Off Topic Arguing (moved)

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Caz

I think you miss understood my post. I was not having a go about ‘grammar’ in terms of the Davis report. My knock at ‘supposed’ experts in grammar was aimed at posters who delight in twisting what you mean to say, by claiming you have said something you never intended to say.. This makes open debate about important issues such as the ‘authenticity’ of the Marginalia almost impossible and stops other more credible posters from contributing on the subject.

The main culprit of this offence then turns up stating the obvious, despite the fact that my post clearly states the following: “Although it must be stressed that that report hasn’t been published in full”

Pointless hours and posts are wasted discussing the placing of a ‘metaphorical’ apostrophe, while an import question like…Can anyone offer a credible explanation How, When and Whom the marginalia might have been FORGED? goes repeatedly unanswered and unchallenged. I still haven’t heard a credible explanation, and I would be most interested if someone can offer one..

My interest is in he identity of jack the Ripper not school yard Latin classes.

I must admit I found your comments on Schwartz most interesting; it is something I have given considerable thought about. As I have stated on many occasions belief that Kosminski was Andersons suspect is not the same thing as believing he was the Ripper. It is quite possible that Anderson genuinely believed that an ID had taken place and Jack identified and simply been wrong. It’s a position rarely discussed.

It’s a shame these questions are not part of open and fruitful debate. However no doubt I will be accused of something else I’ve never stated or indeed intended to state,

Anyway I grow tiered. Night caz

Pirate Jack

[Chris]

Jeff

You seem to be developing a habit of responding to my posts on various threads with completely nonsensical accusations that I have "twisted your words" in a discussion on a different thread nearly two months ago.

To my mind this smacks of "stalking" - and in the light of your post I assume the snide remark in your previous one about "experts in grammar" was another reference to that discussion. If you really feel you want to pursue an argument about the meaning of one of your posts back on 10 March, please take it to the thread concerned:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2339&page=37

As for your complaint that in my comment on your post on this thread I was "stating the obvious", I have just re-read it, and there is no indication whatsoever there that what you quoted was from a press release rather than Davies's report. Quite the opposite, as you continued by saying "... it is the exact wording in Davis report that is important. Although it must be stressed that that report hasn’t been published in full." In fact, no part of the report has been published, so very few people know what the exact wording in the report was.

But in any case, the point I am making is that it is indeed the wording of the report (rather than that of the press release) that is important. So there's little to be gained by speculation based on brief comments in a press release.

[Jeff Leahy]

Again this is another example of pointless nit picking. The Davis report hasn’t been published in full. Only sections of it discussed in a press release. Yes all true, I know..

A press release that was hardly likely (opinion) to publish every detail but most probably cut to the chase and the interesting bits. This is the way in the media.

Of course it cant be proved 100% but it seems highly improbable that Davis report contains anything more that would suggest that the marginalia might have been faked. Otherwise it seems PROBABLE that it would have been mentioned.

It was NOT.

As for taking my dispute to another thread, it seems fairly pointless as your ability to nit pick over minor grammatical errors or details in phraseology (if there is such a word?) seems fairly consistent on most threads and is probably the reason Martin Fido got fed up debating with you. Largely because you cant see the wood from the trees. As you Troll over sensible discussion, with pointless arguments about metaphorical nits.

You clearly seem happy taking what I say out of context and meaning. There is thus, nothing further to be added.

Yours Pirate

[Chris]

Again this is another example of pointless nit picking. The Davis report hasn’t been published in full. Only sections of it discussed in a press release. Yes all true, I know..

Well, if you had so much as hinted at that in your post, it wouldn't have been necessary for me to make the simple factual comment that I did. And if you hadn't responded to that simple factual comment in the way you did, we could both have saved some time and trouble.

As to whether the distinction between what is said by the press release and the full report is "pointless", I think you had it precisely right when you said, "it is the exact wording in [Davies's] report that is important".

Obviously there is going to be a lot more detail in the full report, and some of it may even be relevant to our understanding of these annotations - when they were written and how reliable they are likely to be. In particular, as I said before, there is no basis for assuming that Davies wasn't more precise in the full report about the probability of the annotations having been written by Swanson.

[Jeff Leahy]

Which is all pointless debating until said report is published and available in full etc etc. In the mean time we can only conclude from what is actually known: Which is the Marginalia was probably written by Swanson.

Unless you would like Derek Acorah's phone number...I'm sure he'd love to nit pick with you.

Pirate

[Chris]

... your ability to nit pick over minor grammatical errors or details in phraseology (if there is such a word?) seems fairly consistent on most threads and is probably the reason Martin Fido got fed up debating with you.

By the way, as a matter of fact, I believe Martin Fido's last comment to me on the boards began as follows:
"Chris – Your point about Macnaghten’s being in situ when Kosminsky was incarcerated, and yet giving a wrong date for it, is so interesting that I can’t think how we’ve all overlooked it for 20 years. ..."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=47491&postcount=212

Later the same day - before I had had a chance to respond - he posted this:
"And now essays have started coming in for me to mark, and so I must leave this fascinating discussionwith regret."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=47542&postcount=230

So what you are trying to suggest here is completely untrue - just as was your previous insinuation on that other thread, that I had a "personal grudge" against Martin Fido.

[Chris]

Which is all pointless debating until said report is published and available in full etc etc. In the mean time we can only conclude from what is actually known: Which is the Marginalia was probably written by Swanson.

What on earth are you describing as "pointless debating"?

I simply pointed out - in a two-sentence post - that what you had quoted was from the press release, not the full report, and that there was no reason to think the full report didn't contain more precise information.

I am more than happy to leave the speculative debating to you.

[Jeff Leahy]

Which I thought I had made perfectly clear until you chose to show up, nit picking about the exact wording of my post again.

It really is completely futile having a discussion with someone who has nothing to add except irritating grammatical correction. It’s like having an annoying ex-headmaster hanging around.

Page, after page, of futile discussion, about ‘nit picks’.

Do you actually have anything new or constructive to add about the Davis report?

Or can we leave the precise grammatical content of my posts alone now?

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

OK. Just one more time. In your post, you gave no hint that you were quoting from the press release and not the report. Anyone not knowing the background would have assumed it was the report. So I posted a simple two-sentence clarification of that fact.

It wasn't a matter of "nit picking", because the distinction between what the report says and what the press release says is an important one. And obviously it had nothing to do with the "exact wording" of your post or "grammatical correction".

Is there really any need for further discussion?

[Jeff Leahy]

It wasn't a matter of "nit picking", because the distinction between what the report says and what the press release says is an important one.

Ok chris I'll try one more time.

We have no way of telling whether or not the distinction between what the press release says and what the report says is important, because we havn't seen the report yet. It might be important, it might NOT. We have no way of telling, as, as you have said, it hasn't been published yet.

So in fact it's possible that most of the important points are in the press release as we don't know what is in the report. The report could be long? the report could be short? but we have no way of telling, as it has not, as you correctly point out, been published yet.

So your suggestion that it is IMPORTANT is actually speculation on your part.

Not that it actually makes any difference apart from being another annoying discussion about how things are phrazed and worded.

Are you actually John Cleese in disguise?

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Look, I simply pointed out that the quotation in your post came from the press release and not the full report, and said that there was no basis for assuming that Davies wasn't more specific about probabilities in the report.

That shouldn't be any big deal, as far as I can see.

Apparently you don't agree that the distinction between the press release and the report is important. Fine. Make whatever assumptions you like. But to my mind it's precisely because the report hasn't been published that it's important to make that distinction, and you are way out of order throwing all this personal stuff at me in response to a brief factual post.

If you are going to react to my posts in this way because of an argument on another thread nearly two months ago, it's going to be a problem.

[Jeff Leahy]

If you’re simply trying to make a distinction between the report and the press release then there is clearly NO problem as I believed I had already done this by stating in my original post “Although it must be stressed that that report hasn’t been published in full.”

There is No way of knowing whether the distinction will be IMPORTANT or what differences there will be until we’ve seen the published report.

I don’t believe I have ever questioned your ability as a researcher Chris, you have an excellent reputation. It’s your ability to get bogged down in trivial and semantic word play that I’m criticizing. It’s pointless and futile.

And yes I am very annoyed about the accusation that I accused someone of something I clearly HAD NOT. Whether or not you were correct about my grammar is irrelevant, it must have been blatantly obvious I didn’t intend to say I thought Sashca or what ever his/her handle was, believed something was forged…I DIDN’T.

It’s all just word play. And it doesn’t interest me. The identity of JtR interests me.

That’s why I’m *issed off. That said it is probably best to let it drop. It is clear you are not going to apologize and further posting seems futile and probably just annoying to other posters…I shall seethe in silence…besides I’m taking the boat down the pub, as it’s a nice day. Bye all

P

[Chris]

There is No way of knowing whether the distinction will be IMPORTANT or what differences there will be until we’ve seen the published report.

If you don't know whether something is important or not, then don't waste everyone's time with all this rubbish about "nit picking" when they raise it, then!

[Jeff Leahy]

How is it possible to know if something is important or Not if it has not been published? For all you know the report might be almost identical to the press release statement.

You are again blithering with word play and nit picking...what I was attempting here was irony...

God preserve us

Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

P

PS. Just to clarify..the wording of the report is almost certainly IMPORTANT (its about an important subject so relates to that). However to state that it will be IMPORTANT, given that it has not yet been published, is simply SPECULATION, on chris's behalf. Its relatively simple. As suggested he might as well phone Derek....

[Chris]

PS. Just to clarify..the wording of the report is almost certainly IMPORTANT (its about an important subject so relates to that). However to state that it will be IMPORTANT, given that it has not yet been published, is simply SPECULATION, on chris's behalf. Its relatively simple. As suggested he might as well phone Derek....

Jeff

No, I am not speculating about anything at all. I posted a simple factual statement about the source of the quotation in your post. When you then came out with all the stuff about "nit picking" I pointed out that it was important to maintain the distinction between the press release and the full report.

In saying I believe that distinction is important, I am not making any assumption about what is in the report.

To be honest I think a lot of these problems arise because of your difficulties in expressing yourself, and your difficulties in comprehending written English. As we are all aware, you suffer from dyslexia, and I think it's evident that the problems go beyond just spelling. I am being as patient as I can, but I have to say I don't think it's very fair for you to complain continually that other people are to blame for your badly expressed posts and your misunderstandings of what others have written.