Off Topic Arguing (Moved from Hutchinson thread)

[Tom_Wescott]

In the name of good will, let's all please remember that Fisherman is Swedish. Therefore he shouldn't be held to the same standards of scholarship and logic that the rest of us hold to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

Never heard of that

Saint Michael

hmmmm....quite....


by the way, what does "ex libris The Good Michael" mean? It seems to be some sort of inscription in my copy...

[babybird67]

Once again, Babybird; if inspector Barnaby says "At present, Mrs X is our killer" - would that mean that he has decided that Mrs X is the killer, or would it mean that as things stands, he thinks she is the best bet?

No, you are not comparing like with like.

Asserting "At present, Toppy is Hutch" is akin to saying, "At present the Ripper is Suspect A"...you are stating that the evidence allows you to make a firm identification, even if you believe that you are qualifying that by stating that your use of "At present" means you are free to alter that firm identification at some future point.

Courts operate on evidence, and things being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Where things are unproven, no firm identification can be asserted; nobody should be using the phrase, "Toppy is Hutch" when no such thing has been proven to be true.

You may argue as much as you like along the spectrum of possibility to probability. But when you diverge from there to state something IS something else, you are excluding the possibility of it not being true. You cannot do that in this case.

"Is" signifies firm identification.

"best bet" signifies a probability.

They do not mean the same thing.

If you meant a probability, you should not have used the phrase "Toppy is Hutch", since that means there has been a firm identification.

Your expression was faulty. End of story.

If somebody says "At present, we do not have the solution to the Ripper case", does that mean that no solution will ever come along?

In this case, the "at present" is followed by a negative...i.e., "we do not have the solution." A negative can very easily be disproven by positive proof or evidence turning up. The solution may very well be out there, and may at some point be discovered.

In the example we are discussing, the "at present" was followed by the foolishly definite phrase "Toppy is Hutch." You can, i presume, appreciate that asserting that something is true requires far greater proof and far greater care than when someone asserts that there is no proof of anything?

It is very difficult to move from a positive identification, back into the realms of not knowing, in intellectual terms...before you assert that something is precisely the same as something else, you need to be damned sure you can prove it is, or you deserve your argument being picked to shreds and hung out to dry by people who can see your argument in all its fallacious glory.

That is why my position has been one of doubt and uncertainty. I do not know, nor am i ever ashamed to admit that i do not know. I think knowledge in every sphere would progress so much more swiftly if more people could admit they do not know, and then seek out the answers.

So...you said what you said. You either expressed yourself clumsily and incorrectly, if you did not mean that you believed an identification to be established; or, if you did mean that you (and Leander) believed an identification to be established, you have an extremely foolish point of view, based on the evidence available to rational and objective examination.

Either way, I quoted you directly, and did not lie. And you are in the wrong, not me.

[Fisherman]

Once again, Babybird; if inspector Barnaby says "At present, Mrs X is our killer" - would that mean that he has decided that Mrs X is the killer, or would it mean that as things stands, he thinks she is the best bet?

If somebody says "At present, we do not have the solution to the Ripper case", does that mean that no solution will ever come along?

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Whenever you change the exact wording of something, you also change the inherent meaning of it all. You need to ask yourself why I did not write: "Toppy is Hutch, and Leander agrees with that", but instead wrote "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means that I concur with Leander".

Um, no. I don't need to ask myself anything. I think YOU need to ask yourself why you chose to write that "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means i concur with Leander," when you now are denying that you meant any such thing.

I've explained numerous times, that when you saying something IS something else, you are making an equation: two IS the same as a couple...so if you refer to two of something as a couple, you had better be damned sure there are only two of them! You can't say "Toppy IS Hutch" and then argue that you really meant Toppy could be Hutch...they don't mean the same thing. It would be like saying, "Two is three...well, it could be, but i am not sure..."

My daughter IS my daughter...she was in the past, she is now, and she will be in the future. I can say that because there is no room for doubt. None whatsoever.

I just happened to be there at the birth, so i know it to be true.

You, however, cannot, or would be ill-advised to, assert,as you did, that "Toppy is Hutch", whether in the past, the present, or the future, based on the evidence we have now, because it patently cannot be proven to be true. You were equally ill-advised to choose to follow that up with, "That means i concur with Leander," since Leander's view of circumspection and uncertainty clearly did not accord with your own, no matter how hard you tried to twist it.

"At present" equals "as things stand" and when you say "as things stand" you keep the door open for a change in that standing. That is what Leander did, and that is where we concurred.

Again, that is not what you said. You said precisely the opposite. You shut the door, when you said "Toppy is Hutch", meaning they are one and the same thing...in fact, you slammed it shut on those of us who were actually cautioning against certainty and espousing circumspection!

The subsequent winners of a soccer game may well be commented on as losers "at present" when there is a second half left to play and it would be perfectly legitimate to say "At present, team X are the losers" using the exact same type of linguistic construction and the same verb that you point out, without having said anything about the final outcome of the game.

Only an idiot would describe one team as "losers" when the game has not been concluded. Only an idiot would describe a match between Toppy and Hutch as certain by using the equation "Toppy is Hutch" when the evidence clearly prohibits such certainty from being expressed.

I have never, though, confused what I see as a positive reaction on Leanders behalf with a decision on that same behalf of his that Toppy MUST have been Hutch.

If that is the case, you should never have said,

At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means i concur with Leander.

Because that means that you and Leander agree that an identification has been established.

I know we live in an age of post-modern subjectivism, but really, you cannot take words and completely divest them of their usual meanings just because you later discover, or have pointed out to you, that you have misused them, and accidentally expressed a position that is untenable. And then, worse, blame people who can see what your words meant and challenge that as being the ones at fault!

And you can skirt and skate and deny and protest all you like, Fish, but that is the accepted meaning of what you have said on the matter.

So if you want to post what I actually said, I am quite fine with that because I said exactly what I wanted to say.

Gee thanks, Fish, that's magnanimous of you. I have posted what you actually said...and if you said what you wanted to say, let me elucidate for you further, for your edification and enlightment...you said an identification had been established, for that is what the phrase "Toppy is Hutch" means, and further to that, you said that in this opinion yourself and Leander were in agreement, for that is what "That means I concur with Leander" means.

I will not get tired of pointing this out to you, while you continue to try to twist and pervert quite simple words from their quite obvious meanings, to excuse yourself from your uncomfortable position.

It is when you reserve the right to interpret it and do so in a faulty manner I have to protest.

Hahaha! I have a faulty manner of interpreting what you say? Hahaha!

There is no faulty interpretation on my part...i have a first class BA with honours, an MA with distinction, a PGCE and i was awarded the prize for English in my graduation year. If i was wrong, i would have the grace to acknowledge it and apologise.

I am not wrong.


So...it is my interpretation where the fault lies? I don't think so Fish.

I think the fault lies a lot closer to home than you would care to admit. Furthermore, i think i have demonstrated precisely that.

[Fisherman]

This does not belong to the actual discussion we are having, Ben, and I think we had better not bring it up again, at least not at this stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And I do that because I believe that Leander has been positive to a probable match from the outset

But he definitely didn't say any such thing.

It's not a question of personal "belief".

It is absolutely irrefutable that his initial stance was a neutral one. It's one thing to acknowledge that the expression "cannot be ruled out" can be used to convey positive commentary, but you are wholly mistaken if you believe that "positive" always equates to "probable". It just doesn't. Yes, he certainly never once stated that "Toppy was Hutch", but nor did he convey the impression that he even thought he was. As I mentioned in my recent post, I completely reject the alleged later posts from Leander, since they reflect an entirely different stance to the one he first provided in his initial spontaneous commentary, which should have been allowed to stand without the need to seek unnecessary clarification.

If we're to invest any stock in Leander's words - which I think we should - we'd be well advised to heed his initial comments, because otherwise, I'm afraid we're compelled to take a less than favourable view of his contributions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Babybird asks:

"You haven't????
You haven't said that you and Leander concur that at this present time that "Toppy is Hutch"?

Whenever you change the exact wording of something, you also change the inherent meaning of it all. You need to ask yourself why I did not write: "Toppy is Hutch, and Leander agrees with that", but instead wrote "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means that I concur with Leander".

If you did not read my comparison with a soccer game waiting to be decided, I would recommend that you do so now. "At present" equals "as things stand" and when you say "as things stand" you keep the door open for a change in that standing. That is what Leander did, and that is where we concurred.

There is a very big difference involved in saying that somebody has presently decided that Toppy is Hutch, and saying that as things stand, Toppy ought to be regarded as Hutch. The subsequent winners of a soccer game may well be commented on as losers "at present" when there is a second half left to play and it would be perfectly legitimate to say "At present, team X are the losers" using the exact same type of linguistic construction and the same verb that you point out, without having said anything about the final outcome of the game.
To further elucidate the matter, I am going to watch "the Midsomer Murders" on Swedish television tonight. What if inspector Barnaby says "At present, Mrs X is our killer"? Would that mean that he has decided that Mrs X is the killer, or does he mean that as things stands, he thinks she is the best bet?

I interpret Leander in a more "Toppy-endorsing" (as Ben likes to put it) fashion than you and a number of other posters do. And I do that because I believe that Leander has been positive to a probable match from the outset. I have never, though, confused what I see as a positive reaction on Leanders behalf with a decision on that same behalf of his that Toppy MUST have been Hutch. He believes that he probably was, so AT PRESENT he expects that the solution to the question of who was the Dorset Street witness is George William Topping Hutchinson - and that is how far I or anybody else can stretch any claims on behalf of Leander if we want to stay on the legitimate side of the prerogative we all have to "read" Leander. Nothing in his answers gives anybody the right to say that he has permanently decided on Toppy as the witness, and I think you will very clearly say that this is something I have pressed throughout all my posts. It has led to semantic disputes of a silly kind, like when I have been told that Leander never used the word "probable" about the match - something I fail to see that he needed to do after having told us that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match. Dividing apprehensions about the extent to which Leander believes in Toppy have also been abundant, but none of them have casted me as saying that Leander had made his mind up for good - just that he agreed that as things stand, Toppy is more credible than not to be the witness.

So if you want to post what I actually said, I am quite fine with that because I said exactly what I wanted to say. It is when you reserve the right to interpret it and do so in a faulty manner I have to protest. I wonīt do so eternally, though, since it would be a silly thing to do. I have shown exactly what I meant, and I have shown that it does in no way tally with what YOU claim it meant, and if you donīt want to hear what I am saying, there is precious little I can do about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

...Fish after all has more positions than the Kama Sutra!

Never heard of that

Saint Michael

[babybird67]

yes but Mike that is only your present position...

who knows what position you may soon espouse...it could be any number of contorted creations...Fish after all has more positions than the Kama Sutra!

[The Good Michael]

I will suggest that Fisherman was never quoted verbatim else we'd have a zillion more pages to sift through. As it is all one continuous, stream of conciousness thought, I wouldn't have it any other way.

ME

[babybird67]

Warning!!! Warning!!! Present situation being discussed!!!

If not, to say that I have stated that Leander has said that Toppy was Hutch would require that exact phrasing on my behalf, would it not? And I have never written, thought or tried to lead on any such perception,

You haven't????

You haven't said that you and Leander concur that at this present time that "Toppy is Hutch"?

You haven't posted ream after ream of pointless, lying rubbish, that Leander's is the only "fully documented" "professional" analysis we have, and therefore the best one we have and the only one on which we can safely base our signature and witness identification appraisal?

What Babybird did, was to use my wording "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means that I concur with Leander" as if I had said only "Toppy is Hutch. That means that I concur with Leander".

Yes, because if one doesn't stipulate one is discussing the present situation, all manner of confusion may occur.

But what I concurred with Leander about was NOT that Toppy was/must have been Hutch; it was that at present - as things stand - the most probable solution to the issue was that Toppy WAS indeed Hutch.

No Fish. You didn't say that.

You didn't say "the most probable solution."

You DID say, however, that "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means i concur with Leander." I thought i had explained to you before, that if you use the word "IS", you are making an equation...you are saying Toppy and Hutch are the same thing/interchangeable/identity established.

Perhaps on reflection you SHOULD have said "the most probable solution", since that would have apparently expressed your meaning better, according to the revisionist stance you appear to be embracing now.

But you didn't. You said "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means i concur with Leander."

Wriggle and deny all you like, but those are the words that YOU chose to use, not me. You chose to express the issue as certain, by using the words "Toppy is Hutch" and by dragging poor Leander's circumspect "cannot be ruled out" stance down with you. You have paid Leander, an alleged friend, the utmost disrespect by misrepresenting him to bolster your own position...you should really be ashamed of yourself, but i suspect your journalistic training has most probably nullified any feelings of shame you might otherwise have innately possessed (apologies to honest and reputable journalists everywhere).

You lie and misrepresent wherever you go...even about your own friends, apparently. You may wish to draw a line under the issue, but let me point out that you brought it up once again, by poking your nose into a post quite clearly addressed to Garry, not to you, trying once again to discredit me.

You can ignore my posts all you like, and try to excuse yourself with other posters, but i am still here, and i will continue to post what you actually said rather than what you wish you had said, to show anyone and everyone that YOU are the liar, not me.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"my comments were concerned with the definition and meaning of the term 'verbatim' which seemed in doubt."

Letīs find out, Jane! You write, using a dictionary, that it means "quoted directly and without any changes to the statement".

My own interpretation of the word is that it equals the Swedish "ordagrant", meaning that you qoute word by word, making no changes. If, however, verbatim means that you quote the true meaning and not necessarily the exact wording, then we may have an issue.
If not, to say that I have stated that Leander has said that Toppy was Hutch would require that exact phrasing on my behalf, would it not? And I have never written, thought or tried to lead on any such perception, for the very simple reason that such a thing would never be in accordance with Leanders OWN wording, which very clearly tells us that he sees it as more probable than not that Toppy WAS Hutch - but that he never at any stage goes any longer than this.

What Babybird did, was to use my wording "At present, Toppy is Hutch. That means that I concur with Leander" as if I had said only "Toppy is Hutch. That means that I concur with Leander".

But what I concurred with Leander about was NOT that Toppy was/must have been Hutch; it was that at present - as things stand - the most probable solution to the issue was that Toppy WAS indeed Hutch.
A comparison could be made with an imagined World Cup final in soccer where Sweden leads Brazil by three goals to nil with ten minutes left of the game (oh, blissfull thought!). At such a stage, if anybody was to say "At present, Sweden are the world champions", who could object?

As I say, if "ordagrant" (word by word) IS the true interpretation of "verbatim", I see no reason whatsoever to discuss this issue any further. The rest of it, however; whether Toppy really WAS Hutch or not, is another matter altogether. That one will cause all sorts of calamity for a long time to come, and it will require a very balanced attitude to discuss in a productive manner. I think that many posters - myself included - will find that an extremely challenging task, but as long as we try our best, maybe something good will come from it in the end. I hope so, at least.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

As you say, Fisherman..

Although, for the record, my comments were concerned with the definition and meaning of the term 'verbatim' which seemed in doubt. They were not concerned with your view on Toppy - which I am, as you say, conversant with. What you personally think about that is your own business - and I have nothing to say regarding who is right or wrong. As far as I can see, it is far from certain, either way.

All the best, Fisherman.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Now, I don't know who said what - it's between you and Babybird, and not for me to involve myself with - but as a general point, if another poster quotes you verbatim - they cannot, by definition (as described above) be lying."

But you DO know what was claimed and said, Jane. I just posted it. And it shows you very clearly that you cannot say that I have said that Leander at any time has stated that Toppy was Hutch. Thus there is no verbatim quotation involved here. To reach any such conclusion, one must make an interpretation of the wording I used that was never intended.

And now, yes - letīs leave it. At least when it comes to our interchange.

The best,
Fisherman