Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Private sale

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    So, Chris, are you saying that Davies did NOT think that the writing revealed having been written by a person who seemingly could have had PD? Interesting!

    You must explain how you think.

    The best,
    Fisherman
    Can you read English?

    First you say that "he DID say that the text gave away an impression of having been written by somebody with PD."

    Which is wrong.

    Then you say that:
    "So, Chris, are you saying that Davies did NOT think that the writing revealed having been written by a person who seemingly could have had PD?"

    Do you not see that these mean two different things.

    You might as well say the marginalia was written by someone who could have had red hair. That is different than saying it was written by someone with red hair.

    RH

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robhouse View Post
      Can you read English?

      First you say that "he DID say that the text gave away an impression of having been written by somebody with PD."

      Which is wrong.

      Then you say that:
      "So, Chris, are you saying that Davies did NOT think that the writing revealed having been written by a person who seemingly could have had PD?"

      Do you not see that these mean two different things.

      You might as well say the marginalia was written by someone who could have had red hair. That is different than saying it was written by someone with red hair.

      RH
      Parkinsons is an affliction which causes shaky writing but according to Jim Swanson, Donald Swanson did not have any afflictions when he is purported to have written the annotations.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Parkinsons is an affliction which causes shaky writing but according to Jim Swanson, Donald Swanson did not have any afflictions when he is purported to have written the annotations.
        This is becoming ludicrous. It was only yesterday that I corrected your last misstatement about this, and pointed out to you what Jim Swanson had actually said. One day later here you are with more of the same.

        Here - yet again - is what Jim Swanson actually said:
        "My Grandfather was a highly intelligent man. He was in complete command of all his faculties at the time of his death in 1924 at the age of 76. My Grandfather's notes were made in 1910 when he was 62. We are hardly dealing with an OLD MAN'S MEMORY as Sergeant Donald Rumbelow suggests. My Grandfather would have been 40 when appointed to this case. Jack the Ripper would have been his main concern for several years. The identity of the murderer would have been indelibly imprinted on his mind."

        Nothing about "afflictions". Nothing about handwriting. Just a statement that he was in "complete command of all his faculties", made in response to a suggestion that his memory might not have been reliable.

        Comment


        • "Robert
          When Jim Swanson said all his faculties I would interpret it to mean ALL his faculties - otherwise why use the word ALL if he just meant mental faculties?"

          Because he wasn't presenting a thesis on logic to Bertrand Russell.




          "The reason why this came up at all is that the passage where Jim Swanson says 'all his faculties' can be used to substantiate the claim that DS Swanson did not have shaky hands. This is backed up by Jim Swanson's other tales about his grandfather threading flies - a very fiddly job that requires the faculty of dexterous fingers; and fishing in Scotland - which required the faculties of balance, sturdy legs and strong arms!
          We are building up quite a few faculties."

          Who said that Swanson had to write standing up?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chris View Post
            This is becoming ludicrous. It was only yesterday that I corrected your last misstatement about this, and pointed out to you what Jim Swanson had actually said. One day later here you are with more of the same.

            Here - yet again - is what Jim Swanson actually said:
            "My Grandfather was a highly intelligent man. He was in complete command of all his faculties at the time of his death in 1924 at the age of 76. My Grandfather's notes were made in 1910 when he was 62. We are hardly dealing with an OLD MAN'S MEMORY as Sergeant Donald Rumbelow suggests. My Grandfather would have been 40 when appointed to this case. Jack the Ripper would have been his main concern for several years. The identity of the murderer would have been indelibly imprinted on his mind."

            Nothing about "afflictions". Nothing about handwriting. Just a statement that he was in "complete command of all his faculties", made in response to a suggestion that his memory might not have been reliable.
            Faculties can be interpreted depending which side of the fence you sit.

            You might want to go and check out some of the definitions of faculties

            Quote "Indelibly on his mind" so much so that he didn't even remember the christian name of the suspect or the name of the witness
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-02-2013, 08:47 AM.

            Comment


            • Ally: You mean exactly like you are doing when you avoid apologizing and instead try to cast yourself in the morally superior role and place all the blame on me?

              No, I mean exactly like YOU are doing, when avoiding to discuss anything but Kindergarten matters. AND claiming that this is due to some sort of superiority on your behalf. If you keep this up, youīll be claiming that your the greatest fan of free speech on the boards next.

              So about 95 percent of my postings up to this point have been on topic, while about ...what 55 percent of your postings have been on topic??

              We obviously think, argue, quote, judge AND count differently. The shaky hand PD traits are 100 per cent on topic, so ...?

              And let's be really clear here. I can close the thread down at any time and at any point I want to. I don't NEED a reason or an excuse. If I want it closed, it's closed. I don't have to justify it. I don't have to make an excuse or even have a reason. So once again, these weaselly innuendos and insinuations are base and lacking in facts.

              If I wanted the thread closed, I'd close it. And there would be no justification required.

              Only morally and ethically, Ally - only morally and ethically.

              The fact of the matter is I believe in free speech more than anyone else on this board does.

              Oh ..! Dear me.

              So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

              Ah - Iīm a non-smoker. Iīm passionate about that, even. I can chew on it, though, or digest it or anything like that. But smoking is an ugly habit. It clouds things.

              Do YOU smoke?

              The best,
              Fisherman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                No, I mean exactly like YOU are doing, when avoiding to discuss anything but Kindergarten matters. AND claiming that this is due to some sort of superiority on your behalf. I
                So once again he ignores the fact that he's posting about nothing but kindergarten matters and his own behavior plays any role in this....

                Who's surprised?


                We obviously think, argue, quote, judge AND count differently. The shaky hand PD traits are 100 per cent on topic, so ...?
                Yes, let's argue math! You have posted at the time of this post 44 posts on this thread. Ten out of those posts have been related to this kindergarten nonsense which means you have spent 25 percent of your time on this nonsense. I on the other hand have posted over 125 (good god) posts on this topic, and my number of posts on this kindergarten nonsense that are completely off-topic is therefore less than ten percent.

                So since you want to relate it down to school yard terms: the math shows you are once again, full of it.



                Only morally and ethically, Ally - only morally and ethically.
                Oh really? Do tell me what precise moral or ethic is involved in shutting down a board? Let me see, if I understand you. You don't own the board and yet you think you get a say in how it is run and are owed an explanation before it is shut down??

                Do explain that one logically, if you will? What precise moral or ethic is involved in giving you an explanation for anything related to something you don't own?
                Last edited by Ally; 10-02-2013, 09:29 AM.

                Let all Oz be agreed;
                I'm Wicked through and through.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                  Oh really? Do tell me what precise moral or ethic is involved in shutting down a board? Let me see, if I understand you. You don't own the board and yet you think you get a say in how it is run and are owed an explanation before it is shut down??

                  Do explain that one logically, if you will? What precise moral or ethic is involved in giving you an explanation for anything related to something you don't own?
                  Youīll forgive me for not commenting on the two issues you start out with - I find it increasingly tedious.

                  But the point at the end is interesting!

                  I know full well, Ally, that I donīt have much of a say in how the boards are run. What I meant was that it would be ethically and morally wrong for you to shut a thread down on a whim, as you proposed - you said you needed no reason at all.

                  Thatīs why I say that ethically and morally, there would be issues with such a thing.

                  All the best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • Yes I have noticed whenever you are proved undeniably wrong you suddenly find the subject tedious and don't wish to discuss it anymore. So let's discuss the last then.

                    What precisely are those moral or ethical issues?

                    You say there are issues, what are they? What is the moral/ethical imperative at work?

                    Taking it to its furthest conclusion, I mean if it was decided to shut down the entire site on a whim tomorrow, what's the moral or ethical issue that comes into play?

                    What obligation is there to keep anything going for your amusement?

                    Let all Oz be agreed;
                    I'm Wicked through and through.

                    Comment


                    • Rob H:

                      Can you read English?

                      Yes. But you seem to have more of a problem with what I write and not how I read.

                      First you say that "he DID say that the text gave away an impression of having been written by somebody with PD."

                      Which is wrong.

                      Iīm sorry, but you donīt know that, Rob. I have presented evidence to the fact that PD has a number of typical traits that show in handwriting. So the Swanson marginalia may have presented such traits to the eye of Davies.

                      Then you say that:
                      "So, Chris, are you saying that Davies did NOT think that the writing revealed having been written by a person who seemingly could have had PD?"

                      Do you not see that these mean two different things.

                      You might as well say the marginalia was written by someone who could have had red hair. That is different than saying it was written by someone with red hair.

                      It is, yes. But the fact of the matter is that we do not know exactly what prompted Davies to speak of Parkinsonianism, whereas we DO know that this disease has traits that manifest themselves in handwriting; the smaller letters, the grouping of letters, the awkward upward tremor-infested strokes, the easier performed, less shaky downward strokes ... What it was Davies leant against is har do say, since he did not specify it.

                      In the end, it means, using your analogy, that it seems it was written by somebody with red hair, and not only that it could have been written by such a character.

                      "Giving away an impression" does not equal that it MUST have been written by a PD patient, only that it was a fair guess.

                      Itīs slightly subtle, but we can both read and write, canīt we?

                      The best,
                      Fisherman

                      Comment


                      • Ally:

                        Yes I have noticed whenever you are proved undeniably wrong you suddenly find the subject tedious and don't wish to discuss it anymore.

                        And I have noticed that you stay away from answering the core issues by claiming that your opponents are not worthy of an answer.

                        What precisely are those moral or ethical issues?

                        Denying your opponents equal rights to discuss the topic on equal terms, Ally. I would have thought that was obvious to someone so fond of free speech as you.

                        All the best,
                        Fisherman


                        PS. If you will allow me to do so without any further scorn or insults, I think the time has come to put an end to this misery of a debate between you and me. If you have nothing else to say, and if you still wonīt answer the issue I raised about PD tremor, I will stay away from further exchanges with you until further notice.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          [B]Denying your opponents equal rights to discuss the topic on equal terms, Ally. I would have thought that was obvious to someone so fond of free speech as you.
                          So you believe that I am obligated to provide you with a platform to say whatever you want, entirely on my dime? That I OWE you an opportunity to say whatever you want, entirely supported and funded by me?

                          So by that logic, you believe that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to come into your house scream at you, call you names, tell you have ugly taste in furniture, dogs and ugly children and you are obligated to not only listen to it, but continue to provide them with the opportunity to do it and leave your front door open for that purpose?

                          Interesting take on free speech you have there. I absolutely do believe in free speech. That doesn't mean I believe in freedom from consequences for your speech. You have the perfect right to walk into your bosses office and call him a lily-livered azzhole. He has the perfect right to fire you for doing it.

                          Let all Oz be agreed;
                          I'm Wicked through and through.

                          Comment


                          • Polish Jew Suspect

                            Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                            Hi Stewart,
                            I was basing my opinion on Don's book being heavily influential and that somebody in the 1970s and 1980s would surely have read his book. And then used his opinion at the time that Anderson's suspect was Pizer.
                            I was also trying to get across the lack of knowledge shown by the Anti marginallia group and that a more through knowledge is needed.
                            Hope all is well with you.
                            Rob
                            Hi Rob, I'm fine thanks, hope you are too. It was Martin Fido (not Paul Begg) who in 1987 first identified in print Anderson's poor Polish Jew as 'Kosminski' and not Pizer. Thus he was the first to publish this fact and takes the credit. However, in 1976, when Don's first Ripper book came out, there was no 'Ripper community' such as we know today, only a few enthusiasts and authors who were in touch and matters were not generally discussed in the way they are today.

                            For my part I bought Cullen's book in 1965 and was thus aware of 'Kosminski' as named as the Polish Jew suspect by Macnaghten and I presumed that this Polish Jew was one and the same as Anderson's Polish Jew. This was eleven years before Don's book was published. Even Don thought that it was 'a remarkable assertion' for Anderson to make (that Pizer was his suspect) and I had no reason to change my presumption that 'Kosminski' was Anderson's Polish Jew, although I read Don's book. But, obviously, I didn't publish my thoughts anywhere.

                            With no forums, no meetings and no internet, the study of the Ripper crimes was a pretty lonely occupation until the latter half of the 1980s and the centenary in 1988 when people really started to get together. So despite Don's book being influential, which it undoubtedly was, there was no known forum, prior to 1988 where opinions on the subject could be assessed, even then it was amongst core enthusiasts and authors only.

                            Both Cullen's, and Odell's, 1965 books were, like Don's, hugely influential for those reading about the Ripper crimes. And 'Kosminki' was established as the police Polish Jew suspect in 1965 with the publication of Macnaghten's three named suspects. Therefore we simply cannot assume that anyone faking a reference to Anderson's suspect around 1981-1987 would select Pizer and not Kosminski.
                            Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-02-2013, 10:21 AM.
                            SPE

                            Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                              So you believe that I am obligated to provide you with a platform to say whatever you want, entirely on my dime? That I OWE you an opportunity to say whatever you want, entirely supported and funded by me?
                              Money does not enter the matter, Ally - if you are to conduct a debate with somebody, then such a debate should be conducted on equal terms.
                              Once it becomes the funderīs privilege to have the final say, THEN we have a major moral and ethical issue!

                              And we donīt have to travel that far. Once one part lays down the rules, the discussion is no longer an equal one. And that in itself is ethically and morally contestable. I do, however, suspect that Americans and Swedes see these things differently.

                              Thatīs not to say that I crave equal rights here with you. It would be nice, but you have been very clear about who sets the rules, who funds the boards and who will draw upon that at will. I realize this to the full, and do not for a minute claim to be on equal footing with you in these respects. Which, in case you havent realized it yourself, is morally and ethically wrong. But there I am.

                              What I canīt understand for my life, however, is how the question of whether PD can be recognized in tremor-affected handwriting or not could possibly evolve into a question of whether it is morally and ethically correct or not to pay your way into the decisive opinion. It would normally be beyond belief, but Iīm tellin ya - it just happened.

                              Now, Ally, Iīve explained these things as well as I can to you. I wonīt do so any more. If you accept what I say, fine. If not, Iīm sure you have the funds to disagree. At any rate, Iīm through with this discussion.

                              All the best,
                              Fisherman
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 10-02-2013, 10:57 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Faculties can be interpreted depending which side of the fence you sit.
                                Fine. Interpret all you like. But don't claim people said things that they didn't - things that are only your interpretation of what they meant.

                                The importance of this distinction was surely drummed into you as part of your police training, wasn't it? I mean, if you gave evidence in court that a suspect had said something, and it turned out he hadn't said it, and that was just your interpretation of what he meant, that would be perjury, wouldn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X