Off Topic Arguing (moved)

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris

Ah ha! "I am not making any assumption about what is in the Report".

No, but the way that you worded your reply implied that you did, did it not?

Clearly I was not making an assumption about whether Sushka actually did or did not believe the Marginalia was faked…it’s very annoying isn’t it?

Because what this all amounts to, is grammatical conclusion.

I feel no need to apologize for my dyslexia, I was born this way and God knows it has given me so many other advantages. However I have never claimed to be an expert in either spelling or grammar (give me a camera and edit suite and that’s another matter)

I am happy to discuss Ripper related subjects with you. However if you are going to constantly berate me for improper use of the English language, which lets face it we are all agreed that I am a complete ‘duffer’ with..Then the exercise is pointless..

I should not however make the mistake of thinking that because I may not be as good as you are at English, that in someway I’m stupid or without some understanding of the subject.

Dyslexics simply see ‘the bigger picture’. Its how their brains are wired.

Pirate

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi

Just noticed the latest developments on this thread and am confused.

What exactly is "The Davies Report"?

No need to elaborate, just say the Thread Post Number where it's described.

Thanks in advance.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Stephen

Excuse the verbal masturbation.

The Davis report was the recent hand writing analysis done on the Marginalia.

Currently we only have a press report about the contents of that report, given by Dr Davis (Dr Christopher Davies, Forensic Science Service document examiner)....posted in full a few posts back..

Yours Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

There is really nothing complicated or difficult about this. Certainly nothing that needs to be argued about endlessly in this way.

I made a simple two-sentence factual post pointing out that the quote in your post came from the press release and not the full report, and that there was no basis for assuming that the report was not more specific about the probability that the annotations were written by Swanson.

In response to your accusations that in identifying the source of the quotation I was "nit picking", I pointed out that it was important to make the distinction between what was said in the press release and what was said in the full report. In saying that I made no assumption about what was in the full report, and the wording of my posts did not imply that I had made any such assumption.

I shudder to think what sort of fuss you might make if I said something controversial!

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

There is really nothing complicated or difficult about this. Certainly nothing that needs to be argued about endlessly in this way.

Ah, there we go again. It looks like your making a conciliatory gesture but if I respond in the ‘kind’ you go straight back to confrontational posting.

I made a simple two-sentence factual post pointing out that the quote in your post came from the press release and not the full report, and that there was no basis for assuming that the report was not more specific about the probability that the annotations were written by Swanson.

Fine if you felt it required clarification, But it must have been obvious that I already understood this from my post. What I evidently did wrong was phrase my POST in a way that didn’t forefill your requirements. Do you have Aspergregers? (This is not intended to offend anyone in anyway-but is a serious enquiry)

In response to your accusations that in identifying the source of the quotation I was "nit picking", I pointed out that it was important to make the distinction between what was said in the press release and what was said in the full report. In saying that I made no assumption about what was in the full report, and the wording of my posts did not imply that I had made any such assumption.

I shudder to think what sort of fuss you might make if I said something controversial!

You have said something controversial; you have accused me of accusing someone else of something that I did NOT, NEVER INTENDED. I was offended, *issed off…end of. Have you worked that out yet?

I find it beyond belief that you still seem to think that you have done nothing wrong…..What planet are you on?

Pirate

[Chris]

Fine if you felt it required clarification, But it must have been obvious that I already understood this from my post. What I evidently did wrong was phrase my POST in a way that didn’t forefill your requirements. Do you suffer form Aspergregers? (This is not intended to offend anyone in anyway-but is a serious enquiry)

What on earth is your problem?

As I have pointed out about half a dozen times, there was absolutely no indication in your post that the quotation came from the press release rather than the report. There was no way a reader could have guessed its source from your post.

So I posted a simple two-sentence factual clarification - which, incidentally, wasn't addressed to you and contained no criticism of your post.

And in return I find myself on the receiving end of this kind of obsessive personal abuse for the rest of the day - not to mention all the other nonsense you've posted about the disagreement on another thread nearly two months ago. As I said, I've been as patient as possible, but this is way out of order and I've notified the moderator.

[Jeff Leahy]

Then perhaps the moderator would like to take note of the fact that you have now made ten pointless and futile posts…

I again print what I said:

“I think you will find that 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.”

Clearly what I should have said if I were a pedantic nerd, only interested in school boy grammar and Latin master masturbation, is:

“The section of the Davis report discussed in the press as apposed to the actual Davis report that has not been published in fall, as yet…”

However as we are dealing with a complete idiot with the humor level of a baboon… clearly I should have been more precise in the exact wording of my post…

Pirate

P.S. on each occasion Chris wrote to the BBC, and on each occasion they said, “it really has got nothing to do with us?”

[Chris]

Jeff

I'm really not interested in having an argument about what you should have written. As I said, the post that seems to have offended you so much wasn't addressed to you, and contained no criticism of what you had said.

The simple fact is that you didn't say where the quotation came from, and someone who wasn't familiar with the previous discussions - such as Stephen Thomas, who intervened above to ask what report we were talking about - could not have guessed that it came from the press release rather than the report itself. For that reason I posted a simple factual clarification of that point.

There should have been no reason in any of that for you to take offence, or to spend the rest of the day directing personal insults at me. Apparently you still have a problem with something I wrote on another thread nearly two months ago. You have raised that issue several times today. But obviously this is not an appropriate place to discuss that.

[caz]

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.

Hi Chris,

I'd like to think you were always being honest, and not just when you posted the above observations about Jeff.

That said, I can see that you are very much aware that not everyone is able to write precisely what they mean to say, first time, every time, nor does everyone possess error-free comprehension skills. In short, what others might see as wriggling, goalpost-shifting, apparent contradiction or outright hypocrisy, can actually be a genuine uphill struggle to clarify one's position to another reader’s satisfaction.

It is to your credit, as someone who rarely has any difficulty writing or understanding plain English, that you are not making the mistake of presuming that others can do the same, or thinking that by simply interpreting their writing accurately you are always reproducing their intentions faithfully and fairly, even when there is reason to believe they may be expressing them inexpertly or ambiguously.

I made a simple two-sentence factual post pointing out that the quote in your post came from the press release and not the full report, and that there was no basis for assuming that the report was not more specific about the probability that the annotations were written by Swanson.

I haven’t been back to the thread in question yet, so let me thank you here and now for the above clarification, which I’m assuming was originally intended for me, since I responded to what Jeff posted.

I will post this on the other thread if appropriate when I next visit, but yes, of course I ought to have waited to read the actual report, in full (assuming I’ll get the chance?), before trying to assess how confident its author was about the annotations being all Swanson’s own work. But to be fair there is equally no basis - unless you know otherwise - for assuming the report does get more specific, or at least in any way that would affect the impression given by the press release.

A good press release is presumably one that picks out the salient details of the report in order to represent its author's position not only concisely, but as fairly and accurately as possible. It would have to be a pretty lousy one to miss out the bit where Davies writes: ‘After exploring every avenue there can be no reasonable doubt that Swanson wrote the lot’, or ‘Between you and me I'm off to get some cream for my sore misgivings’.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate Jack,

Is there a woman in your life?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott