Private sale

[Fisherman]

No, you haven't actually addressed them. In fact, I doubt you actually read my post.

Has it ever occurred to you that most people have to wade through a bog of insults to be able to read your posts from beginning to end? I mean, itīs not the best of incitaments.
However, I did read your post. And the answers it calls for are either already given or embedded in my posts post-insult.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,
with the greatest repsect in the world, yes he said it could have been because of Parkinsons, not that it WAS DEFINATELY because he had parkinson's.

That is what Chris and Ally and I have spent the last day trying to explain.

Jenni

And how futile, since I already knew that - and never discussed it. Jenni, what I am saying is that the claim that different diseases do not set of differing signs in handwriting is wrong.
Thatīs it. All of it.

The best,
Fisherman

[AdamNeilWood]

Adam

You may have missed it but several hundred posts back I said that I understood that the 1923 letter was written by DS Swanson to his grandson Douglas Swanson, Jim’s elder brother and then asked a number of other questions.

I am unclear despite checking through various other threads and your article where this letter resided after 1923.
I presume that Douglas Swanson kept it. I would guess that Douglas Swanson has passed away. What happened to the letter then I don’t know. Did he had children? Was the letter passed to these possible children? If so I don’t know when they passed to their cousin Nevill.
Or has the letter had a different history?

I'm afraid this is the sort of thing which is typical of this thread. Evidence is posted and people don't bother to read it properly and/or choose to ignore it.

The first line of the 1923 letter says "My dear Donald", not "Douglas".
Douglas Swanson was DSS's third son, who died in 1930.

The letter was written to Donald William Swanson, son of DSS's firstborn Donald Nevill Swanson and elder brother of Jim and Mary Swanson.

Mary is the last surviving grandchild of DSS.

Several hundred posts back I posted that when the Swanson family decided to sell, various papers were sent to Nevill Swanson from his cousins to build the collection. These included the 1909, 1918 and 1923 letters, as well as DSS's address book, which had passed from Donald William Swanson to his eldest son Donald Graham Swanson. They were, therefore, never in Jim Swanson's possession.

Incidentally you may have also missed it but I also asked if it was possible for you to post up the 9th October 1987 letter from Jim Swanson to Charles Nevin?

I didn't miss it, I told you many posts back that I wasn't going to post any more images because everything I have done up to that point has been twisted ("Jim might have forged his own letter").

However, one thing I am going to post, for the benefit of everybody, is the end part of the 1923 letter in which DSS writes "I am sorry that my hand begins to shake so that I have had to stop."

Certain people seem to think DSS went around with his hands shaking permanently, like some gospel minister from the deep south.

[Jenni Shelden]

And how futile, since I already knew that - and never discussed it. Jenni, what I am saying is that the claim that different diseases do not set of differing signs in handwriting is wrong.
Thatīs it. All of it.

The best,
Fisherman

That isnt what we were talking about

we were talking about
a) if Dr Davies were saying DSS had Parkinsons
b) Ruby asked Ally for a list of illnesses causing a hand tremor

Of course Parkinsons can, and not always, cause a hand trmor that alters writing, as can other diseases.

Dr Davies said neurological conditions such as, there are other neurological condictions that also result in it affecting the handwriting in this way due to a tremor.

If you are not disagreeing with that what were the pages and pages of posts about?

Jenni

[Fisherman]

No, I am not. Obviously he didn't rule it out as a possibility. That's quite different from saying Parkinsonism was indicated.

No, it is not. The indications as such led Davies to conclude a possible case of PD. If there had not been traits, specific to the PD group of diseases, Davies would arguably never have mentioned PD in the first case.

Arguing that Davies recognized the traits as a possible indicator of just about anything equals dubbing Davies a complete idiot.

He saw traits in the writing he had seen before, and that he knew could point to PD. That is why he opted for a suggestion of a possible case of PD on behalf of the writer.

It does not prove any PD on behalf of Swanson. It does not exclude the possibility that Davies diagnosed the specific traits he used in a manner that could be proven wrong. But letīs be for real here, and recognize that a document specialist that says that he sees traits specific to a specific phenomenon is normally not just going on about things he donīt know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Has it ever occurred to you that most people have to wade through a bog of insults to be able to read your posts from beginning to end? I mean, itīs not the best of incitaments.
However, I did read your post. And the answers it calls for are either already given or embedded in my posts post-insult.

The best,
Fisherman

You know, for your group who claims to abhor the gutter, you do seem to be the only group that posts entire posts aimed at doing nothing but insulting other posters and adding nothing meaningful to the conversation.

There was not a single insult, directed at you or anyone else in my entire post.

I stated that an idea was freaking stupid. I stated No **** which is a way of saying "That's obvious" and I stated that Science shouldn't be so hard to understand.

So that was a flat out lie, as I did not insult anyone or anything in my post.

So your crowd, who seems to have an agenda as painting me as angry and annoying, are basically just running and using any ad hominem no matter how untrue, to accomplish a fairly cowardly goal.

And you have not addressed my points contained in my posts.

[Ally]

Let me point out where you have failed to properly identify a key problem in your argument.

You point to a lot of studies where "Specific Pathology and its effect on handwriting" have been done.

Find me ONE study that says "a variety of pathologies can be selectively identified by their handwriting differences" in which people with ALL of those pathologies were jumbled up and scientists had to weedle out who had what disease based solely on their handwriting.

People researching a specific disease use handwriting as the best tells for motor skill function impairment. So there will be a LOT of single studies done on the effects. There is I guarantee you, no current diagnostic tool that can differentiate one pathology from another based solely on handwriting.

[Fisherman]

That isnt what we were talking about

we were talking about
a) if Dr Davies were saying DSS had Parkinsons
b) Ruby asked Ally for a list of illnesses causing a hand tremor

Of course Parkinsons can, and not always, cause a hand trmor that alters writing, as can other diseases.

Dr Davies said neurological conditions such as, there are other neurological condictions that also result in it affecting the handwriting in this way due to a tremor.

If you are not disagreeing with that what were the pages and pages of posts about?

Jenni

I am not going to tell you what you are discussing, Jenni. Thatīs not my prerogative.

It IS, however, my prerogative to tell you what I have been discussing.

I think, by the way, that you need to be careful about claiming that there are other neurological conditions that may cause the handwriting to become, as you put it "in this way". That is unless you are a neurological and handwriting expert? I have only just provided evidence that different diseases are set off in different, type-specific manners, so I think we may need to weigh that in before we speak in general terms of tremor as if there was only the one type.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

No, it is not. The indications as such led Davies to conclude a possible case of PD.

Look - what Dr Davies wrote is straightforward enough. Here it is yet again:
"The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's."

Parkinson's is there as a possibility. Other neurological conditions are there as a possibility. No neurological condition at all is there as a possibility, because the tremor is only said to be similar to that found in these conditions.

It is perfectly clear and perfectly simple to anyone with a basic understanding of English. Please stop continually trying to twist what was said so that it sounds like a diagnosis of Parkinsonism.

[Fisherman]

You know, for your group who claims to abhor the gutter, you do seem to be the only group that posts entire posts aimed at doing nothing but insulting other posters and adding nothing meaningful to the conversation.

There was not a single insult, directed at you or anyone else in my entire post.

I stated that an idea was freaking stupid. I stated No **** which is a way of saying "That's obvious" and I stated that Science shouldn't be so hard to understand.

So that was a flat out lie, as I did not insult anyone or anything in my post.

So your crowd, who seems to have an agenda as painting me as angry and annoying, are basically just running and using any ad hominem no matter how untrue, to accomplish a fairly cowardly goal.

And you have not addressed my points contained in my posts.

If you were to be allowed to determine what is an insulting post or not, weīd all be in deep ****. Luckily, it takes two to tango.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

If you were to be allowed to determine what is an insulting post or not, weīd all be in deep ****. Luckily, it takes two to tango.

The best,
Fisherman

So go find where I insulted you in that post Fisherman. Prove me wrong. Go ahead, it's right there. Back up your innuendo and insinuations with actual facts.

Oh and anyone notice he still is posting nothing but ad hominem attacks and failing to address anything of substance? I think this group has pretty much lost the right to whine about how they get treated and any personal abuse at this point.

[Fisherman]

Let me point out where you have failed to properly identify a key problem in your argument.

You point to a lot of studies where "Specific Pathology and its effect on handwriting" have been done.

Find me ONE study that says "a variety of pathologies can be selectively identified by their handwriting differences" in which people with ALL of those pathologies were jumbled up and scientists had to weedle out who had what disease based solely on their handwriting.

People researching a specific disease use handwriting as the best tells for motor skill function impairment. So there will be a LOT of single studies done on the effects. There is I guarantee you, no current diagnostic tool that can differentiate one pathology from another based solely on handwriting.

I donīt have to find you any tailormade research answering to your specific demands. I have shown conclusively that certain traits are tied to certain diseases when it comes to handwriting. There is nothing more that I need to do. That was what the whole issue was about - dissolving the idea that any disease could lie behind of handwriting traits.

When it was specifically asked about PD traits tied to tremor, I provided that trait: The PD patient typically has a lot more trouble handling the upward strokes than the downward ones.

If you think this is not enough for you to get the point made and the message delivered, then all I can say is that moving the goalposts will not make your arguments look any better.

There are traits that are typical to a number of diseases when it comes to handwriting. This is witnessed about by many experts in the field. One of the diseases that have traits that are special in the handwriting department is PD. Davies said that the tremor seemingly gave away a possible PD in Swansonīs hand.

In all of this, I am not saying that Swanson DID have PD. I am not saying that Davies claimed he must have had PD. I am simply saying that a logical chain of expert input and actual evidence points us in that direction.

Is this somehow hard to understand?

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

via media

Hello Stewart. I appreciate your via media posts. Quite refreshing.

I know one cannot properly assess the motives of another, but do you think there would have been a controversy in the first place if:

1. The hands were not dissimilar?

2. The colours did not vary?

3. "Aaron (Aron) Kosminski" were written rather than "Kosminski" (a la MacNaughten)?

4. The end notes began, "The suspect, Aaron Kosminski, was taken . . ." rather than terminating with "Kosminski was the suspect"?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

So go find where I insulted you in that post Fisherman. Prove me wrong. Go ahead, it's right there. Back up your innuendo and insinuations with actual facts.

Oh and anyone notice he still is posting nothing but ad hominem attacks and failing to address anything of substance? I think this group has pretty much lost the right to whine about how they get treated and any personal abuse at this point.

The first line in your post, Ally, was:

No what I am saying is the very idea is freaking stupid.

The last was:

Do you think?

Inbetween those two niceties, you managed to cram in, for example, No ****, Parkinson's handwriting and normal handwriting aren't the same?

...implying that you were less than impressed with my deductive powers.

We all know how you work, Ally. I got away fairly easily, compared to what youīve poured over Edward. But that does not mean that you operate at any sort of half-decent level. Iīm fine with that though - in the end, such things will work more against you than me.

As for me not addressing anything of substance, that too is an unjust insult. As for claiming that I outright lie, that too is an unjust insult.

Now, can we leave this subject?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

No what's hard to understand is how, after posting 30 pages of research on studies that show that Parkinson's handwriting characteristics are defined by micrographia and looking at Swanson's handwriting which shows absolutely no sign of it, you can still attempt to claim that Davis was making any sort of claim about Swanson actually having it and not just generally making a non-medical statement about the handwriting being shaky.