Private sale

[Jenni Shelden]

Fishman, your interpretation The [endpaper notes] (in the marginalia copy of Andersonīs book) show evidence (signs or clear signs) of occasional tremor (shaky handwriting is what is caused by that tremor) which is similar (looks exactly like, is the exact same type as) to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.

has several problems, first of all, that similar does not mean exaclty the same and secondly that you fail to address the second part of the phrase
individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsons

which again you interpret as this individual has parkinsons, but if you look, was not what was said

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

...
Anderson's writings and Swanson's annotations have long been the bedrock of the Polish Jew suspect theorizing, and it's a valid and rather solid bedrock to build upon. So, Paul and Martin are in a strong position with their Jewish suspects (especially 'Kosminski') as opposed to anyone who may have the temerity to suggest that Charles Cross, or Lechmere if you prefer it, was Jack the Ripper rather than a mere inquest witness.
Be that as it may, that was not what we were discussing. There are Lechmere threads better suited for that purpose.
What we discusses was whether the marginalia affected the Lechmere theory in a manner that somehow threatened his suspect status.
I donīt object to acknowledging Kosminskiīs status as an important suspect, but the topic is immaterial to our discussion.
...
Fisherman[/B]

But...were it not for the 'Cross/Lechmere theory' would you, and 'Lechmere', still be here debating at such enormous length something that has been thrashed to death in the past? And what was 'Lechmere's' motive in starting the debate about a private sale of private goods? I guess only he knows that, but his subsequent posts seem to indicate where he was initially headed. As I have pointed out, it can be easily shown that it is in the interest of those with a 'new suspect' of their own to doggedly pursue arguments against established and recognized suspects.

[Jenni Shelden]

So Fishman, to be clear, you accept that the word similar does not mean exactly the same?

[Hunter]

I'm sure that would be interesting, though on the other hand it may generate a thread containing 1200 posts in which a tiny but dedicated band desperately try to manufacture reasons to think the document is a fake ...

That may be, Chris, but there are many people who peruse these forums for qualified information who might benefit from an explanation by someone who is certainly qualified to give it. I have no illusions that it would sway the opinions of a certain few.

[Fisherman]

Ally: Actually once again, you are wrong. See don't ever tell me to scroll back and read, because I actually read the first time, and can do it again in about two seconds. You stated that again, wrongly, that similar meant looks exactly the same. You were wrong. Sally pointed out that you were wrong and in a postscript you said "I am aware that similar has many levels".

Yes it does have levels. It still doesn't have a level that means EXACTLY THE SAME. Because that word would be identical, not similar. So once again, you put something up that is shown to be wrong, and refuse to back down from your inaccurate statement.

Do I? Did I say that I refuse to do so - or did you just invent that?

There are 612000 hits on Google on "exactly similar". There is an ongoing discussion what one may say and what one may not say. And language changes over time. Technically, though, you are probably right - similar does not mean "exactly alike".

Your repeated manner of taking things like these as a sign of me being an outright liar and distorting facts is not very useful, though.

You said that I refuse to back down. You were wrong. I have never refused to do so.

Does that make you an outright liar, dabbling with facts?

We are more and more resembling an old married couple, Ally. And I donīt like the feeling.

What precise "group" to which Parkinson's belong did he speak of? He did not speak of any "group" except the most broad-based group there is, neurological conditions, which covers an entire range of illness.

Because he wanted to give the nitpickers and the terminally oblivious something to pick away at for all eternity because they refuse to accept that peopel can just use common examples to draw parallels without pointing specifically to that thing?

Once again he didn't specify a group of PD related neurological diseases. He said "neurological CONDITIONS" which is not the same thing as diseases and gave Parkinson's as an example.

Wrong again, Iīd say - and not a bit better effort than last time over. And ill-tempered, to boot. So whoīs surprised ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I have two students that look similar enough that I confuse their names once in a while. Side by side the differences are more marked. They are similar in build, skin tone, and hair. Eye shape too.

mike

[Jenni Shelden]

Ally:

Once again. Distortion of facts. Similar does not mean "exactly like".

FISHMAN This has been discussed already; please scroll back and read.

Er , no Fishman, your interpretation was wrong for the reason Ally mentioned, the word similar does not mean exactly like

[Jenni Shelden]

After all your moronic postings you still cannot answer a post sensibly without resorting to personal abuse.

It's like rain on your wedding day
It's a free ride when you've already paid
It's the good advice that you just didn't take
Who would've thought... it figures

[Stewart P Evans]

Illogical

...
The reasons for this may seem obvious but, perhaps, should be restated here. Theorists, researchers, authors, and essay writers, have their own stature in the field and more notice is taken of some than others. Also the sources used in some cases are much better than sources used in other cases, particularly when they offer no evidence of a person being a suspect at all. We therefore find that when top authors and researchers, such as Paul Begg and Martin Fido, favour a theory (in this case based on Anderson and Swanson) a lot more notice is taken of them than those with lesser recognition in the field. Another result of this is evidenced in all the ego and stature building that goes on in these forums. Ergo Messrs Begg and Fido gain a greater following, and belief in their ideas, than do, say, 'Fisherman' and 'Lechmere', or Marriott for that matter.
Thatīs all very comprehensive and logical. But I would also like to point to the fact that the people you speak of are authors who have put books out on the market, and as such they are much better known than, say, "Fisherman" and "Lechmere". I would also propose that if these people had arrived today, new to Ripperology, they would have been regarded as fair prey for the killer whales of the ripper bog.
...
Fisherman

Perhaps I should have repeated researchers, essayists and theorists (they were included at the start of the above) - for, have no doubt, there are many in these categories who have greater notice taken of them than some authors. Every individual will earn his own reputation and others will decide whether or not he is a person to be taken notice of or accorded greater respect. It may not seem so, but these forums in the greater scheme of things and with regard to a general readership form a very small part of the general picture.

Anyway, I thought that Paul and Martin, and most other authors, have been regarded as 'fair prey for the killer whales of the Ripper bog' (still trying to get my mind around that one), despite the fact that they are better known. In fact it often seems that merely being an author makes you a target. But all that said, it's not the point I'm making, which is that some who aspire to a similar status and respect as that held by Paul and Martin energetically seek their own recognition and note and this often takes the form, sometimes illogically, in attacking the beliefs of those established authorities.

You see, I think that the foregoing debate is illogical and that it has drifted into irrelevant and illogical areas. Do you not see that when you become deeply embroiled in some of the unconnected issues that you have here?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;276950]I suppose it could be argued that questioning, in this sense, is attacking. I know that it comes with the territory which is why I qualified it by saying 'traditionally'.

That is a reasonable reflection. What I wanted to do, however, was to try and avoid the hostile implications that follow with the word attack. It carries implications of aggressivity, and not necessarily a justified such. Thatīs why I prefer "question".

However, I do feel that many a 'suspect book' would have been better if it had devoted more time to the subject in hand rather than digressing onto (often complex and distracting) arguments against other suspects. It seems to also be a requirement of publishers which inevitably leads to great consumption of word count allowance, thus reducing the amount of relevant material an author might like to include on the suspect he is writing about.

Yes, the publishers will have it their way, of course - top hats and capes and all that. I was very proud when I wrote my piece for Sydsvenskan here in Sweden and was able to persuade the publishers to go with a silhouette of a carman with an apron and a cap - I believe it was a first (then again, only the fewest promote carmen, so admittedly, maybe the triumph as such should not be overrated...)

You are very correct that the overall interest when (and if) promoting a suspect should lie in the material that points to that suspect, rather than away from other suspects. At times, of course, if there is a conflict, then the away-pointing may become necessary, but overall I agree with you on this.

I think it is only fair to recognize too, that a factor that comes into play in ripperology (and other disciplines as well) is the human ego. Some ripperologists - who do not feel threatened by a suggestion - may find it easier to recognize the value of a suggestion than others - who have an invested claim that ends up under fire by the self same suggestion. If we all could be completely impartial, we would reach further. But we canīt - and we are all, to a smaller or lesser degree, guilty on this score.

I thank you for your input - it is always appreciated. I do not always agree with your deductions, but being able to discuss my own ideas with somebody with your knowledge and experience is something I welcome very much.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Ally:

Once again. Distortion of facts. Similar does not mean "exactly like".

This has been discussed already; please scroll back and read.

Actually once again, you are wrong. See don't ever tell me to scroll back and read, because I actually read the first time, and can do it again in about two seconds. You stated that again, wrongly, that similar meant looks exactly the same. You were wrong. Sally pointed out that you were wrong and in a postscript you said "I am aware that similar has many levels".

Yes it does have levels. It still doesn't have a level that means EXACTLY THE SAME. Because that word would be identical, not similar. So once again, you put something up that is shown to be wrong, and refuse to back down from your inaccurate statement.

[B]Iīm sorry, I just donīt buy that for a second. There was no need whatsoever to name any disease, and if he would feel like doing this all the same just to exemplify with something/anything (which I donīt believe he would), why did he not just use PD- which, as you say, is known to many people. Why did he specify that he was speaking of "certain" neurological diseases - and why did he speak of the group to which PD belongs? Surely, most people do NOT know that this is a group of around 50?

What precise "group" to which Parkinson's belong did he speak of? He did not speak of any "group" except the most broad-based group there is, neurological conditions, which covers an entire range of illness.

If he wanted to be very clear, he could have said that neurological diseases cause a tremor. But why predispose it WAS a neurological disease at all?

Because he wanted to give the nitpickers and the terminally oblivious something to pick away at for all eternity because they refuse to accept that peopel can just use common examples to draw parallels without pointing specifically to that thing?

If he wanted to exemplify with PD - that people are aware of - then why speak of a GROUP of PD-related neurological diseases?

Once again he didn't specify a group of PD related neurological diseases. He said "neurological CONDITIONS" which is not the same thing as diseases and gave Parkinson's as an example.

[Chris]

Perhaps, when you have a moment, you could indicate what these are for the benefit of those who might not be aware or have not considered this document in detail.

I'm sure that would be interesting, though on the other hand it may generate a thread containing 1200 posts in which a tiny but dedicated band desperately try to manufacture reasons to think the document is a fake ...

[Hunter]

The instruction from the Commissioner, dated 15 September 1888, putting Swanson in charge of the case is undoubtedly genuine. I state this having examined, photographed and analysed it.

Indeed, it was I who identified it as having originated with Warren, and not Anderson, as had previously been assumed and even published as such. It amazes me how people who have not even seen these documents feel happy to proclaim on their authenticity based on their own biased theorizing.

Hi Stewart,

There are several indications in the photocopies of Warren's Sept. 15 instruction memo pointing to it being genuine, but as a layman, my pointing them out would offer little credibility as opposed to someone who has actually seen and photographed the original, is a former policeman and familiar with the procedure of such internal memos. Perhaps, when you have a moment, you could indicate what these are for the benefit of those who might not be aware or have not considered this document in detail.

Thanks

[Chris]

Now, can we discuss the case?

Of course we can't, if you're going to carry on behaving as you have been so far. I don't know whether it's really poor understanding of English, or a deliberate tactic to try to confuse the issues, or sheer bloody mindedness. But it makes any attempt at serious discussion absolutely impossible.

And unfortunately it makes any attempt at silly discussion quite hard too ...

[Ally]

There was another, modern, source, as I said. I will try to fin it again, but so far, I have not succeeded.

Maybe itīs a parallel to Richard Nunweeks radio programme...? Hopefully not!
Fisherman

How do you explain the recent study where actual computers analyzed the strokes of known Parkinson's patients and this was not included as a component of their handwriting?