Ep. 38- Killers on the Loose: Eliminating the Suspects

[Jez]

You all came across really well. The printed word can seem harsh at times and can make us all seem too certain of our own opinion. These podcasts, and it's the first I've listened to, show far more the real person behind the keyboard.

[Ben]

Hi Jez,

You casual cricketer, you!

Where I used to play, it would have been unthinkable to turn up late, irrespective of who was batting or fielding first, and we might reasonably imagine that gentlemanly Victorian standards were loftier still. It would have been essential for both teams to be assembled prior to the start of the match to ensure even numbers and no drop-outs, which usually meant an arrival on the pitch well in advance of the scheduled start time.

I had no inkling that one tiny word would cause so much outcry in Druittdom, but there ya go.

Glad you enjoyed the podcast. I feel distinctly unillustrious in comparison to many of the other speakers, but I'm grateful to Jon for having me.

All the best,
Ben

[aspallek]

Ah, but my logic dictated nothing of the sort. My logic tells me that that one month is a very short time, not comparable to six years, and that considering we're dealing with a 120 year old case, the fact that he appears on the historical record five or six times within the space of a month should enable us to make a persuasive case to the effect that; based on what we know of his movements over that month, the most parsiminious assumption is that he probably remained there for the duration of that month. I'm arguing on a larger scale, but a month still isn't a long time, and five reference to someone's movements within the space of a month ain't bad at all.

Yes, Ben, that is exactly what your logic dictates if you are consistent. You extrapolate from one week to a month. So why not extrapolate to six years?

Why is one round trip in a month implausible but trips hither and yon over six years plausible? At precisely what point does travel migrate from unlikely to likely?

Ben, your argument is so subjective that is has very little value.

And to use your argument: are we certain that Abberline really remained in close communication with those in SY after he left the force as he claimed? If so, why did he pick and inexplicably unlikely suspect?

[Fisherman]

Right, Ben, since you now write:

”You did nothing of the sort on either count, and it was your annoying insistence that you were right on both instances that led to the ugliness in the first place”, I will gently walk you through what expired on the threads we are talking about. It does not belong to this specific thread, but I thought Iīd save you the embarrasment of creating a ”Is Ben pathologically disinclined to realize that he can be wrong-thread”.

So here they are again, the deploring exchanges over the coat and the gas lamp, in excerpts (I realize that you will say that I have chosen all the wrong excepts to make you look bad, but there is really not the space to copy and paste it all here. Anyways, those who need to check can easily do so – it is all on the boards).

When I stated that a cutaway was a garment that got itīs name from the fact that the lower portion of cloth on both sides of the front of a jacket are cut away, leaving a rounded shape, and NOT from the garment being equipped with tails, you responded:

”A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away into a pair of tails behind”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 351)

...and followed it up with...

”No tails = no cutaway. Fact.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 351)

Thus you locked yourself in a position where you claimed that there HAD to be tails on a cutaway jacket. This was not true: anybody looking at the facts would soon realize that fashion actually prescribed the use of a tight-fitting cutaway jacket with NO tails back in 1888. But you would have none of it, which is why I stated that I would keep posting evidence until you saw sense. You retorted with the interesting phrase:

”Don't you dare threaten me, you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 361)

...adding:

”Even if an expert turned up and told me that a panda costume counts as a cutaway, you still don't get to place a cutaway on the suspect because the evidence is 100% not there. Bad luck for you. Rotton beastly luck.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 361)

...and to make matters worse, you wrote:

”If a cutaway doesn't have tails, then a Victorian man observing it at a distance in darkended conditions will not refer to it as a cutaway.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 361)

...and:

”If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle, and if that coat had tails, it would be a cutaway as accepted convention defines.”

Some posts later, you wrote:

”Because if it didn't have a tail, it wouldn't be a proper cutaway.”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 389)

Interestingly, this seemed to allow for the existance of an ”improper” cutaway, with no tails, showing that you were finally seeing some sense, something that was born out in a later post when you wrote:

”It could have lacked tails, Fish, I grant ye”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 412)

...but you could not resist adding:

”but given that Marshall was able to specify "cutaway" in very poor lighting conditions and from a distance, my guess is that the garment must have been rather obviously a cutaway”
(Whats the compelling feature-thread, post 412)

...which was of course plain silly – a cutaway is, as I stated in the beginning, given away NOT by any tails, but by the cutaway portions of cloth on the front.

This, effectively, shows that I did exactly what I said I did – I proved you wrong on the issue. There WERE cutaway jackets with no tails in 1888, and I proved it, end of story.

To add some salt to your wounds, I might add that your initial stance on the topic – that the jacket Marshalls man wore MUST have had tails – is very interestin when one listens to your arguments about Astrakhan man: Such a toff is an obvious invention, since fancy dressed people were very uncommon in the district. But you had no problems championing the opinion that the man Marshall saw on the same East end streets would have worn a jacket with tails on it...?

Right, having settled that, letīs move on to the next issue: The gas lamp stuff. I originally stated that there would have been bright gas lamps in existance in 1888. I never said that they would have existed in Dorset Street, but I suggested that since they were about, we could not rule that possibility out.

Your answer? You wrote:

”They were not powerful. They were open flames, not the gas mantles that appeared from the 1890s onwards. It doesn't matter how great the light intensity was. Positing the existance of "powerful" gas lamps when we know there were no such thing in 1888 renders you at best forgetful and at worst a wilful liar.
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 353)

So, there I was, painted out as a wilful liar or simply ignorant, for stating the truth. Of course, I disliked this suggestion on your behalf, and insisted that you were wrong when you said categorically that powerful gas lamps did not exist at the time.

That did not stop you, did it? You raved on:

”Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation.
There were not powerful lamps available.
You need to revise your terminology.”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 356)

I took your advice and added the word ”Bray lamp” to my terminology, providing you with a clip from Youtube that showed you that there WERE gas lamps around in 1888, providing great light. You laughed the clip off the boards, stating:

”The Bray lamp does not shine brightly.”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 358)

I dug up the light force of the Bray lamp, and was able to tell you that it emitted around 700-800 watts of light, and where did that get me?

You wrote:

”Again, you are either delusional or a very wreckless, blustering liar, and all because you're pathologically desperate to score points. It's been recognised by others; you leach on to certain posters like some sickly stalker, following them around everywhere they post, and then try to deny it when its picked up upon by others.
I made the point that 800 watt braybuners were not in use on the streets of London, and I was right”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 384)

Whoa! What happened there? Exactly: When you realized that you had been caught with your pants down, you changed the premises, now no longer claiming that there were no bright gas lamps about in 1888.

I of course pointed this out to you, saying:

What you have been doing so far, Ben, is to say that bright gas lamps did not exist back in 1888.

Your answer this time? Guess what:

”No, with respect Fish, I didn't say that.
I said they weren't "around" in 1888, i.e. not in use for street lighting.”
(George Hutchinson – a simple question-thread, post 413)

And there ends THAT particular saga – one more time showing the deplorable antics you resort to when you realize that the game is up.
This brings us back to the last words of your latest post:
”No, I'm not accusing you of obsessing over my posts, but it really doesn't aid your cause to make those sorts of statements and then wonder why people lose their rag with you.”

Suddenly you are not saying that I am obsessive with your posts, but very little time has passed since you wrote ” it can get a little predictable when you choose to target my observations specifically for disagreement irrespective of subject matter. You're quite happy to leave people alone who argue with some vehemance that Tabram isn't a ripper victim, a point you would challange naturally, but you'd happily overlook that in favour of targetting one specific point I made about Druitt and cricket”, implying the exact opposite.

Incidentally, people do not generally ”lose their rag” with me, Ben. You do, but it only rarely happens with other posters.

Now, Ben, there are two ways open to you on the issue of who was right and who was wrong on the topics of the cutaway and the gas lamp. You can keep claiming that you were right all along and that it was my ”annoying insistence” that I was right that caused the uglyness of the exchanges, or you can admit that I actually WAS right in both cases.

But then again, you just canīt stomach the latter alternative, can you?

Fisherman

[Monty]

I really enjoyed listening to the podcast. You all sound lot less scarey than you sometimes do in print. That's a compliment, by the way.
Druitt starting a cricket match at 11.30? That's a bit more doubtful. Was his team batting or fielding first, or don't we know? Unlike football, you can manage quite well until you're needed. Having played a lot of amateur cricket, it's quite usual for at least one player to be late on parade. If you're batting first, he might not have been needed for an hour or two. If you're fielding first, a 12th man will usually be found to hang around the outfield. There is no guarantee Druitt was there from the start, even tho his name appeared on the scorecard.
Not that I believe Druitt was JTR for a single moment.

Jez,

I agree, staring at 11.30am is indeed unsual. We only did it towards the end of the season, when the nights were drawing in. Which is roughly the time of year this game was held.

Blackheath batted first, and Druitt seems to have been promoted up the order, in at 3 or 4 is memory serves me right. Judging by the early order collapse Id say he was there from the begining. He made only 2 and, relying on memory (I saw the scorecard only last night), there seems to be a bit of a tail wag towards the end of the innings.

Anyways, Blackheaths score of just over a hundred odd, combined with Christophersons score of 90 odd, makes it a low scoring and quickly dealt with game of around 50 overs per side.

Monty

[Fisherman]

What I would do to understand the riddle of cricket...! Alas, it is something we Swedes will never do.
I actually saw a game of cricket once, in Scotland; Spean Bridge to be exact. Afterwards, me and my girlfriend had a turkey dinner at the local hotel.
I never understood either of the two, the cricket or the turkey. One of them was stuffed, but Iīm damned if I can remember which.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So here they are again, the deploring exchanges over the coat and the gas lamp, in excerpts (I realize that you will say that I have chosen all the wrong excepts to make you look bad, but there is really not the space to copy and paste it all here. Anyways, those who need to check can easily do so – it is all on the boards).

You really are a zealot, Fisherman.

I absolutely cannot believe that you can be so obsessively entrenched in your stalkerish battle to "prove me wrong". For someone who gets so twitchy about being accused of having vendettas against certain posters, you really aren't helping your cause. The accepted dictionary definition of a cutaway refers to a garment with tails. Remove the tails, and it isn't a cutaway in the coventional sense and certainly wouldn't be referred to a such by anyone noticing a tail-less garment at a distance. You certainly didn't demonstrate any fashion in tailless cutaways. When you quote me as having said:

A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away into a pair of tails behind

That is because it derives from an actual dictionary definition, but then of course that was quickly discarded because it was inconvenient to your theory. Then you wonder why I get a little a angry when you keep regurgitating something that I couldn't possibly agree with until I "give in". It's an insipid, bullying and desperate tactic, and I'm not surprised that I responded with hostility. If you'd spoken to me in that manner to my face, I would have injured you.

which was of course plain silly – a cutaway is, as I stated in the beginning, given away NOT by any tails, but by the cutaway portions of cloth on the front.

...Which runs contrary to the definition of a cutaway, which states that the tails are a distrinctive characteristic of the garment. But by all means keep claiming that you've "proven me wrong" like it's your crowning goal in life, despite your not having done anything of the sort, keep ruining threads by introducing earlier threads that you're paranoid you failed to get the last word in at the time, and keep wondering why people get irritated.

But you had no problems championing the opinion that the man Marshall saw on the same East end streets would have worn a jacket with tails on it...?

That's because you could easily wear hand me-down cutaways and convey a shabby genteel appearance. Just think of Fagin and the Artful Dodger in Oliver! They wore shabby morning coats with tails. This isn't remotely comparable to the recorded physical particulars of Mr. Astrakhan. Again, you say you're rubbing salt in my wounds - besdies making me giggle mirthlessly, this goes back to the sort of "I've won the argument" gloating that myself and others have noticed. It isn't going to wash, because I disagree with you. Really "wounded", Fish. In agony actually. Uh huh.

I took your advice and added the word ”Bray lamp” to my terminology, providing you with a clip from Youtube that showed you that there WERE gas lamps around in 1888, providing great light

Haha.

Fisherman, if you think I was the only one to appreciate the sheer absurdity of the suggestion that your youtube example provided "great light", you're as deluded as you'll ever be. The "great light" you were referring to couldn't even illuminate the room. All you could see was a small light with darkness all around it, and at its largest "flicker" you could see the outline a room. Good luck sticking that on a pole on a rainy night in Victorian London.

You then did my work for me and proved yourself wrong with the quote you provided: "British gas companies responded to the threat from electric lighting by developing a number of brighter gas lamps, such as Sugg's lamp of 80 c.p., Siemen's regenerative gas lamp of 130 to 400 c.p., and Bray's lamp of 500 c.p. While this helped recapture the streets, in London a test using these lamps to replace the rejected electric lighting systems was also in turn rejected, because it cost 3-4 times more, despite the much brighter light obtained [7, X, pp. 380, 507]. The well-lit London of 1881-82 became dark again, such that one traveller commented in 1884 "I know nothing more dismal than to be transplanted from the brilliantly illuminated avenues of New York to the dull and dark streets of London"

Street lamps were not bright in 1888, as your sources informed us, but you didn't have the good grace of the humility to acknowledge this. You were horn-locked, far too determined to try to get one over on Big Bad Ben, and it resulting in your overlooked the fact that bright gas lamps were not on the streets of London in 1888.

And there ends THAT particular saga – one more time showing the deplorable antics you resort to when you realize that the game is up.

These statement are to painfully embarrassing to behond, Fisherman. Really they are. This is what I mean about injuring your credibility so badly all the time "Haha, I've won the argument because I say so and I demand that you acknowledge it". No, Fisherman, I don't get angry because I "realize the game is up". I get angry because of your antagonistic style, as exhibited most beautifully here.

And for a final hilarious illustration of your paranoia:

Now, Ben, there are two ways open to you on the issue of who was right and who was wrong on the topics....admit that I actually WAS right in both cases.

Well no because, shattering to your underserved ego this may be, I thought I was right and you wer wrong. The fact that you've reintroduced two earlier acrimonious debates on a thread addressing a recent podcast is frankly more damning evidence in support of my "Fisherman has an ego, and is obsessed with people acknowledging that he is proven right when he isn't so follows certain people around" theory.

And now here we are again. Another tiresome Ben versus Fisherman war, and I forsee many a long irrelevent anger-filled post to come.

Shame, and all because of one little word.

[Ben]

Yes, Ben, that is exactly what your logic dictates if you are consistent. You extrapolate from one week to a month. So why not extrapolate to six years?

Because you need examine the time frame in relation to the number of times Druitt can be pinpointed to a specific location. We have done so and noted that he appears five, porssibly six times on the historical record within the space of a month. If you consider that evidence in terms of a ratio - the length of time against the number of references - that isn't bad material to work with, especially in a 120 year old case. Yet none of those happened to coincide with him staying in London where he lived, but rather all happened in Dorset Street.

I'm confident of the simplest explanation to that connundrum, but I'll cheerfully agree to disagree.

And to use your argument: are we certain that Abberline really remained in close communication with those in SY after he left the force as he claimed?

Yes. We know he was in communication with Macnaghten from his 1903 Pall Mall Gazzette article, and we learn from Abberline's own words that he was appraised of all the information pertaining to the case. If he claimed to know "all about" I see little reason to doubt him. I don't think Abberline did pick an inexplicably unlikely suspect. I'm not a big Klosowski fan by any means, but he's one of the better police suspect to my mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I absolutely cannot believe that you can be so obsessively entrenched in your stalkerish battle to "prove me wrong"."

Well, Ben, calling your opponent a wilful liar although you are patently wrong produces such things.

Interestingly, you bring up this:

"You then did my work for me and proved yourself wrong with the quote you provided: "British gas companies responded to the threat from electric lighting by developing a number of brighter gas lamps, such as Sugg's lamp of 80 c.p., Siemen's regenerative gas lamp of 130 to 400 c.p., and Bray's lamp of 500 c.p. While this helped recapture the streets, in London a test using these lamps to replace the rejected electric lighting systems was also in turn rejected, because it cost 3-4 times more, despite the much brighter light obtained [7, X, pp. 380, 507]. The well-lit London of 1881-82 became dark again, such that one traveller commented in 1884 "I know nothing more dismal than to be transplanted from the brilliantly illuminated avenues of New York to the dull and dark streets of London"

This, Ben, is sooo typical of you. You thanked me in an ironic fashion when I published that text, thinking me an idiot for doing so. But my purpose lies less in thrashing your back than in revealing as much of the truth as I can possibly do, and since the text emphatically belonged to the discussion, I shared it. Your reaction was to gloat in it, and you should have refrained from that - for the discussion was about whether there were bright gas lamps about in 1888, and there was. You denied it out of ignorance, and I proved you wrong, once again not for the pleasure of seing you loose an argument (though at that time, I did not mind that part very much) but for the benefit of the boards and the collected knowledge.

Now, please explain once again to me how your sentences ”Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation. There were not powerful lamps available.”
...can tie in with your later assertion ”No, with respect Fish, I didn't say that.
I said they weren't "around" in 1888, i.e. not in use for street lighting.”

You did no such thing – you were, as anybody can see, totally ignorant of it, thinking that powerful gas lamps were not available in 1888, and you know what, Ben? It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Big Bad Ben, eh? Iīd say that dead scared little Bennie applies better – your disability to admit when you are wrong is more typical of a toddler in the bedwetting stages that of a man who will take the consequences of his mistakes. And if I am not mistaken, you are trying to do something along the same lines to Chris and Andy right now. Tight, huh? I know whatīs tight here Ben, but you canīt see it for physical reasons.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"The fact that you've reintroduced two earlier acrimonious debates on a thread addressing a recent podcast is frankly more damning evidence in support of my "Fisherman has an ego, and is obsessed with people acknowledging that he is proven right when he isn't so follows certain people around" theory.
And now here we are again. Another tiresome Ben versus Fisherman war, and I forsee many a long irrelevent anger-filled post to come."

For reminders, Ben, you introduced the hostilities on the thread by implying that my reason for debating the subject of the thread was to get at you instead of out of an interest to contribute to the discussion. It took you two or three post to turn from calling my point a good one to start your old paranoid delusion thing again. So donīt blame me for diverting the thread - you do that very well yourself every now and then, donīt you?

Fisherman

[Ben]

although you are patently wrong produces such things

Again with this "I've proven you wrong" delusion, which is completely obsessive. If you can try to avoid that fixation, we'll get along fine. I didn't introduce any hostilities on this thread, I just wondered aloud why you didn't seize upon the observations of others who you must also have disagreed with. Prior to this discussion, I had no inkling of any conflict; nothing could have been further from my mind when I expressed the opinion that it would have been tight for Druitt to have made it back from Hanbury Street to play cricket. It is implausible for many reasons, but since all of those reasons are inextricably linked to the issue of timing, I used the word "tight" - tight for the proposition to be plausible.

I intended no ill-will when I expressed that opinion, and for you to make insulting remarks about it now is hideously inappropriate. I didn't intend for an endless debate to ensue purely as a consequence of me using a single word, but because I can seemingly hypnotise people into that sort of interminable debate at the click of the mouse and essentially dictate their internet activity for days, here we still are.

You denied it out of ignorance, and I proved you wrong, once again not for the pleasure of seing you loose an argument

Hmmm, again with that central theme of "proving me wrong".

Besides being wrong, it's not helpful to either healthy relations or healthy discussion.

Can't you see that there's a direct correlation between vitriol and those outlandish claims you make over and over again. I don't believe for a moment that you've proved me wrong, as your own sources demonstrate, and when you insist in a gloating manner that they have, I get very stroppy.

Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful.

Well, the gas mantle was only introduced in 1891 which would have been considered powerful even my today's standard, which wouldn't have been true of their flame predecessors. At the time of the murders in 1888, we learn that London was dark on account of poor lighting, occasioned by the fact that "powerful" lamps were not "available" on the streets of London in 1888.

your disability to admit when you are wrong is more typical of a toddler in the bedwetting stages

Which takes us back to yout central obsession, and the reason I strongly suspect that you'll use any thread to extend your obvious vendetta against me. I fondly recall how you engaged in your usual aggressive, hectoring "I'm right, you're wrong!" style of dogma when I proposed Fleming as a strong ripper candidate. You tried to shout me down, insisting that he wasn't...and he's now your favourite suspect.

I'm "dead scared", Fish. Really I am.

It took you two or three post to turn from calling my point a good one to start your old paranoid delusion thing again.

I wondered why you always seize upon my observations for disagreement when there are certainly other points raised in the thread that you must also disagree with. You know full well that I never initiate any hostilities. All you were looking for was an excuse to continue them.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
" Prior to this discussion, I had no inkling of any conflict"

Nor did I, Ben - it all started with your inability to take a critical post from my side for what it was - a contribution to the debate.

"for you to make insulting remarks about it now is hideously inappropriate"

Yeah - coming from a man who calls fellow posters "subhuman" that kind of lacks subtlety, Ben...

"I don't believe for a moment that you've proved me wrong"

How hard can it be, Ben? You stated "”Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation. There were not powerful lamps available", and I provided you with 800 watts of enlightenment. If that is not powerful, I donīt know what is. You WERE wrong, Ben, you ARE every once in a while, just as I am. I really does not hurt all that much to admit it. Try for one sodding time - just one! - and you will see what I am talking about.
And once again, I am not obsessed with calling you wrong - I am obsessed with the idea that we should favour correct information over prestige and ignorance on these threads. Powerful gas lamps were about in 1888, and had been so for a number of years. Take it in, please. It will not go away. It just wonīt.

"I fondly recall how you engaged in your usual aggressive, hectoring "I'm right, you're wrong!" style of dogma when I proposed Fleming as a strong ripper candidate. You tried to shout me down, insisting that he wasn't...and he's now your favourite suspect."

...which is why I wrote an article in Ripperologist, freely admitting that I had thought the idea silly before, but that I had changed my mind. I phrased it "I may have been wrong". If I had had any certainty on the whole thing, I would have phrased it "I was wrong".
See? I can do it. But you canīt, not for the life of you.

"I'm "dead scared", Fish. Really I am."

I know, Ben. I have realized that by now. And like I say, itīs not something you should have to expose yourself to. Just admit for once when you are wrong, and it will all go away. Promise!

"I wondered why you always seize upon my observations for disagreement when there are certainly other points raised in the thread that you disagree with."

It was a daft thing to do, Ben, especially since you have been trying to paint me out as a psychotic stalker before. Did you really believe that I would let such a thing go unchallenged, silently accepting it? Did you? And yes, I know that people were writing on the thread that Tabram is no Ripper victim. But must I pounce on everything that goes against my convictions? I think not. I was already engaged in debates with three other posters who I had challenged on a couple of things. And if people want to believe Tabram was not Jacks, then that choice of theirs is something that is very hard to disprove, and I have done my fair share of trying.
To add the notion that the repercussions of an adrenalin kick may keep you wide awake for hours and perhaps days on end is another thing altogether, and it genuinely belonged to the discussion on this very thread, since it was suggested that the Ripper would have been worn out and tired after the Chapman strike.

So, Ben - were there powerful gas lamps around in 1888? And did you, or did you not state that there were not? Therein lies the rub.
The simple and obvious answers to those questions are already on the table. And the material is of such a character that it leaves no room for interpretations - 800 watt is something you canīt argue as being a weak light.
You take pleasure in speaking about me being obsessed, donīt you, Ben? So let me tell you that the only obsession that has emerged while I put the facts on that table, is your obsession not to be exposed as ignorant on the topic. It has done you no good, however, as I have shown by now. Youīre exposed on the matter, Ben, and you must somehow come to terms with that.

Fisherman

[jmenges]

Hi all,

So, am I to believe a thread exists somewhere about lamps and cutaways?

If so, maybe we can waltz over in that direction and leave this thread for discussion of the elimination of the suspects podcast.

Thanks!

JM

[Ben]

Nor did I, Ben - it all started with your inability to take a critical post from my side for what it was - a contribution to the debate.

I don't fault you for that, and I recognised your good point at the time, but then you had to keep plugging away when you could have been addressing the arguments of other contributors to the debate which you must also have disagreed with.

Yeah - coming from a man who calls fellow posters "subhuman" that kind of lacks subtlety, Ben...

But you're going to get called those things if you say, in effect "Haha, I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't accept it I'll just keep relentlessly repeating it" because that sort of antagonism is simply maddening, for obvious reasons.

Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful.

Since we're talking about gas lamps on streets, it should have been startling obvious that those were the types of lamp I was referring to. I doubt very much that they would be considered especially powerful today. Of course I didn't mean - and didn't say - that powerful light in general couldn't be generated; all you had to do was light a bonfire.

You quote me again:

There were not powerful lamps available

And they weren't. Not on the streets of 1888 London, which was what we were discussing, as we learn from that source you dredged up, for which I was sincere in expressing my thanks, not "gloating". If you'd presented that piece of useful evidence without the invasive agenda of an unsuccessful attempt to prove me wrong, we'd have actually learned something interesting.

So no, I don't think I was wrong on that issue, and I respectfully submit that it is rather obvious that I'm not. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of "being" wrong and revising my opinion, as I have in the past when comteplating issues such as the Lusk Letter. The opposing argument was more persuasive than my own, I felt, so I changed my mind.

Glad the same thing happened to you viz a viz Fleming.

"I'm "dead scared", Fish. Really I am."

I know, Ben. I have realized that by now.

Oh petrified, Fish. Which is why I get so intimidated by onslaughts from people sitting at their computers on the internet, and meekly back down all the time...

So, Ben - were there powerful gas lamps around in 1888?

No, mate.

Not on the streets of London.

We've learned that from a source you were kind enough to look up and share with us. I had an inkling that this might have been the case, and you found the source. Great stuff. We've all learned something as a result of your research efforts.

Ben

[Fisherman]

TWO threads, actually, jmenges. And you have a point, admittedly.

The best,
Fisherman