A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[harry]

The stupidity Paul ,is the claim now made by Herlock that all unfortunates were prostitutes.Do you agree with Herlock.?Do the other posters that support you agree with Herlock?.Do'nt be shy ,answer the question honestly.
Herlock,all these examples simply show that SOME unfortunates were prostitutes,something i've never contested.Your own side has claimed there were 1200 prostitutes in Whitechapel,so that equates to 1200 unfortunates in Whitechapel,men,women,and children,no more ,accepting your claim that all unfortunates were prostitutes. To claim that there were more tha 1200 unfortunates in Whitechapel would invalidate your claim.So are you and those supporting you stating there were just 1200 unfortunates,men,women,and children. You have had a clear and honest response to your claim,lets see if you give a honest response to mine.

[Mark J D]

The stupidity Paul ,is the claim now made by Herlock that all unfortunates were prostitutes.Do you agree with Herlock.?Do the other posters that support you agree with Herlock?.Do'nt be shy ,answer the question honestly.
Herlock,all these examples simply show that SOME unfortunates were prostitutes,something i've never contested.Your own side has claimed there were 1200 prostitutes in Whitechapel,so that equates to 1200 unfortunates in Whitechapel,men,women,and children,no more ,accepting your claim that all unfortunates were prostitutes. To claim that there were more tha 1200 unfortunates in Whitechapel would invalidate your claim.So are you and those supporting you stating there were just 1200 unfortunates,men,women,and children. You have had a clear and honest response to your claim,lets see if you give a honest response to mine.

Anyone who responds to this pathetic slug-trail of illiteracy, amnesia and trolling is a fool.

Sorry to be putting it in such terms; but all of you on sanity's side really do have better things to do on this site. Please do them. And please let this be the end -- the very end -- of all attempts to engage with the verbal spattercrap of someone who clearly speaks language as a foreign language.

M.

[Ms Diddles]

Anyone who responds to this pathetic slug-trail of illiteracy, amnesia and trolling is a fool.

Sorry to be putting it in such terms; but all of you on sanity's side really do have better things to do on this site. Please do them. And please let this be the end -- the very end -- of all attempts to engage with the verbal spattercrap of someone who clearly speaks language as a foreign language.

M.

Hi Mark,

Whilst Harry and I remain firmly entrenched on opposite sides of the fence on this issue (and I find his stance rather mystifying, to say the least), I do not for a second believe that he is actively trolling anyone.

Slagging off someone's literacy and use of language, as well as alleging amnesia (and brain injury as per a previous post) is vindictive and unnecessary.

Personally I see no need for these cheap shots!

Your post comes across rather supercilious.

[PaulB]

The stupidity Paul ,is the claim now made by Herlock that all unfortunates were prostitutes.Do you agree with Herlock.?Do the other posters that support you agree with Herlock?.Do'nt be shy ,answer the question honestly.
Herlock,all these examples simply show that SOME unfortunates were prostitutes,something i've never contested.Your own side has claimed there were 1200 prostitutes in Whitechapel,so that equates to 1200 unfortunates in Whitechapel,men,women,and children,no more ,accepting your claim that all unfortunates were prostitutes. To claim that there were more tha 1200 unfortunates in Whitechapel would invalidate your claim.So are you and those supporting you stating there were just 1200 unfortunates,men,women,and children. You have had a clear and honest response to your claim,lets see if you give a honest response to mine.

Harry,
The term "an unfortunate" was a euphemism for "prostitute". When a woman was described as an unfortunate or described herself as an unfortunate, she meant a prostitute. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

If you find comfort in believing that you have responded clearly to anything I have said, go ahead, but I have had enough of your nonsense.

[PaulB]

Hi Mark,

Whilst Harry and I remain firmly entrenched on opposite sides of the fence on this issue (and I find his stance rather mystifying, to say the least), I do not for a second believe that he is actively trolling anyone.

Slagging off someone's literacy and use of language, as well as alleging amnesia (and brain injury as per a previous post) is vindictive and unnecessary.

Personally I see no need for these cheap shots!

Your post comes across rather supercilious.

Ms Diddles,
I think you're right that Harry isn't trolling anyone, but I didn't read Mark's comments as literally meaning that Harry was illiterate or suffering from amnesia, but as a reference to Harry's feigned inability to understand and failure to remember what's been written to him, often in painstaking detail. If Harry really was illiterate and suffering from amnesia then Mark's words would have been extremely cruel, but I think it's become clear to everyone that Harry's pulling every stunt he can think of to avoid admitting that he's wrong.

[harry]

Thank you Ms Diddles. Nice to know some posters have a sense of decency.No stunts I assure you, and no,I am not wrong.
Let me explain.The population of Whitechapel is given as between 50000 and 90000.Sites differ,and it is difficullt to get a true number.Let us take the lowest 50000,and accept the figure of 1200 prostitutes,as has been given.That equates to about 2.4% of the population of Whitechapel being prostitutes.,
Now lets take the figure of 8000 classed as unfortunates,and that would be an under value.That equates to 16% of the population of Whitechapel.
So accepting Paul and Herlocks claim that an unfortunate and a prostitute are one and the same,there should have been at least 16% or 8000 prostitutes in Whitechapel.There wasn't.They are wrong.

[PaulB]

And calling posters liars and dishonest... And refusing to apologise when proved to be wrong... I wonder what that's called.

I believe you have already been asked to provide the source of your figures. It'll come as a shock to learn that you haven't provided it.

[Ms Diddles]

Ms Diddles,
I think you're right that Harry isn't trolling anyone, but I didn't read Mark's comments as literally meaning that Harry was illiterate or suffering from amnesia, but as a reference to Harry's feigned inability to understand and failure to remember what's been written to him, often in painstaking detail. If Harry really was illiterate and suffering from amnesia then Mark's words would have been extremely cruel, but I think it's become clear to everyone that Harry's pulling every stunt he can think of to avoid admitting that he's wrong.

I'm honestly not sure, Paul!

Personally I read the post rather differently.

I guess only Mark knows exactly how it was intended.

I'm firmly onside with yourself and Herlock (and I think Mark!) in terms of this debate, but there was something in the tone of that post that made me bare my teeth as I felt it was unnecessarily vicious towards Harry.

Anyway, I don't wanna derail the thread.......

[Ms Diddles]

Thank you Ms Diddles. Nice to know some posters have a sense of decency.No stunts I assure you, and no,I am not wrong.
Let me explain.The population of Whitechapel is given as between 50000 and 90000.Sites differ,and it is difficullt to get a true number.Let us take the lowest 50000,and accept the figure of 1200 prostitutes,as has been given.That equates to about 2.4% of the population of Whitechapel being prostitutes.,
Now lets take the figure of 8000 classed as unfortunates,and that would be an under value.That equates to 16% of the population of Whitechapel.
So accepting Paul and Herlocks claim that an unfortunate and a prostitute are one and the same,there should have been at least 16% or 8000 prostitutes in Whitechapel.There wasn't.They are wrong.

You're welcome Harry, but please can I echo the others in requesting that you show your sources for these stats?

It's impossible to assess properly without having the full picture.

[PaulB]

I'm honestly not sure, Paul!

Personally I read the post rather differently.

I guess only Mark knows exactly how it was intended.

I'm firmly onside with yourself and Herlock (and I think Mark!) in terms of this debate, but there was something in the tone of that post that made me bare my teeth as I felt it was unnecessarily vicious towards Harry.

Anyway, I don't wanna derail the thread.......

I don't think you are derailing the thread, and I've rarely come across a thread in greater need of being derailed than this one. And I must confess to having very nearly expressed myself less than politely at some of the games Harry's been playing, and accusing Herlock and myself of being a liar and dishonest didn't make Mark's comments look all that unnecessarily vicious. All of which shows the direction in which this thread was heading, so some cool-headed advice was both necessary and welcome.

Personally, I think we've all done as much as we can to explain and justify the facts to Harry, and he's taking the whole discussion further down the rabbit hole. It's probably best to let him continue that journey alone.