Private sale

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[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]

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]

Interest

...
So, there, I have explained the relevance of the 'marginalia' and of how its authenticity reflects upon a suspect theory that enjoys greater recognition, and following, than yours. It is, therefore, in your interest to cast as much doubt as you can on this valid suggestion as to the identity of the Ripper, as based on the writings of two very senior police officers involved in the case. But I am sure that you know that really.
No, I do not know that - it was new to me. I am more interested in promoting Lechmere and the things pointing to him, than in trying to dispell what points to other suspects. And again, dispelling the suggestion that Kosminski was Andersonīs Polish jew does in no shape or form alter the fact that we know that Anderson DID promote a poor Polish jew as the Ripper. That is beyond doubt.
However, Anderson himself is NOT beyond doubt, something that has been argued with heat by yourself. If you did this in order to "cast doubt" on the work of others, I canīt say - but Iīd like to think that the driving force behind it was factual more than vindictive. That is how I reason myself.
...
Fisherman[/B]

Okay, so you didn't know that it was in your interest (or in the interest of anyone with a different 'suspect') to question the status of other (opposing) theories. In attacking the 'marginalia' you inevitably attack possibly the main basis upon which the Kosminski theory is built. You undoubtedly are 'more interested in promoting Lechmere and the things [you see as] pointing to him, than in trying to dispel what points to other suspects'. But, the fact is that, despite this, it is still in your interest to weaken the status of the Polish Jew suspect. Surely that is obvious.

My arguments against Anderson are well known and are factually backed up. If I intend to cast doubt on the work of others I have said so, and I am on record as disagreeing with the likes of Paul and Martin when I do not think they have valid arguments. This is how theorists and authors go about things. And these are often arguments about interpretation and opinion. Where facts exist they cannot be logically dismissed. And when Martin, supported by Paul, suggested that Anderson would not lie in a published book I set about finding evidence to the contrary, which I did.

The doubt that you seek to cast on the work of others goes a step further. For it involves dismissing the opinions of others, like me, who are in a position to give an informed opinion, to insinuate that some fakery has taken place (for which there is no evidence) and thus cast aspersions on the Swanson family, and, best of all, to cast doubt on the work of a professional document examiner with credentials in the field.

[Ally]

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

When one doesn't do something that one is obligated by basic decency to do, the correct word is refuse. You don't have to state that you refuse, your actions make the statement for you.

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".

Yes there probably are 600000 hits on Google and the only people arguing exactly similar is anything other than an oxymoron are actual morons who probably think that ZOMG is a real world too. But that is beside the point. Davies didn't say they were "exactly similar". He said they were similar. No exact. Not even "almost entirely similar" or "so similar as to be identical". Similar does not mean exact. You were wrong. You cannot add an adjective on to an adjective and say you have a correct definition when that is not what Davis said.

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.

Your habit of distorting facts is not very useful.

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

I do love how you think you can just say "WRONG" like that's a valid argument. I quoted Davis exactly. He did not provide a parkinson like grouping and prior to stating Parkinson's he said "neurological CONDITIONS - not disease - such as Parkinson's.

Every single thing I stated was 100 percent factual and you think you just going "WRONG" negates that. Your logic is adorably child-like in its simplicity.

[Fisherman]

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

Itīs Fisherman, Jenni. And I have already stated exactly what I mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

When one doesn't do something that one is obligated by basic decency to do, the correct word is refuse. You don't have to state that you refuse, your actions make the statement for you.



Yes there probably are 600000 hits on Google and the only people arguing exactly similar is anything other than an oxymoron are actual morons who probably think that ZOMG is a real world too. But that is beside the point. Davies didn't say they were "exactly similar". He said they were similar. No exact. Not even "almost entirely similar" or "so similar as to be identical". Similar does not mean exact. You were wrong. You cannot add an adjective on to an adjective and say you have a correct definition when that is not what Davis said.





Your habit of distorting facts is not very useful.




I do love how you think you can just say "WRONG" like that's a valid argument. I quoted Davis exactly. He did not provide a parkinson like grouping and prior to stating Parkinson's he said "neurological CONDITIONS - not disease - such as Parkinson's.

Every single thing I stated was 100 percent factual and you think you just going "WRONG" negates that. Your logic is adorably child-like in its simplicity.

Wrong, Iīd say. I said wrong, Iīd say. That means that I think it is wrong. As a matter of fact, very much of what you say and write seems very wrong to me.

All the best,
Fisherman