Plaque for Sickert

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Herewith the cutting from the Islington Tribune about a house plaque for Walter Sickert's previous residence.

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2011/aug/plaque-honours-artist-stalked-ripper-slur-walter-sickert-would-have-had-%E2%80%98-good-laugh%E2%80%99-

What I did like was the mention of the "yet to be revealed" business about the artist's connection to writing hoax letters. Indications of ongoing research into this field, it appears. Now I wonder who might be involved in that?
All may be will revealed at the right moment.. as they say!.. nudge nudge wink wink..

(No, it isn't me, though I know someone who might know..haha!)

What are the latest odds from a bookmaker on a new book abput JTR and Sickert to come out within 2 years, 3months and 5 days? (125th Anniversary of Mary Kelly's demise).. I'd only give you evens.
Be prepared people. The carousel must be kept turning!

best wishes

Phil

[BTCG]

Hello all,

Herewith the cutting from the Islington Tribune about a house plaque for Walter Sickert's previous residence.

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2011/aug/plaque-honours-artist-stalked-ripper-slur-walter-sickert-would-have-had-%E2%80%98-good-laugh%E2%80%99-

What I did like was the mention of the "yet to be revealed" business about the artist's connection to writing hoax letters. Indications of ongoing research into this field, it appears. Now I wonder who might be involved in that?
All may be will revealed at the right moment.. as they say!.. nudge nudge wink wink..

(No, it isn't me, though I know someone who might know..haha!)

What are the latest odds from a bookmaker on a new book abput JTR and Sickert to come out within 2 years, 3months and 5 days? (125th Anniversary of Mary Kelly's demise).. I'd only give you evens.
Be prepared people. The carousel must be kept turning!

best wishes

Phil

Dental hygiene being what it was then, I'm sure many had plaque. What's your point?

[Cogidubnus]

Dental hygiene being what it was then, I'm sure many had plaque. What's your point?

So Phil's found a fresh news clip regarding Walter Sickert and has posted it, together with some not entirely unreasonable comments, suggesting that perhaps the media pot's being kept stirred by someone with an interest...

Do we deduce from your sarcastic response that you (a) don't think it's newsworthy after all or (b) you disagree that Sickert is a valid suspect or (c) you don't like Phil or (d) you haven't a clue but you fancy kicking out at someone anyway?

To be fair, you don't actually present much self-incriminatory evidence, but thereagain you don't actually produce or adduce anything at all...in fact you don't actually add anything remotely worthwhile at all. Would you perhaps like to go away and reconsider your position?

All the best

Dave

[BTCG]

So Phil's found a fresh news clip regarding Walter Sickert and has posted it, together with some not entirely unreasonable comments, suggesting that perhaps the media pot's being kept stirred by someone with an interest...

Do we deduce from your sarcastic response that you (a) don't think it's newsworthy after all or (b) you disagree that Sickert is a valid suspect or (c) you don't like Phil or (d) you haven't a clue but you fancy kicking out at someone anyway?

To be fair, you don't actually present much self-incriminatory evidence, but thereagain you don't actually produce or adduce anything at all...in fact you don't actually add anything remotely worthwhile at all. Would you perhaps like to go away and reconsider your position?

All the best

Dave

Unless someone finds evidence in the manner of an old, unopened trunk in a long-forgotten attic, that can offer objective proof, the ONLY objective proof to date is Patricia Cornwell's, and her proof is circumstantial.

With her proof, one can only apply Occam's Razor.

Therefore, Sickert is our man.

[Cogidubnus]

So, by Occam's Razor are we to assume you mean Lex Parsimoniae - viz the most likely theory is that which contains the fewest assumptions?

That being the case, perhaps you'd like to explain how "Occam's Razor" is relevant to your singularly uninformative comments on the news which Phil has been good enough to release to you?

Occam's Razor might (or might not) be relevant where a number of conflicting theories are being debated. However, this is clearly not the case at issue here.

In essence, someone has been good enough to post some news here with (perhaps apposite or perhaps not) comments and rather than debate the same, you appear to have elected to simply "take the piss" as I believe the process is known...

I'm not being either prescriptive or vindictive...I merely venture to suggest that under the circumstances an apology might be in order

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

I note your late modification to the post timed at 1116. Mine of 1136 was directed at your original version, but unlike you I'll not be amending it...

Let's get to the grist...

Occam's Razor remains irrelevant in this context. Phil wasn't debating a series of theories of which Cornwell's was one of a number. He merely posted an item of news and appended his comments...Rather than seriously addressing any issues which you might've held, you elected instead to try to be funny and take the piss...and you got caught out...

I suggest you tell Phil you're sorry

All the best

Dave

[BTCG]

Yes, you may.

[BTCG]

The simplest and most direct is usually the correct answer. Always? No. But enough for this rule to be accepted and quoted from for centuries.

[BTCG]

I suspect that Phil's psyche is not that fragile.

I do, appreciate the news, though. Thank you Phil.

Your servant,

Bill