read everything, and ignore a great deal. When referring to a liquid, to "ooze" is to trickle slowly or to dribble etc. However, when used in connection with a quality, it means to overflow, for example "he oozed confidence". As I pointed this out to you some time ago, it is meaningless asking me if I have ever heard such a thing!

By the way, as you are denying the accuracy of numerous dictionaries, I would suggest that you are the "naysayer" not me.

The problem with this pointless debate, is that I have no idea why you are pushing for an acceptance of "oozing profusely" as correct English.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find it odd that you and Griffiths chose to accept the word of the most problematic witness of the bunch in conducting you stopwatch experiment.

.

I don’t find it odd Roger. I find it par for the course.

[Fiver]

My suggestion is that the wounds in the neck were covered over until Paul pulled the clothing down as he was about to leave.

Are claiming that Polly Nichols stomach was located above her neck?

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood." - Robert Paul, 18 September, 1888

Again, you are deliberately ignoring evidence that does not fit your theory.

[Fiver]

And with that, I take my leave from this thread, resurfacing again in some little time on the "Prototypical life of a Serial Killer" thread, in order to have a chat with Fiver.

Taking your leave? You almost immediately posted five more times in this thread.

"Yes, forward on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe, We go, we go!' - Pirates of Penzance
"Yes, but you don't go!" - Modern Major General

So are you really done or do you need to sing a few more choruses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, you are deliberately ignoring evidence that does not fit your theory.

Just in case he’s disappeared again, I’ll answer that one Fiver…….

yes he is.

[Fisherman]

The problem with this pointless debate, is that I have no idea why you are pushing for an acceptance of "oozing profusely" as correct English.

Just a shortie here: Who says that I am pushing for an acceptance of "oozing profusely" as correct English? That is not what I am doing at all. I am instead showing you that in spite of how the dictionaries you refer to claim that it is not correct English, it nevertheless applies that the phrasing "ooze profusely" is widely used.

What we are looking for, Doctored Whatsit, is not the rules of the book. We are looking for the rules people actually play by, and as I have proven, these two things are not the same at all in this case.

And now, Fiver, I leave this thread again. Again, my intention is not to return to it. I don't promise not to come back. It is up to me to decide whether or not to do so, you see.

[Fisherman]

I'm not grasping in the least.

I think most reasonable people would know from personal experience that if asked what time they had left for worked some days earlier, or even earlier the same day, they would be inherently giving an estimate and not an exact time.

I suppose it is possible that Robert Paul could have been a rare obsessive/compulsive who religiously recorded the time of his every action throughout the day in a notebook, but this does not seem very likely.

But you seem to have missed my main point or are avoiding it. Which is fine; I'm merely stating my opinion. Whether Paul meant this departure time to be exact or to be an estimate, it is still reasonable to wonder why he is giving a time of departure that clashes with the times given by three independent witnesses: Mizen, Thain, and Neill.

I find it odd that you and Griffiths chose to accept the word of the most problematic witness of the bunch in conducting you stopwatch experiment.

But it's good that this conversation is coming to an end and look forward to our future discussion: Charles Allen Lechmere--the Evidence of Psychopathy. See you then.

I will make this post my first focus after having finished my debate with Fiver - but on the other thread. Then we can see who has missed what, R J!

[Doctored Whatsit]

Just a shortie here: Who says that I am pushing for an acceptance of "oozing profusely" as correct English? That is not what I am doing at all. I am instead showing you that in spite of how the dictionaries you refer to claim that it is not correct English, it nevertheless applies that the phrasing "ooze profusely" is widely used.

What we are looking for, Doctored Whatsit, is not the rules of the book. We are looking for the rules people actually play by, and as I have proven, these two things are not the same at all in this case.

And now, Fiver, I leave this thread again. Again, my intention is not to return to it. I don't promise not to come back. It is up to me to decide whether or not to do so, you see.

Ok, now at last we can all accept that some people misuse the word "ooze", which has never been in doubt. Good. What is the point of the repeated use of phrases like "oozing profusely"? Why is this important or even relevant?