Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    I have read the above Herlock,and I see no reason for an appolgy.Unfortunates were not neccessaily prostitues because they were unfortunates.Fact.You have been answered.
    Now back to my question,which you are avoiding with your distractions.Do you have evidence the victims were prostitutes,or do you merely suspect they were?
    The worst thing you can do Herlock is keep relying on Paul.It shows lack of confidence in yourself,as well as showing poor judgement.
    I chose you ahead of Trevor and Paul for a one on one discussion, because I am of the opinion you would be more honest,and because I felt you had a better knowledge of the subject.Do'nt let posters down.
    So do not give up hope,just choose better advisors.
    Absolutely staggering!

    Absolutely dishonest!

    You called me a liar and asked me to PROVE that you indeed had said that Unfortunates were not specifically prostitutes. So you actually said that you HADN’T said it.

    I proved that you HAD said it and I provided the quote.

    And you still won’t acknowledge what every single poster on here can see with their own eyes.

    Sorry Harry but that stinks. I expected better.

    ​​​​​​…….



    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    I have read the above Herlock,and I see no reason for an appolgy.Unfortunates were not neccessaily prostitues because they were unfortunates.Fact.You have been answered.
    Now back to my question,which you are avoiding with your distractions.Do you have evidence the victims were prostitutes,or do you merely suspect they were?
    The worst thing you can do Herlock is keep relying on Paul.It shows lack of confidence in yourself,as well as showing poor judgement.
    I chose you ahead of Trevor and Paul for a one on one discussion, because I am of the opinion you would be more honest,and because I felt you had a better knowledge of the subject.Do'nt let posters down.
    So do not give up hope,just choose better advisors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    Pretending not to know what he has to apologise and pretending it has something to do with Trevor is classic avoidance. Not apologising might be excusable if it wasn't for the fact that he also ignored my own demand that he justify a false accusation. In fact, Harry never responds to replies, he just moves on to something else. It's all diversionary tactics to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that he's wrong. Anyway, quite right, I have no suspect. In fact, although Trevor favoured Feigenbaum, I think I'm right in saying that he doesn't really have a suspect now either.
    I’ve pretty much given up hope that Harry will even acknowledge point Paul. But that appears to be the deliberate plan. It’s not possible that he can’t understand it as I’ve posted it 3 times now and in plain English.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Yep! That's kinda how I see it!

    Leave a comment:


  • mpriestnall
    replied
    https://photos.costume-works.com/ful...n_the_box4.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Firstly, and this is a distraction, Paul has no 'suspect' as far as I'm aware.
    Pretending not to know what he has to apologise and pretending it has something to do with Trevor is classic avoidance. Not apologising might be excusable if it wasn't for the fact that he also ignored my own demand that he justify a false accusation. In fact, Harry never responds to replies, he just moves on to something else. It's all diversionary tactics to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that he's wrong. Anyway, quite right, I have no suspect. In fact, although Trevor favoured Feigenbaum, I think I'm right in saying that he doesn't really have a suspect now either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Apology for what Herlock? Yes I have respect for Trevor.I beleve his suspect has more merit than Pauls,but both fall short of being convincing.Take Trevor's comment above,what were they waiting for alone on the streets at that time of the night.I do not know.Does anyone?Trevor doesn't say.How should I respond to comments so vague as that.Prostitution took place in daylight hours too.Should I suspect all women alone in the daylight hours to be prostitutes.
    You write Herlock,I can't be bothered to do the same reading as the rest of us.What reading and who ,are you referring to?You make a claim,omit any reference to that claim,then accuse me of not answering.How can I answer to things you do not state.Ms Diddles can assert all she wants,and be as confident as she wishes,it means nothing unless it is accmpanied by proof.I'll budge,Ms Diddles when someone gives me cause to.
    So Herlock,do you know the victims were prostitutes in the time leading up to their deaths and were soliciting the nights of their deaths,or do you just suspect they were? No long ramblings or references to the princes in the tower needed to answer that question.
    Firstly, and this is a distraction, Paul has no ‘suspect’ as far as I’m aware.

    Secondly, I have never said that it’s an issue that you have respect for Trevor.

    Thirdly, you refuse to accept any of the evidence that has been provided (including by Trevor) and you resort to repeatedly asking for it. So unless you’re expecting Trevor to go and remove any items from the files just so that he can provide them to you I fail to see what can be done.

    But worst of all Harry, you have blatantly avoided the point that I made. You just completely ignored it and this cannot be put down to error. It’s deliberate. I’ll try again.

    ​​​​​​……

    Ok Harry….. you said this:

    Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
    How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
    I'm waiting Herlock.
    Please read the above Harry. This is challenging me to show where you’ve said that ‘unfortunate’ didn’t mean ‘prostitute.’ You also accused me of lying about this.

    Have you read it Harry? It’s as clear as can be. No ambiguity here. You say at the end “I’m waiting Herlock.”

    So I then posted the proof that you demanded…

    . ,but the fact is there were thousands of women who were unfortunates and homeless(for those who wish to use statistics) who abstained from prostituting themselves.All or some of the five could have been among them.This obsession unfortuntes had to be prostitutes is akin to those who insisst a person who finds a body is automatically a suspect.Utterly futile reasoning
    Please read the above carefully Harry. There you are saying exactly what you denied saying. Saying what you accused me of lying about.

    ​​​​​​…..

    Now, I’ll say it again, are you going to continue avoiding what every single poster on here can see and understand? Or will you at the very least admit that you were wrong and that you shouldn’t have accused me of lying.

    Its impossible not to understand the above Harry. I can’t wait to hear how you try to continue avoiding acknowledging this.

    Im still waiting Harry.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-08-2021, 10:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Is that another 10 to one sitution Paul.You turning this into a betting occasion.You are hilarious at times.I would relish Herlock accepting a court situation.I doubt our exchanges will continue without reference to what a court would decide.Now let Herlock answer the last question I put to him.He is capable of doing so I presume.
    Nope. No betting. I was just reminding Herlock that he was dealing with the sort of person who contradicts himself within a few words and probably wouldn't have the awareness to realise that they'd said anything wrong even when it was pointed out to them.

    And you didn't apologise. And you asked what you had to apologise for.

    I'm sure Herlock is very capable of answering your question, Harry. It's a pity you're incapable of answering his. Or anyone else's.

    Everything has been patiently explained to you several times over, you don't understand it and, far worse, you don't want to understand it. You have made up your mind and, as Ms Diddles said, you're not 'going to budge an inch'. Is there any reason why anyone should bother discussing this with you further?

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Is that another 10 to one sitution Paul.You turning this into a betting occasion.You are hilarious at times.I would relish Herlock accepting a court situation.I doubt our exchanges will continue without reference to what a court would decide.Now let Herlock answer the last question I put to him.He is capable of doing so I presume.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I’m not usually an optimist Paul but I was hoping from for at least an acknowledgment from Harry that he was wrong. Or an apology for accusing me of lying when I clearly wasn’t.

    Sadly I was being too optimistic.

    Oh well.
    In the ordinary course of events, you'd have got an apology, but Harry never acknowledges when he's wrong or when he's been silly. He can say he doesn't want a court situation and in the next breath says he wants proof - proof, mark you - that would be acceptable to a court. And he says this despite being told over and over that the sort of proof he wants doesn't exist. He's clearly the sort who gets an idea in his head and repeats it over and over, sweeping aside everything anyone says until they leave him to believe whatever he wants to believe. Hoping for an apology was realistic, expecting to get one was optimistic, but you knew that.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Apology for what Herlock? Yes I have respect for Trevor.I beleve his suspect has more merit than Pauls,but both fall short of being convincing.Take Trevor's comment above,what were they waiting for alone on the streets at that time of the night.I do not know.Does anyone?Trevor doesn't say.How should I respond to comments so vague as that.Prostitution took place in daylight hours too.Should I suspect all women alone in the daylight hours to be prostitutes.
    You write Herlock,I can't be bothered to do the same reading as the rest of us.What reading and who ,are you referring to?You make a claim,omit any reference to that claim,then accuse me of not answering.How can I answer to things you do not state.Ms Diddles can assert all she wants,and be as confident as she wishes,it means nothing unless it is accmpanied by proof.I'll budge,Ms Diddles when someone gives me cause to.
    So Herlock,do you know the victims were prostitutes in the time leading up to their deaths and were soliciting the nights of their deaths,or do you just suspect they were? No long ramblings or references to the princes in the tower needed to answer that question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    Yes, it has become obvious that rational argument won’t work here. We can only discuss things with people who at least understand the basic arguments. Time to move on.
    I’m not usually an optimist Paul but I was hoping from for at least an acknowledgment from Harry that he was wrong. Or an apology for accusing me of lying when I clearly wasn’t.

    Sadly I was being too optimistic.

    Oh well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

    Wise words, Paul!

    We're all going to remain pretty confident in our assertion that the victims were indeed engaged in prostitution.

    Harry isn't going to budge an inch, and The Baron is going to continue to pop up sporadically like some kind of possessed jack in the box to stir the pot!!!

    Stalemate!!
    And sadly Ms D it appears that certain posters just won’t hold their hands up and admit when they’ve been categorically proved wrong on a specific issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    Yes, it has become obvious that rational argument won’t work here. We can only discuss things with people who at least understand the basic arguments. Time to move on.
    Wise words, Paul!

    We're all going to remain pretty confident in our assertion that the victims were indeed engaged in prostitution.

    Harry isn't going to budge an inch, and The Baron is going to continue to pop up sporadically like some kind of possessed jack in the box to stir the pot!!!

    Stalemate!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    You would lose Paul as i have replied to Herlocks claim.I do not need to repeat myself.
    I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation,so that get out is void.I am asking for a an investigative search ,by you ,to collect and display evidence and proof the five victims were prostitutes at a time before and on the night they were killed.
    You write Herlock the case has been made.On what evidence.Display that evidence if you have it or be honest enough to declare evidence doesn't exist.I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,so no cop out as you claim.
    'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes
    Whats the Princes in the tower,and Fred Smith to do with it.
    I have'nt made a demand for absolute proof,and your continuous claim the evidece we have,only makes you look a fool,when you fail to display evidence.
    So it's not a case of me putting up or shutting up,that task is up to you Herlock.
    Ok so you dont agree to them being labelled prostitutes lets call them "Ladies in waiting" but that still begs the question what were they waiting for at that time of the night on the streets all alone?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 12-07-2021, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X