Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    I suggest you read it again.
    I've read it again, John's read it again, neither of us can work out what you meant when you said "Three".

    Tell you what, Simon, rather than play games, why not just explain what you meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    You'd do well in the Trump White House.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi David,

    Bizarre convo?
    It certainly was, Simon, if it went like this:

    John G: Please let me know if I've left out any options.

    Simon Wood: Three.


    Is that what "Three" was responsive to?

    Can you be more evasive?

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon G,

    At least David had the good grace to admit he stole that observation [about SRA] from me.

    Regarding your question, my answer is no.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon,

    Thank you for your straightforward reply. Personally I believe they were but I cannot be certain. And I'm beginning to think that some/ most of the opinions of the Victorian medicos should be taken with a pinch of salt, which makes the task of arriving at any form conclusions even harder.
    Last edited by John G; 08-04-2017, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    At least David had the good grace to admit he stole that observation [about SRA] from me.
    I didn't steal anything Simon. I applied it in a way that is far more appropriate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    I suggest you read it again.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    Bizarre convo?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    What do you mean when you say there was a Jack the Ripper?
    Much to your disappointment, no doubt, Simon, I haven't said that.

    Nor have I written a book in which I said that.

    You are the one who wrote the book, this is a thread about that book, so what do you mean when you say there is no Jack the Ripper?

    And you are surely aware that I'm saying you don't actually know what you mean aren't you? In fact, you haven't got a clue. You can't articulate it, even in a book of nearly 600 pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon G,

    At least David had the good grace to admit he stole that observation [about SRA] from me.

    Regarding your question, my answer is no.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Well, John, like I said in my "Reconstructing Jack" article:

    "One does not so much read Simon Wood as decode him"



    (Simon once said this about Robert Anderson for anyone who doesn't get the reference.)
    Good analysis, David. I'm reminded of what the Evening News said about Joseph Levy, who apparently was withholding some secret information: "...He assumes a knowing air." Personally, I don't think he knew anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    I'm sure he could have conjured up another three alternatives, so he was probably answering that question I posed in the last sentence.
    So you think the conversation went like this:

    John G: Please let me know if I've left out any options.

    Simon Wood: Three.


    That strikes me as one bizarre convo.

    But, hey, let's ask Simon. Is that how it went?

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi David,

    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    John G thanked me for my reply and clarification." Post #329. Of course, he could have been being impish.
    Yes, Simon, he did, but as has now been established, he didn't actually know what you meant.

    I assume you can read his post #342.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    I'm sure he could have conjured up another three alternatives, so he was probably answering that question I posed in the last sentence. But who knows with Cryptic Simon. In fact, I'm thinking about writing a book entitled, "Deconstructing Simon Wood." What do you think?
    Well, John, like I said in my "Reconstructing Jack" article:

    "One does not so much read Simon Wood as decode him"



    (Simon once said this about Robert Anderson for anyone who doesn't get the reference.)

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon G,

    "I'm thinking about writing a book entitled, 'Deconstructing Simon Wood'."

    I wish you the very best of luck with that project.

    Please let me know if I can assist.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Thanks for the encouragement, Simon. And I'm sure your assistance would be invaluable.

    As an aside, do you think that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same person?
    Last edited by John G; 08-04-2017, 02:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon G,

    "I'm thinking about writing a book entitled, 'Deconstructing Simon Wood'."

    I wish you the very best of luck with that project.

    Please let me know if I can assist.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X