Private sale

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni!

Before you spend any more time trying to prove an improvable point, you may want to recognize that fact that Edward consistently says that Dr Davies was POTENTIALLY too close to the family.

That is not the same as saying that claiming that it was the case that this was so.

What Edward does is to point out POSSIBLE holes in the seams of the Marginalia authenticity.

You must keep these things apart if you are to contribute to a useful discussion. Saying that Edward has laid down that there was a friendship that was harmful is not true, and will only inflame the discussion further. It is inflamed enough as it is.

The best,
Fisherman

Fishman,
It seems possible you are deliberately inserting yourself into the discussion with the sole intention to try and discredit me.

In all honesty, the implication of what was said was that Dr Davies I think the writing analyser was too close to the principals involved. ie had a personal relationship. I except that isn't the exact phrase that was used. But it was clearly what was meant and that can be seen post after post. Anyone reading this thread can look back and see if they agree with my reading of this. Of course they will because that was what was said. I dont see a maybe there btw, it was given as a fact.

I asked immediately and continually what Ed meant and it wasn't until it got so far gone I paraphrased and used the words personal relationship he answered. Why? Because paraphrasing what was meant means I am somehow wrong and he has a great moral victory. No.

As for what I must do for a useful discussion, how dare you have the nerve to say such a thing, when you have come here with the express intention of having a go at me and adding nothing to the points (or lack thereof) raised? Setting this aside. Yes, I am trying to discuss with him the reasons he thinks there are possible holes, but its difficult when people like you come here trying to goad me and him.

If you would like to try speaking to me as though I am not a child, that would be a good place to start, that is if you don't expect a sarcastic answer. Not that you seem to recognise that was what I was clearly being in my remark about spongebob

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

nothing to see

[Lechmere]

Jenni

When I used the expression ‘too close to the principals involved’ I close my words carefully as the ‘principals’ included the Metropolitan Police. I explained this to you in post 63. Yet you persisted in used the incorrect expression. If I meant to use the term ‘personal relationship’ then I would have done – my vocabulary is up to that task.

In your mind my expression translated to ‘personal relationship’ so not surprisingly I didn’t know what you were going on about.
You also strangely misinterpreted my allegory about the ‘mate’. This time your mind absorbed the allegory literally.
I can only assume this was because you had a fixed prior assumption about what I was getting at – and you were totally wrong.
Again as it was obviously an allegory it was a little difficult for me to realise that anyone would take it literally.
Nevertheless I took some time to explain this to you as you were going on and on about it – but you still don’t seem to have absorbed what I said.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni

Ah – so you have no example of me saying that Dr Davies had a ‘personal relationship’ with the Swanson family.
Why don’t you just admit that?
That means I don’t have a problem remembering what I said – doesn’t it?

It is increasingly painful having to explain these things but the ‘mate’ allegory was not to be taken literally. Dr Davies isn’t a literary critic is he? It doesn’t involve a book that had been written. Every aspect of the allegory was chosen to be unlike the actual circumstances – including the ‘mate’ reference.
I used that allegory to illustrate how a professional person might give a judgement that is swayed by human factors. I hope that is clear to you now.

The reason I didn’t pick up on what you were asking is that it should really have been obvious to you that I was not suggesting that Dr Davies was literally the ‘mate’ of anyone involved in this processes for simple reason that I spelt out his connections.

But I see that what you actually meant was that I had said that Dr Davies was too close to the principals involved. Yes indeed!
I spelt that out to include the Metropolitan Police. I would include the family and his conducting the test while in their house and I would include his relationship with ‘Ripperologists’.
Usually I used the modifier – potentially – and I would stand by that - with the modifier. I have given reasons for this and I have given examples where he may have overlooked issues.
This leads me to suspect that he may not have been using all his critical faculties.
I do not for one moment think that he was consciously swayed, or that he acted unprofessionally.
You can ‘call out’ all you like.

I notice that when I mention specific areas for concern and areas that should be tested they are met with the silence of a graveyard.

I didn’t say that Marginalists per se have a hidden agenda –that paranoia again.
You are acting on this thread as a Marginalist – so that is what you are!
Is it an offensive term?
I think you are taking yourself too seriously there Jenni.

Dear Edward,
I don't appreciate your smug tone here at all. I asked several times, I ended up paraphrasing, the implication from you saying what you did was that there was some kind of personal relationship - by that I do not mean that you meant he was their brother but that he was in some way close. Got it? Which is, as anyone who can read will testify, the implication of what you said. So do not be smug at me.

So let me tell you something about how clear I could have been about what I was asking,
Dear Ed,
Lets back up a minute here.
1) Dr Davies was 'too close to the principals involved'. Please explained, in what way, to what principals, as far as I know he isnt related to anyone. Expain what you mean.
2) which supporting documents do you mean. In what way were they not examined as described?
3) The tests seem pretty fine to me and they were published for all to see in Ripperologist magazine.

so I repeat, what tests would you like to see done? Its ok to poo poo something, but what is your alternative.

Jenni

In using your allegoric symbols and concepts I felt you were implying indeed that Dr Davies relationship with the Swanson's was akin to that of the literary critic you mentioned. If that isn't what you were trying to do fair enough. I am sure you are happy to have cleared up that. Thank you.

What are Dr Davies relationships with the Met Police and how could this have affected it.

What Ripperologists does he have a relationship with?

In what way did conducting the tests in their home influence him? Another poster, Sally, I think, stated this was not unusual...

I am glad we can move away from getting overly smug and personal back to actually looking at the point that you are trying to make

Thanks
Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni

When I used the expression ‘too close to the principals involved’ I close my words carefully as the ‘principals’ included the Metropolitan Police. I explained this to you in post 63. Yet you persisted in used the incorrect expression. If I meant to use the term ‘personal relationship’ then I would have done – my vocabulary is up to that task.

In your mind my expression translated to ‘personal relationship’ so not surprisingly I didn’t know what you were going on about.
You also strangely misinterpreted my allegory about the ‘mate’. This time your mind absorbed the allegory literally.
I can only assume this was because you had a fixed prior assumption about what I was getting at – and you were totally wrong.
Again as it was obviously an allegory it was a little difficult for me to realise that anyone would take it literally.
Nevertheless I took some time to explain this to you as you were going on and on about it – but you still don’t seem to have absorbed what I said.

Sorry Ed ours posts crossed.

[Lechmere]

Chris

I said:
I have never said that Dr Davies acted in an unprofessional manner. You have real problems with comprehension. I said that it is quite possible that sub consciously he may have been swayed.

And you replied:
That's simply a lie. There's nothing whatsoever about "sub consciously" in the post of yours that I was replying to:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...588#post275588

I can only assume you were referring to this post of mine:
I think it is possible that Dr Davies, despite his qualifications, may have been swayed to be less than critical by various considerations that I have mentioned. He is a human being after all. This is no reflection on his professionalism or his knowledge.
His second report in essence gave the Marginalia a clean bill of health based on the 1923 hand written letter. This letter wiped away his reservations about the shakey hand writing.
However as the letter came from the same source as the Marginalia it is not a good test sample. This should be obvious, but this factor is not considered. The letter itself was not seemingly subjected to any scrutiny.
Also without explanation Dr Davies dropped his earlier suggestion that the shakey writing may have been caused by a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism.
These are the flaws within Dr Davies report as I see it.

I will take you through what I said vvvverrry slowly for you.

‘I think it is possible that Dr Davies, despite his qualifications, may have been swayed to be less than critical by various considerations that I have mentioned.’

Pray tell what are the various considerations that I have previously mentioned? Are they possibly be ‘that sub consciously he may have been swayed’.Yes they are!

Then what about this:

‘He is a human being after all. This is no reflection on his professionalism or his knowledge.’

No reflection on his professionalism – that means he was not acting unprofessionally.

As you clearly cannot understand English, I take it that when you accuse me of lying you are actually congratulating me on enlightening you as to the truth.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I was going to get round to writing you a particularly smug and probably rude reply to your objection to being called a Marginalist, but I will hold fire.
I was meant in a light hearted way incidentally.
I would much rather this ‘debate’ was conducted in a responsible and sensible manner without ridiculous snipes that actually degrade everyone involved.
If anything I have pulled my punches because I well recall a massive flame war that broke out nearly a year ago as a result of a Marginalia disputes that oversplit into numerous other threads with posters following each other around insulting each other, and people who were not even involved in the Marginalia disagreement got dragged into it like some vast bar room brawl.
It result in a large number of suspensions – including myself!
I think this forum has been a bit of a shadow of itself since then and I didn’t want it to happen again.

I would rather you commented on the substantive points I have made regarding possible areas for tests and my case that there were flaws in the process and the other matters for concern such as the way the dedication in the book was tampered with, or the News of the World article at Scotland Yard.

Adam, although he is obviously disagrees with me at least addresses the issues.

[Ally]

Jenni
my vocabulary is up to that task.

In your mind my expression translated to ‘personal relationship’ so not surprisingly I didn’t know what you were going on about.
You also strangely misinterpreted my allegory about the ‘mate’. This time your mind absorbed the allegory literally....


Again as it was obviously an allegory it was a little difficult for me to realise that anyone would take it literally.
Nevertheless I took some time to explain this to you as you were going on and on about it – but you still don’t seem to have absorbed what I said.

And yet your vocabulary is not up to the task of actually comprehending what an allegory actually is. Seriously, dictionary.com. Can be an invaluable tool to use before you smugly and condescendingly go about calling other people's intelligence and reading ability into question.

You used an analogy. One concrete example to draw parallels to another. Not a symbolic representation of an idea. Not an allegory.

[Chris]

Lechmere

You don't have to "assume" which of your posts I was referring to. I quoted it in the first place, and I provided a link to it subsequently!

The point is that you responded to my reference to one of your posts by lying about what you had said. You claimed "I said that it is quite possible that sub consciously he may have been swayed". In fact, as everyone can see, you'd said no such thing.

And of course if Dr Davies had been swayed by these "various considerations" to alter his conclusions about the genuineness of the marginalia he would have been acting unprofessionally, whether consciously, unconsciously or whatever.

You can deny that implication as often as you like, but I can't imagine anyone is fooled. That's just the game you're playing. Posting endless smears and innuendo, while pretending butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ed,
somewhere up there I did try to do this.

Nonetheless, however light hearted you intended it to be,I do not like labels as they stick. So if when you called me a marginalist you didn't mean it, or in fact anything particularly even, I would appreciate it if you would either retract it or explain. I don't mind being called something if I am one, but actually, if I'm not or I don't even know what it means, I do find it offensive (really)

Jenni

[Chris]

You don't have to "assume" which of your posts I was referring to. I quoted it in the first place, and I provided a link to it subsequently!

And I must admit that I've only just realised that with all that tosh about having said "sub consciously" Lechmere again evaded the question I asked him - which was whether he actually had any evidence that Dr Davies has been influenced by extraneous factors to alter his view of the genuineness of the marginalia.

[Lechmere]

Oh dear Ally

No we disagree over common English usage.

In the Oxford English Dictionary an allegory is defined as:
Narrative description of subject under guise of another suggestively similar; figurative story

With an analogy as:
Process of reasoning from parallel cases

Your on-line resource dictionary.com gives the origin of the word ‘allegory’

late 14c., from O.Fr. allegorie, from L. allegoria, from Gk. allegoria "figurative language, description of one thing under the image of another," lit. "a speaking about something else," from allos "another, different" + agoreuein "speak openly, speak in the assembly,"

It gives this example of an analogy from Samuel Johnson:
“Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.”

The English language is a wonderful thing that can be used in different ways and often terms have overlapping meanings. I can see how a case can be made for my little story about the ‘mate’ being an analogy – but it is far closer to an allegorical tale as I was telling a figurative story where none of the components represented reality, but each symbolised something else.

[Lechmere]

Actually Chris I have answered all your points.
I have listed various aspects of his second report that suggested he was not being overly critical which I speculated might be down to sub conscious influences.
I don’t care whether you accept this or not. You are incapable of conducting a debate or a discussion.

[Jenni Shelden]

Oh dear Ally

No we disagree over common English usage.

In the Oxford English Dictionary an allegory is defined as:
Narrative description of subject under guise of another suggestively similar; figurative story

With an analogy as:
Process of reasoning from parallel cases

Your on-line resource dictionary.com gives the origin of the word ‘allegory’

late 14c., from O.Fr. allegorie, from L. allegoria, from Gk. allegoria "figurative language, description of one thing under the image of another," lit. "a speaking about something else," from allos "another, different" + agoreuein "speak openly, speak in the assembly,"

It gives this example of an analogy from Samuel Johnson:
“Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.”

The English language is a wonderful thing that can be used in different ways and often terms have overlapping meanings. I can see how a case can be made for my little story about the ‘mate’ being an analogy – but it is far closer to an allegorical tale as I was telling a figurative story where none of the components represented reality, but each symbolised something else.

And in this case you were symbolising a closeness by the person conducting a test to the owner of it with the person conducting a test and their closeness to the owner? And hence as in the symbolic tale, suggesting that Dr Davies may have been impared by his closeness to the situation?

I think it got lost somewhere, when I was trying to ask you/figure out why you felt this? If I recall something to do with it being conducted in the Swanson home and that Dr Davies worked for the police?

I was unsure how you felt the location had an influence?

I wasnt sure how working for the police was relevant? Do you think the Met Police today have a vested interest in the Marginalia. And in what way is it evidenced that there was an influence, or are you just suggesting it is possible?


You also mentioned the undue influence of Ripperologists, but I don;t think I was clear on who?

Why do you think Dr Davies allowed his judgement to be clouded ?
best wishes
Jenni

[Ally]

Oh dear Ally

No we disagree over common English usage.

In the Oxford English Dictionary an allegory is defined as:
Narrative description of subject under guise of another suggestively similar; figurative story

Oh he does have a dictionary. Now go look up "narrative description" and realize your example doesn't meet the qualifications for that nor does it meet the qualifications for "figurative story". The figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another is a story where a reader is supposed to draw subconscious parallels. Now where someone goes: take this as an example.

Now, let's say for a minute that you actually were using allegory (or analogy which you actually were using) then you have just blown your entire argument out of the water by saying no one should take your allegory as drawing a direct comparison. By your own placement of that definition you are admitting you were drawing a direct comparison between the two.

So you basically just called yourself a liar.