Let there be light!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    I try to concentrate on the evidence and the arguments. As I said at the start of this discussion, your comments about me were unfair and uncalled for. The fact that you have not withdrawn them or apologised only reveals the truth about you, not me.
    There is no call for an apology, which is exactly why I hav'nt issued one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    You mean by being calm in the face of your personal attacks?
    Calm? Is that what you call it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    There isn't any evidence, as far as I am aware, to tell us what the police believed. As far as I know, we only have the account of Walter Dew which you have selectively ignored. For that reason I fail to see what your belief is based on other than that you personally don't accept Maxwell's account.
    Don't you believe that if they believed her account then they would have issued a description of the man she said she saw talking to Kelly?

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Well you've been doing a bloody good impersonation of being annoyed
    You mean by being calm in the face of your personal attacks?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Well you certainly never managed to do it.
    Well you've been doing a bloody good impersonation of being annoyed

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Here's where the delusion is....

    You seem to accept (reluctantly) that Prater's evidence is that a cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence.

    Yet you also seem to think that only in the early hours of 9 November did such a cry indicate that a murder was taking place.

    Every other time that such a cry was heard (if I understand you correctly) it indicated that a common assault was occurring.

    But what I don't understand is why the cry on 9 November was so special and different from all the other times that such a cry was heard. That is what you need to explain.
    Here we go again, twisting the argument. More confusion. No you do not understand me. I don't believe you ever have. Prater was generalising when she spoke of the cry of "oh murder" being a common occurance. Note to all women being assaulted in and around Millers Court in the year 1888, could you please cry out "oh murder" once, and once only, upon being assaulted...thank you.

    Ad nauseum...if a common assault was taking place "at the door" of Sarah Lewis, then it follows that she would have heard more than a single cry of "oh murder".

    Ok lets hear what your explanation of the cry of "oh murder as heard by Lewis and Prater was down to. What do you suppose was happening?

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Doubting a story is not dismissing it.
    The question then becomes, what is it you are assuming which is creating this doubt, and on what grounds are you making these assumptions?

    Until or unless your assumptions are verified, which cannot be done in this case, only then will you dismiss the story.
    Therefore, doubting a story is not dismissing it.

    Remember, your personal doubts have no bearing on whether the story is true or not.
    I have already said that doubting a story is not dismissing it. But it is not accepting it either.

    And of course my personal doubts have no bearing on whether a story is true or not but equally your personal conviction that it is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not either.

    So unless you are saying we must believe everything we read in the newspapers without questioning or challenging it I don't quite know what you are saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Of course you're not guilty of personal attack are you?
    I try to concentrate on the evidence and the arguments. As I said at the start of this discussion, your comments about me were unfair and uncalled for. The fact that you have not withdrawn them or apologised only reveals the truth about you, not me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    No, it's not a case of: if we can't dismiss it we accept it. We can doubt it can't we?
    Doubting a story is not dismissing it.
    The question then becomes, what is it you are assuming which is creating this doubt, and on what grounds are you making these assumptions?

    Until or unless your assumptions are verified, which cannot be done in this case, only then will you dismiss the story.
    Therefore, doubting a story is not dismissing it.

    Remember, your personal doubts have no bearing on whether the story is true or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    I firmly believe the above. Ok, forget what I have posted. Do you believe the men who really mattered, the investigators at the time believed Maxwell? I don't believe thy did.
    There isn't any evidence, as far as I am aware, to tell us what the police believed. As far as I know, we only have the account of Walter Dew which you have selectively ignored. For that reason I fail to see what your belief is based on other than that you personally don't accept Maxwell's account.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    As for annoying you it doesn't take much does it.
    Well you certainly never managed to do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Then you're deluded.
    Here's where the delusion is....

    You seem to accept (reluctantly) that Prater's evidence is that a cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence.

    Yet you also seem to think that only in the early hours of 9 November did such a cry indicate that a murder was taking place.

    Every other time that such a cry was heard (if I understand you correctly) it indicated that a common assault was occurring.

    But what I don't understand is why the cry on 9 November was so special and different from all the other times that such a cry was heard. That is what you need to explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    My serious response is simply, that I still wonder why anyone will ask a question that we cannot possibly answer.
    To the extent that is directed at me I can only repeat that I am not asking such a question. I think you have confused questioning a story with asking a question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    As far as I can tell, you came into this thread (having, as you told me, not posted for some time) with the intention of annoying me. Or, I don't know, avenging Fisherman or something.
    Avenging Fisherman? Haha I believe Fisherman can look after himself. As for annoying you it doesn't take much does it.

    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    First thing you said was that I'm selective in my use of evidence and you've not supported this in anything you've subsequently posted.
    I firmly believe the above. Ok, forget what I have posted. Do you believe the men who really mattered, the investigators at the time believed Maxwell? I don't believe thy did.

    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    If you had wanted to discuss the subject of Maxwell's evidence, fine, but did it really need all the personal attacks?
    Of course you're not guilty of personal attack are you?

    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    If you want to "bugger off" great, go ahead, but I'm staying here thanks.
    I don't believe I will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    As I don't believe that the cry of "oh murder" indicated an assault taking place, and never have done,
    Then you're deluded.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X