Lawende was silenced

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Could you please formulate a stringent historical question?

Pierre I have been asking you a question since the weekend, along with others, which it is obvious you do not wish to be asked or wish to even attempt to answer.

The question of accusing individuals of a crime, presenting no data to support the claims, yet refusing to name another individual on the grounds of to name with out proof is morally wrong, this apparent double standard as not been explained.

Do you want me to tell you that Anderson described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888 - since that is what he writes - and do you want me to draw the conclusion that since Anderson knew that and that he knew it when he came back from his leave, because this is what the text means?

It is clear, if one reads all of what Anderson wrote that he did not formulate any idea as to the actual identity of the killer until several years after 1888.

It would seem not all of his writings have been read, as with much of what you claim, the views are based on partial readings and misunderstandings.

Better to read everything, not just that which agrees with the fantasy.

I could tell you that, since you do not have the understanding to see it yourself. Instead you try and impose your personal view that Anderson did not know this in 1888 on me and everyone else here.

Once again we have an attack on someones intellectual abilities because they do not agree with the writers view.

No one is imposing any view on anyone, other than the view you are attempting to impose.

It really is so ironic that you accuse others of the exactly thing you do.

But Steve - I will not tell you that and why?

Because the source has a tendency.

So it doesnīt matter that Anderson confesses to knowing about a Polish Jew in 1888 when the man was not a Polish Jew.

That is you view, which I am am happy you have.

However just saying "the man was not a Polish Jew" does not make it so.

You need to produce data to support the view, which you simple refuse to do, not just on this issue but on every single issue you raise.

If you wish anyone to take you seriously then name the sources you are using, at the very least what type they are.



And once again you reply without addressing the hypocrisy question/issue.

Let me assure you this question will not go away, no matter how much you try to defect it.



Regards,


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391995]

Pierre I have been asking you a question since the weekend, along with others, which it is obvious you do not wish to be asked or wish to even attempt to answer.

Is it a historical question? I am not a metaphysician or natural scientist.

The question of accusing individuals of a crime, presenting no data to support the claims, yet refusing to name another individual on the grounds of to name with out proof is morally wrong, this apparent double standard as not been explained.

What exactly is the question? Could you pose a historical question?

It is clear, if one reads all of what Anderson wrote that he did not formulate any idea as to the actual identity of the killer until several years after 1888.

Slippery slope. It is clear that he "formulated it...several years after 1888" but it is very clear that he writes that the police knew the ID in 1888.

It would seem not all of his writings have been read, as with much of what you claim, the views are based on partial readings and misunderstandings.

Better to read everything, not just that which agrees with the fantasy.

Oh, but I have read everything. The problem is that you take a text at face value. You believe it is true.

Once again we have an attack on someones intellectual abilities because they do not agree with the writers view.

Well, I have learned this from David, who very often does this. Look at his post above yours, where he writes to me: "Yet another example, Pierre, of your failure to read and understand a source properly."

But you think he is doing the right thing. Donīt you, Steve?

No one is imposing any view on anyone, other than the view you are attempting to impose.

I see. We should argue like children. No thank you.

It really is so ironic that you accuse others of the exactly thing you do.

No thanks again.

That is you view, which I am am happy you have. However just saying it does not make it so. you need to produce data to support the view which you simple refuse to do.

"Produce data". We are discussing the writings of Anderson and Macnaghten and the notes of Swanson. That is the data we are discussing here. How come you did not understand this?

If you wish anyone to take you at all seriously then name the sources you are using, at the very least what type they are.

I do not wish that.

And once again you reply with out addressing the hypocrisy question/issue.

Read my points again. Is there a crime in those points? No. I am an historian. Not a prosecutor. That is a well established fact.

Let me assure you this question will not go away, no matter how much you try to defect it.

Let me assure you this fact will not go away, no matter how much you try to defect it.

[David Orsam]

Well, I have learned this from David, who very often does this. Look at his post above yours, where he writes to me: "Yet another example, Pierre, of your failure to read and understand a source properly."

I wrote that sentence, Pierre, because you said, 'Anderson described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888 - since that is what he writes - and do you want me to draw the conclusion that since Anderson knew that, and that he knew it when he came back from his leave, because this is what the text means?'

That is patently not what Anderson wrote. If you happen to disagree perhaps you could quote Anderson describing the police "finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888".

[Pierre]

I wrote that sentence, Pierre, because you said, 'Anderson described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888 - since that is what he writes - and do you want me to draw the conclusion that since Anderson knew that, and that he knew it when he came back from his leave, because this is what the text means?'

That is patently not what Anderson wrote. If you happen to disagree perhaps you could quote Anderson describing the police "finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888".

There is always a "reason" for writing certain things, isnīt there?

By the way, how many times in your life have you written the word "failed"?

You might be able to achieve a Guinness World Record.

[Pierre]

I wrote that sentence, Pierre, because you said, 'Anderson described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888 - since that is what he writes - and do you want me to draw the conclusion that since Anderson knew that, and that he knew it when he came back from his leave, because this is what the text means?'

That is patently not what Anderson wrote. If you happen to disagree perhaps you could quote Anderson describing the police "finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888".

That is what he wrote but do not worry. It i your dear little book. Keep it that way. Never mind me. I have no understanding. I just fail and fail and fail.

[David Orsam]

By the way, how many times in your life have you written the word "failed"?

I probably have written the word "failed" a number of times in response to your theories Pierre but not, in fact, in the post to which you are responding so it's baffling to know why you have mentioned it other than as an attempt to deflect attention from your inability to quote Anderson saying that the police found the killer during a house-to-house search in 1888.

[David Orsam]

That is what he wrote but do not worry. It i your dear little book. Keep it that way. Never mind me. I have no understanding. I just fail and fail and fail.

Well, Pierre, you say that this is "what he wrote" but I have certainly not failed to notice your failure to quote Anderson actually saying (or writing) that the police found the killer during a house-to-house search in 1888 and I'm sure that everyone else reading this has not failed to notice your failure to do so too.

[Pierre]

Well, Pierre, you say that this is "what he wrote" but I have certainly not failed to notice your failure to quote Anderson actually saying (or writing) that the police found the killer during a house-to-house search in 1888 and I'm sure that everyone else reading this has not failed to notice your failure to do so too.

"During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

(Anderson, The Lighter Side..., Chapter IX)

(My bold so you canīt miss it).

[David Orsam]

"During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

(Anderson, The Lighter Side..., Chapter IX)

(My bold so you canīt miss it).

What you have done is confirmed that Anderson said that the police made a house to house search in 1888 while he was abroad.

You have also confirmed that at some unspecified point in time (but which must have been after Anderson's return from abroad), Anderson said that "we", by which he means the Police, came to the conclusion that the killer was a low-class Polish Jew.

What you have failed to confirm is that Anderson "described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888".

I have highlighted the part in bold that you have not substantiated so that you can't miss it.

[Elamarna]

Is it a historical question? I am not a metaphysician or natural scientist.



What exactly is the question? Could you pose a historical question?

Pierre,

The question is clear, you surely understand it.

Nothing to do with natural science or any other subject.


It is a question about the integrity of posts, which you obviously do not wish to answer.

Slippery slope. It is clear that he "formulated it...several years after 1888" but it is very clear that he writes that the police knew the ID in 1888.

No that is how you wish to interpret one section of one book/publication.

Let me offer a different view

from Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect - Rob House



"Anderson commented on “our failure to find Jack the Ripper.”5*This would seem to imply that as late as November 1889, Anderson had not yet become convinced that he knew the Ripper’s identity. "



5.“Dr. Anderson on Criminal ‘Show Places,’ ”*Pall Mall Gazette, November 4, 1889.

Oh, but I have read everything. The problem is that you take a text at face value. You believe it is true.

It seems clear that the statement is either erroneous or disingenuous.

Well, I have learned this from David, who very often does this. Look at his post above yours, where he writes to me: "Yet another example, Pierre, of your failure to read and understand a source properly."

But you think he is doing the right thing. Donīt you, Steve?

May I point out that saying someone is not correctly understanding a source, as David seems to be saying, is very different from suggesting someone lacks the education or ability to do so.

I see. We should argue like children. No thank you.

No but if you wish to carry on be my guest.

"Produce data". We are discussing the writings of Anderson and Macnaghten and the notes of Swanson. That is the data we are discussing here. How come you did not understand this?

Lets be clear, nothing in those sources, gives any indication of a conspiracy.

From what you have said, these men in your view covered up the identity of the killer, and that killer was the man you will not name. Who was one of their own.


However if he is not the killer, then they would have nothing to cover up!

Looking at the sources:

Anderson did not firm up his views until at least 1892.

Macnaghten preferred others over Kosminski.

Swanson's notes naming Kosminski are for his own enjoyment/information, or they may be fake.

None of that backs an accusation of conspiracy.

You see a conspiracy because you want to!
Not because the data indicates such.

Read my points again. Is there a crime in those points? No. I am an historian. Not a prosecutor. That is a well established fact.

Yes Pierre, the points you raised describe a crime, that of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice has you have been told many times.

Actually it is not a well established fact you are an historian, it is something which you have reported to us.

Let me assure you this fact will not go away, no matter how much you try to defect it.

And which fact is that?


Is it the fact that of course you still will not give an answer!



Steve


Steve

[GUT]

Hi Abby,

I would like to be ignored. It would be a relief.



Regards, Pierre

Well stop posting rubbish and you may get your wish.

[GUT]

That is what he wrote but do not worry. It i your dear little book. Keep it that way. Never mind me. I have no understanding. I just fail and fail and fail.

Yep. You sure do.

[Scott Nelson]

What you have failed to confirm is that Anderson "described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888".

Not at that time, but possibly later through some family testimony.

[Elamarna]

Not at that time, but possibly later through some family testimony.

Scott,

That is the very point we are trying to make, that Anderson's claim is not that they knew in 1888, but at a later date. Possibly based on information gained during the house to house search or indeed by a family member coming forward.

The impression Pierre is trying to make is that they decided on the id during the house to house search, which is certainly not the case.


regards


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392026]

The question is clear, you surely understand it.

Nothing to do with natural science or any other subject.

It is a question about the integrity of posts, which you obviously do not wish to answer.

And again, you can not pose a question to me. What is the exact historical question you try to ask, Steve?

No that is how you wish to interpret one section of one book/publication.

"Wish"? I do not "wish" to interpret. I interpret. We all interpret objects. At least you seem to understand a bit of this, compared to David, who believes that he can just look at an item and understand it without interpretation. But since you are not an historian and I am not a natural scientist, we will never have a common ground for interpretation. I understand this, since I am able to study the history of natural science, but you can not understand it since you do not study history as an object within the natural sciences. Do you understand this?

Let me offer a different view

Yes, you may offer as many different views as you like. I have nothing against different views. That is what I am used to handle.

from Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect - Rob House

"Anderson commented on “our failure to find Jack the Ripper.”5*This would seem to imply that as late as November 1889, Anderson had not yet become convinced that he knew the Ripper’s identity. "

5.“Dr. Anderson on Criminal ‘Show Places,’ ”*Pall Mall Gazette, November 4, 1889.

What do you want me to think?

It seems clear that the statement is either erroneous or disingenuous.

Clear? From what? From that book? Who is Robert House? Is he an historian?

May I point out that saying someone is not correctly understanding a source, as David seems to be saying, is very different from suggesting someone lacks the education or ability to do so.

But it is correct. Your education gives you specific abilities. That is very simple.

Lets be clear, nothing in those sources, gives any indication of a conspiracy.

I do not use the word "conspiracy". It is your word.

From what you have said, these men in your view covered up the identity of the killer, and that killer was the man you will not name. Who was one of their own.

No. That is not what I said. I use the expression "the police" and not the expression "Anderson did not stop the killer" (for example). You can go back and understand this, that is, if it is not enough for you that you see me writing it here right now.

However if he is not the killer, then they would have nothing to cover up!

Well, that is what I am still hoping for.

Looking at the sources:

Anderson did not firm up his views until at least 1892.

Macnaghten preferred others over Kosminski.

Swanson's notes naming Kosminski are for his own enjoyment/information, or they may be fake.

None of that backs an accusation of conspiracy.

Now you are using a realistic view on the sources. You believe - for some reason, I would say because you are not an historian - that the sources are to be taken at face value.

Do you see what you write here above, Steve?

Looking at the sources.

It is a well established fact within the social sciences and history that you can not "look at" a source or a social phenomenon (a source is a social artefact) and decide itīs contents. There are to many problems with such an approach. I am very sorry, but I can not give you a crash course on this here on a forum.

So "looking at" is actually, sorry again, Steve, totally meaningless. It has no value. I do not want to say this, since I hear that I begin to sound like others here, but with all due respect, you are absolutely wrong.

And this is nothing that I have decided, and it is nothing that comes from a "personal view", but it is a well established scientific problem which has been very domineering for the last 40 years at universities around the world. Actually, it started in ancient times already and it was updated with Kant. But for me as an historian and sociologist, I point to recent thinkers as Foucault and Bourdieu for reading about it.

You see a conspiracy because you want to!
Not because the data indicates such.

It is not the only data I have, Steve. Sorry.

Yes Pierre, the points you raised describe a crime, that of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice has you have been told many times.

And what can I do about it? At least the police tried to stop it.

Actually it is not a well established fact you are an historian, it is something which you have reported to us.

Well, my exams establish it very well. That is what I meant.

And which fact is that?

That you try to pretend that I do not know what I am talking about.

Is it the fact that of course you still will not give an answer!

?