No Herlock, you misunderstand. My point is David's practice of minimalization or act of reductionism. Notice his first post
My first post in this thread was #12 about the deployment of 12 constables to which you've not actually responded other than to refer to an unspecified "source". You've not said anything whatsoever until now about "minimalization" or "reductionism" regarding that particular post and I've actually since prepared and posted transcripts of two highly relevant letters which prove the deployment had nothing to do with Tumblety. So what is Herlock supposed to "Notice" about my first post?
The only issue of alleged "minimalization" that I can recall raised by you was in respect to my second post (#13) in which I correctly stated that,"we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing!" The supporting quote you provided in your book did, indeed, say no such thing. Even if you had expanded the minimalized quote you provided in your book all the way until the end of Littlechild's letter it still would have said absolutely no such thing. So where was the "minimalization" or "act of reductionism" on my part?
Originally Posted by mklhawley
Of course he's going to "clarify" with additional. . . additional. . . additional. . . posts (ad nauseum), and I'm planning on responding to those once he's written his book.
If I were to simply paste my posts from this thread into a book and make it available on Kindle would you then respond to it Mike? If that's the case, when you think about it, isn't your supposed "strategy" a bit ridiculous? Or is it not "ridiculous" at all but simply a transparent excuse to avoid responding properly and sensibly to my posts in a way that any intelligent member of this forum can understand? And isn't the reason you need such an excuse not to respond properly and sensibly to my posts because it will involve you having to admit to a few errors in your book which appears to be something you are not capable of doing?
I don't disagree with you at all which is why I phrased one of the alternatives thus: "Alternatively, if his view is that a bounty hunter is the same as a private detective, that he didn't want to accept that his "number" of modern researchers was just two, Riordan and myself."
But Mike did specifically refer in his book to a "private detective" and that is precisely the expression I have used (and only me, it seems). So I think the language is important. If Riordan was in Mike's mind I would have expected him to have said:
"One claim by a number of modern researchers states that this man was an English private detective or bounty hunter hired by the two men who gave the sureties for Tumbletyís bail before he sneaked out of the country."
Ultimately, though, jmenges, there could be a thousand modern researchers who have made the claim but unless Mike knew about them, and they were in his mind when he referred in his book to "a number of modern researchers", it's irrelevant. It's for MIKE to tell us who these modern researchers are and not only does HIS silence speak volumes but I note that you haven't even asked him the question as to their identity yourself.
It's for MIKE to tell us who these modern researchers are and not only does HIS silence speak volumes but I note that you haven't even asked him the question as to their identity yourself.
I don't have to ask him who he means since I already know that "modern day researchers" have been questioning the validity of the "English detective" for years. Riordan, AP Wolf, Simon, Wolf V., Dan Norder and I'm sure there's a few others. If I seriously thought that he was targeting me personally, excluding all others, in his book, as you seem to believe, then I would ask him just as you have done. But maybe a little nicer.
I don't have to ask him who he means since I already know that "modern day researchers" have been questioning the validity of the "English detective" for years. Riordan, AP Wolf, Simon, Wolf V., Dan Norder and I'm sure there's a few others.
"Questioning the validity of the "English detective"" is a different matter. Mike was talking about a specific alternative suggestion to a Scotland Yard detective, being an English private detective.
Originally Posted by jmenges
If I seriously thought that he was targeting me personally, excluding all others, in his book, as you seem to believe, then I would ask him just as you have done.
It's not a question of "as I seem to believe"; he's previously admitted that he was "targeting" me in his 2016 book. See Mike's post at #2 in this thread dated 29 September 2016:
Hey only five posts? I expect more for every one of mine.
No, I'm waiting on your Jack the Ripper book you clearly plan on writing.
As I said, you have serious gaps but I plan on waiting for this most important book. Hurry up!
And yes, if anyone wants to hear about some of his errors, I will let you know privately.
Awaiting six to eight posts, then I'll post again
I think I can limit this response to a single post as all you've done is repeat a strange error that you've made a number of times in this thread.
There will not be a "Jack the Ripper" book from me. I do not consider myself, and never have considered myself, to be a Ripperologist.
Why you believe there will be such a book is impossible for me to comprehend bearing in mind that I have never said, either in public or in private, that I will ever be writing such a book nor have I ever hinted at such a thing.
Presumably it's all a diversionary tactic: a distraction from the questions about your book that I've raised in this thread, you know, the 12 constables and all that kind of relevant stuff.
And if you believe that you know of errors that David has made you should have enough confidence in them to post them on the Forum for debate (which is after all the point of the Forum.)
Back in June 2015, Mike thought he had found an important error in my series of online articles entitled "The Suckered! Trilogy". He told me (and the rest of the forum members) that he was going to post "a clear cut correction". A few days later he finally posted what he thought this "clear cut correction" was.
Unfortunately for Mike, and rather embarrassingly, it transpired that he had misread and misunderstood a key document. The "clear cut correction" turned out to be nothing of the kind. Just a "clear cut mistake" on the part of Mr Hawley.
Our brief discussion on the point concluded with Mike saying:
"Very appropriate, David. Now, you can say your entire article has been scrutinized."
It was, of course, very kind of Mike to scrutinize my entire article and I was very pleased that it stood up to scrutiny.
For anyone wanting to read the above mentioned discussion and see the mistakes made by Mike (for there was actually more than one), it's this thread here: