Off Topic Arguing (Moved from Hutchinson thread)

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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.

[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...

[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

[Sam Flynn]

And we're fortunate indeed to have them, Gareth, since - in my view - the additional census examples of Toppy's handwriting only serve to reinforce the significant differences between his penmanship and that of the Hutchinson who signed the statement. Toppy's handwriting remained fairly rigid over a 13-year period, and the differences with the statement signatures remained different over that time-span. They're really not "small" discrepencies either.

Not for Ben's benefit, but for those who might be seeing this for the first time, you can compare the signatures in question (which span fully 23 years) by viewing this "time-lapse" animation. Now (again, not for Ben's benefit) compare these with your own signatures over a similar time-span, see how they differ, and make up your own minds.

PS: There's plenty more where that came from, if anyone's interested.

[babybird67]

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

Tom...we are hardly talking scholarship. We are talking plain English. Logic surely transcends nationality, although perhaps not gender.

And, i was perfectly willing to ascribe mistakes etc to language etc...i am not prepared to be called a liar, however, because i am not one.

[Ben]

This seems like the most ideal spot to tackle the latest attempt to continue a petty bickerfest that finished four months ago.

Today, Caz writes:

It all started because you used it in a sentence where only "utmost" would do, and then tried to claim they meant the same thing!

It all started because you were so embarrassingly out of arguments on the thread in question that you were reduced to making ill-starred attempts at critiquing the vocabulary used by other posters, culminating in your own ignorance being exposed and laughed off the thread. "Upmost" is an abbreviation of "uppermost", meaning of the highest position or priority. Neither word is an acceptable synonym of "utmost" despite your false and desperate claim that I had confounded the two.

To the blissfully uninitiated, the above is transported from "When Does Many Become Many?" and is in reluctant response to another fun attempt to goad Ben – a pastime that rather tailed off in popularity towards the end of last year!

[Tom_Wescott]

another fun attempt to goad Ben – a pastime that rather tailed off in popularity towards the end of last year!

Yes, this is to be regretted, but it seems to be a seasonal pastime.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Absolutely, Tom.

Perhaps it's when the Scandinavians come out of hibernation?

All the best,
Ben

[Phil Carter]

Hello Ben,

No... Scandivians go skiing, ski-jumping, and the like..a winter sports group of nations. most active throughout the winter months, infact.

best wishes

Phil

[caz]

...culminating in your own ignorance being exposed and laughed off the thread.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha - you only exposed your own ignorance Ben, and nobody laughed me off that thread. I only went back there today and happened to see your last lame efforts to do so! It's so stupid of you to tell such silly lies in public, where they are so quickly and easily exposed. How old are you?

I was the one who told you that "upmost" cannot be used as a substitute for "utmost", and only gave you the link to prove it because you had refused to take my word for it and admit to this schoolboy howler.

You used "upmost" in a sentence which required "utmost", during one of your lengthy (and long forgotten) Hutchinson rants. If you knew it was just a silly mistake on your part, you would have gained far more respect - and considerably more peace and quiet in the long run - if you had called me all the miserable, pedantic so-and-sos under the sun for pointing it out - which I only did because you routinely boasted a wonderful command of the English language while failing to demonstrate it in your posts.

Instead, you insisted at the time that you hadn't made a mistake at all and that it was perfectly acceptable for you to write "upmost" for "utmost". Why else would I have sought out and posted that link for you which proves otherwise? And now you are lying your head off to turn it round and pretend that the mistake was somehow mine.

What mistake would that be - apart from thinking you might just be man enough to take it on the chin when one of your past mistakes caught up with you and stared you right in the face?

Love,

Caz
X