Louis Diemschutz

[Tom_Wescott]

All this fuss over a little schitz!

Have I missed something?
Can anyone claim to know the correct spelling when the reporters of the time were even calling him 'Diemholz'?
And does it matter?

No, it really doesn't matter all that much. But some time back when I posted my information about the correct spelling of his name, it hardly got any support because for some reason people (Sam's Club) were resistent to change. They simply didn't WANT the error to be corrected. So, I accepted this and went on calling him 'Diemschutz' to avoid confusion. Now, the main protagonist of my work, Sam Flynn, has decided I was right but prefers to say that HE somehow 'proved' it and that my documentation was somehow 'lucky guesswork'. That's not how I roll, so I had to lay the smackdown on Sam a little bit. So did Dan. It's all good now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

All this fuss over a little schitz!

Have I missed something?
Can anyone claim to know the correct spelling when the reporters of the time were even calling him 'Diemholz'?
And does it matter?

[Tom_Wescott]

Orthography, and not bullsh*t by any means - it was based on sound reasoning. Give me reasoning (albeit later proven wrong - by the person who proposed it!) over lucky guesswork based on a solitary flyer and the (hardly authoritative) spelling of an English pressman any day.

This is HILARIOUS since the sole source of his name being 'Diemschutz', as we've called him all these years, WAS A SOLITARY JOURNALIST FROM THE TIMES, whereas I provided documentation from within his own circle of friends, numerous press articles, and police reports, showing the contrary. Pray tell where did 'guesswork' come into my argument? I simply pointed out all the documentation showing his name to be 'Diemschitz/sh*tz' while pointing out that because earlier researchers relied so heavily on the Times for information, they adapted the Times' error of calling him 'Diemschutz' (much like how these same researchers called Charles Cross 'George'). There was no guesswork, Sam.

At least I had the balls to discover and publicise something that contradicted my earlier stance. That's how this field should work - so much for the "spirit of co-operation and bonhomie".

Where you went wrong was with your remark that we were write 'even if we didn't know why'. You call that bonhomie? If you'll remember, I was quite adamant at the time that I was right, and was quick to tell you why. To suggest otherwise now Cornwellian. Had you not been made this comment, I doubt you would have heard from me, but given the hell you put me through at that time, for you to now attempt to take credit and be so condescending is opening the wound AND pouring salt in it.

Give me reasoning (albeit later proven wrong - by the person who proposed it!)

Just for the record, you've proved nothing. That was proved with my first post on a thread I created for this topic, which is probably now lost. Your little unrelated clipping merely supports an already proved argument. I'm not sure what the above mentioned history is of you publishing and taking credit for the work of others, but it's not hard to see that in play here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dan Norder]

Assuming they "knew" how to spell anything in English.

Wow, talk about desperate. So you still maintain that you are a better judge of name spellings than the person in question and his friends? Hell, I don't care if you think you are Noah Webster, names of individuals are spelled the way those individuals use them, not based upon what other people try to claim should be more accurate.

My name, for example, is Norder because it's Norder, I don't care if some amateur linguist or wannabe genealogist were to trace it back and says it used to be Norden, points out lots of other people use Norden so my family must have been ignorant to use Norder and thus I don't know my own name. Family names change over years, especially between countries, and whatever rules you think you know about how things are normally done carry absolutely no authoritative weight at all because they are often individual decisions. In fact, frankly, you're pretentious and utterly naive to even try to make the argument that a name isn't a real name unless it conforms to your demands.

But then you also tried to claim that all the experts on mental illness don't know what some of their professional diagnoses really mean because you think they contradict the meaning of some original root word centuries back that you looked up, so apparently you are just completely unclear on the concept of how language in general even works.

Give me reasoning (albeit later proven wrong - by the person who proposed it!) over lucky guesswork based on a solitary flyer and the (hardly authoritative) spelling of an English pressman any day.

Your reasoning was nonsense -- as you yourself have no proven -- and completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. And to call the solid reasoning of other people "lucky guesswork" just to try to make yourself feel better is arrogant in the extreme.

At least I had the balls to discover and publicise something that contradicted my earlier stance. That's how this field should work - so much for the "spirit of co-operation and bonhomie".

Unfortunately you still delude yourself into thinking the only way you could be wrong is if you prove yourself wrong and that other people's arguments should still be ignored even when they are right. That's not the spirit of cooperation at all. Cooperation is acknowledging other people's work as important. And, frankly, after your history of publishing other people's research without credit as if it were your own, I would hope you'd be bending over backwards to try to give credit where credit is due to make up for it. Instead you are here trying to claim that you should get credit for proving something that other people already proved because you refuse to accept that they could get the answer without you.

But, anyway... if nothing else you've demonstrated yet again why people should treat any claim you make very skeptically.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Good work on that. Had immigrants gone through and spent time in Germany prior to coming to England, I'm sure their names would have been changed back to the correct umaluted version.

I was right there with you on Diemschuetz, so I was wrong about that as well.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

They'll win out every time over your bullsh*t etymology.

Orthography, and not bullsh*t by any means - it was based on sound reasoning. Give me reasoning (albeit later proven wrong - by the person who proposed it!) over lucky guesswork based on a solitary flyer and the (hardly authoritative) spelling of an English pressman any day. "Diemholz", anyone? Point proven.

At least I had the balls to discover and publicise something that contradicted my earlier stance. That's how this field should work - so much for the "spirit of co-operation and bonhomie".

I'm disappointed, I truly am.

[Sam Flynn]

We knew why... first and foremost because that's how he (and his friends) spelled his own name, and he (and they) ought to know better than some guy on a message board 120 years later.

Assuming they "knew" how to spell anything in English. Not for nothing was the "Arbeter Fraynt" not called the "Worker's Friend" (Apologies for smiley.)

Whether you chose to ignore that argument (and perhaps still do) doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change my point that such exotica as "ДЫМШИЦ" may be represented differently in different orthographies (sorry, Tom - it's that word again), if that's what you mean.

I've got to give you kudos for admitting your mistake

I'm here to help.

but that one line undermined the rest, even with a smiley face on it.

Undermined? A mere jest, Dan. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tom_Wescott]

Dan and Tom (and some others) were quite probably right.

It's not a matter of me being right. The SOURCES were right and I simply didn't allow my ego to get in the way of seeing that. You did, there was a big bru ha ha, and now here we are. Funny how my dizzying array of source material didn't convince you, but you find one little scrap and because it was YOUR find, you're willing to concede (in your own way, of course). Sadly, that makes you more humble than many who would prefer to sit on their find instead of admit error.

Even if they didn't know why at the time

Yeah, we're a bunch of mouthbreathers and you're the genius. Sources, my friend, sources. They'll win out every time over your bullsh*t etymology.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dan Norder]

Dan and Tom (and some others) were quite probably right. Even if they didn't know why at the time

We knew why... first and foremost because that's how he (and his friends) spelled his own name, and he (and they) ought to know better than some guy on a message board 120 years later. Whether you chose to ignore that argument (and perhaps still do) doesn't change anything. I've got to give you kudos for admitting your mistake, but that one line undermined the rest, even with a smiley face on it.

[Chris Scott]

I have never managed to find Diemschutz in any census return, even now knowing his age (27 in 1889)
However I did find this woman in the 1891 census and wondered if there was any connection:

1891:
38 New Street, Aldgate (Lodging House)
Boarder:
Anna Dimschitz (Married) aged 23 born Russia - Cap machinist

[Debra A]

Kaylor watchers benefit comes up 7 years later, so I still wonder what it means?

I was surprised to find that Berner Street was only sanctioned for permission to hold open air 'religious' meetings and not 'strike' ones as Buck's Row was granted. Given the nature of the club, that seems a bit odd, I presume it refers to the whole street and not the club specifically?

[Natalie Severn]

The dates match, so I'd say that is what the articles were referring to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You are right -it doesnt take long on here if its all hands on deck!

Natalie

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks Tom.Maybe thats what they are referring to in the articles.
Natalie

The dates match, so I'd say that is what the articles were referring to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

That's very interesting, Gareth - and we haven't even started on 'Allo 'Allo yet.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, we've had that variation of the name and I can hear Gareth sharpening his umlauts as I type.

Well, Rob - in the spirit of co-operation and bonhomie, I am happy to inform all and sundry that my objection to "having the $hitz" has to be heavily revised. Following some research I've done on the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial site, and elsewhere, our favourite name appears to crop up most in respect of Russian Jews, and is usually transliterated from the Cyrillic "ДЫМШИЦ" as "Dymschitz" or "Dim$hitz". Here are some examples:



In its Germanic form, I daresay that "ДЫМШИЦ" might well be rendered as "Diemschütz", but I'm here to tell you that, if Louis came from Russia - and chances are that he did - then Dan and Tom (and some others) were quite probably right. Even if they didn't know why at the time

A really useful spin-off from finding the Cyrillic spelling of the name is that you can do a Google image search to see some members of the Dym$chitz/Dim$hitz clan. I wonder if any of them were directly related to Louis?