An experiment

[Pierre]

Pierre ,

I am confused by that reply.

Does it mean you object to answering a simple question which was merely to clarify your reply of "yes".

If so may I respectfully ask way?

Alternatively does the reply mean you object to giving any information at all?

It could be viewed, whether you mean it to or not, that information is seen as some form of present which is awarded to others when it is felt they deserve it. (Xmas when good children get presents).

I was under the impression you were an academic historian, who had spent many years in a university, surely one of the principle ethoses of such a background is the passing on of information freely to others. That therefore seems to be an unlikely explanation.

So hope you can see why I am confused by the reply, I truly do not know what you mean?

I am truly saddened by your overall response to an innocuous question, to your initial reply of "yes" in relation to a question asking if a new document had been found, which proven "Juwes" was wrong and "Judges" correct, as your response of "yes" strongly implied


regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

this was your question and my answer to it:

""How did he do this? Did he discover some ground breaking document?"

"Yes.""

After that you tried to tell the past what sort of source it should have left as a "ground breaking document". The past does not function like that. You do not wish for specific contents in sources and the past does not give it to you.

The past could leave a ground breaking document, if you prefer to call it that, or more than one, but it does not do so from your specific definitions of the source, where you tell the past what the contents of the source should preferable be, according to your own wishes in 2016.

Therefore, you will never in your life see a source telling you that "I, Mr X, wrote the GSG". And if you do, it will either have the tendency of lying or it would be a forgery. Because that sort of source would not have been written in any other circumstances in the past or present.

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

continued

The Mr. Geoghegan who represented Mr. Levy Was Mr. Gerald Geoghegan who would represent Frederick Deeming in 1892 in his appeal of a death sentence in the colony of Victoria (Australia), and would defend Dr. Thomas Neill Cream at his trial for murder in November 1892.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Because that sort of source would not have been written in any other circumstances in the past or present.

Wouldn't it have been easier and quicker just to say that you didn't have any such document that Steve was asking you about?

[David Orsam]

Tried at the Old Bailey - case presided over by the (then) Mayor of London.

I think you will find it was actually presided over by the Recorder.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

this was your question and my answer to it:

""How did he do this? Did he discover some ground breaking document?"

"Yes.""

After that you tried to tell the past what sort of source it should have left as a "ground breaking document". The past does not function like that. You do not wish for specific contents in sources and the past does not give it to you.

The past could leave a ground breaking document, if you prefer to call it that, or more than one, but it does not do so from your specific definitions of the source, where you tell the past what the contents of the source should preferable be, according to your own wishes in 2016.

Therefore, you will never in your life see a source telling you that "I, Mr X, wrote the GSG". And if you do, it will either have the tendency of lying or it would be a forgery. Because that sort of source would not have been written in any other circumstances in the past or present.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

The first 3 lines of your post are truthful and accurate, what follows bares no relation to what happen, of indeed responds to the post it claims to be replying to.

Let me make this really simple

1. Post 689

"The point we are missing is that Pierre discovered the real word, which we have all mistaken to be Juwes.

How did he do this? Did he discover some ground breaking document?"


Obviously this asked have you found a ground breaking document which proved that Juwes was incorrect?


2. Post 696 you replied

"yes"

So that claims you had found such a document, this is of course very interesting, and needs some form of clarification.


3. I then post 701

"Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?"

"I mean in plain English, does it say "I did it", no metaphors, no code. Just I wrote the GSG and it means this!"



I am asking for confirmation of such a find, and specifically asking if it was of a certain type, and given your liking for metaphors that it was in plain English..

4. You respond the way you have.



No one was trying to "tell the past" anything?

A simple question asking for clarification of the answer "YES", with what could be a possible example of such. That is all it was!


All you had to do was say one of several possible answers:

No, Yes, or Yes have a document, but not that type of document.
Of course those are not the only answers you could give, but they would be the clearest.

Instead you replied as you have, muddying the waters about the subject under debate with posts from you about how sources work.
I find your comments that I do not understand this truly insulting.

Why not just say in response to post#701, No I have not found that type of document, but I have one/some which lead me to that conclusion?




Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre,

The first 3 lines of your post are truthful and accurate, what follows bares no relation to what happen, of indeed responds to the post it claims to be replying to.

Let me make this really simple

1. Post 689

"The point we are missing is that Pierre discovered the real word, which we have all mistaken to be Juwes.

How did he do this? Did he discover some ground breaking document?"


Obviously this asked have you found a ground breaking document which proved that Juwes was incorrect?


2. Post 696 you replied

"yes"

So that claims you had found such a document, this is of course very interesting, and needs some form of clarification.


3. I then post 701

"Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?"

"I mean in plain English, does it say "I did it", no metaphors, no code. Just I wrote the GSG and it means this!"



I am asking for confirmation of such a find, and specifically asking if it was of a certain type, and given your liking for metaphors that it was in plain English..

4. You respond the way you have.



No one was trying to "tell the past" anything?

A simple question asking for clarification of the answer "YES", with what could be a possible example of such. That is all it was!


All you had to do was say one of several possible answers:

No, Yes, or Yes have a document, but not that type of document.
Of course those are not the only answers you could give, but they would be the clearest.

Instead you replied as you have, muddying the waters about the subject under debate with posts from you about how sources work.
I find your comments that I do not understand this truly insulting.

Why not just say in response to post#701, No I have not found that type of document, but I have one/some which lead me to that conclusion?



Steve

Hi Steve,

I do not have a "liking for metaphors". Interpretation of metaphorical language is a very different thing. It can not be the basis of the research about Jack the Ripper in any theory. It can perhaps be used as illustrating sources and can be used to pose questions and making new hypotheses after the foundations are finished.

The documents you are asking about are realistic and contain simple facts. Yes, I think the documents are "ground breaking" together with more documents, which are also realistic and contain facts.

I have a liking for documents with high facticity and strong substantial significance.

But all of this doesn´t matter. I hope you will dismiss everything I say here, if that is what you want to do. I hope that you will be critical. But in the end, we are all depending an a small scrap of paper, aren´t we?

And if that small scrap of paper is worthless, we will just have more rubbish in the bin.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Wouldn't it have been easier and quicker just to say that you didn't have any such document that Steve was asking you about?

Hi David,

"Such a document" was expressed by Steve in specific words. The past, i.e. documents from 1888, does not express itself in the specific words of Steve from 2016.

I am looking for the easiest or quickest way, David. I am looking for the most correct way.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I do not have a "liking for metaphors". Interpretation of metaphorical language is a very different thing. It can not be the basis of the research about Jack the Ripper in any theory. It can perhaps be used as illustrating sources and can be used to pose questions and making new hypotheses after the foundations are finished.

The documents you are asking about are realistic and contain simple facts. Yes, I think the documents are "ground breaking" together with more documents, which are also realistic and contain facts.

I have a liking for documents with high facticity and strong substantial significance.

But all of this doesn´t matter. I hope you will dismiss everything I say here, if that is what you want to do. I hope that you will be critical. But in the end, we are all depending an a small scrap of paper, aren´t we?

And if that small scrap of paper is worthless, we will just have more rubbish in the bin.

Regards, Pierre

My Dear Pierre,

I still would like to understand your comments about not being Santa.

I won't repost, but post# 720 asked the question.

Regards

Steve

[David Orsam]

I am looking for the easiest or quickest way, David. I am looking for the most correct way.

As I understand you Pierre, the correct answer is that you don't have any such document that Steve was asking you about.

So I was wondering why you didn't just say that, being the easiest and quickest (while also correct) way.

[Pierre]

As I understand you Pierre, the correct answer is that you don't have any such document that Steve was asking you about.

So I was wondering why you didn't just say that, being the easiest and quickest (while also correct) way.

Hi David,

"Such a document" was expressed by Steve in specific words. The past, i.e. documents from 1888, does not express itself in the specific words of Steve from 2016.

I am not looking for the easiest or quickest way. I am looking for the most correct way. The correct way is to abstain from demanding from the past that it should give us documents formulated in 2016.

These are my last words to you on this matter, since there is no meaning writing the same phrases over and over again.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

My Dear Pierre,

I still would like to understand your comments about not being Santa.

I won't repost, but post# 720 asked the question.

Regards

Steve

Sure. You have asked me for a source you wish to have. The past does not create sources from wishes. And I do not provide sources made up from wishful thinking. The past provides sources from the past, long before anyone in 2016 could sit and wish they would be there.

The myth is that if you wish for something and ask Santa, you could get what you wish. But if you ask me, you can not get it. Because I am not Santa and the past is not Xmas. It is a very distant reality, existing only in the form of very sparse sources, and I am just a simple historian. The past is gone. What we have is history, based on sources from the past.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

"Such a document" was expressed by Steve in specific words. The past, i.e. documents from 1888, does not express itself in the specific words of Steve from 2016.

I am not looking for the easiest or quickest way. I am looking for the most correct way. The correct way is to abstain from demanding from the past that it should give us documents formulated in 2016.

These are my last words to you on this matter, since there is no meaning writing the same phrases over and over again.

Well, certainly, and I don't honestly know why you bothered with that post since you simply repeated your previous one (which really had no meaning) and I was perfectly able to read it the first time.

I think the conclusion of this little exchange is that you have no document such as the one Steve asked you about, but if that is wrong no doubt you will correct me.

[Elamarna]

Sure. You have asked me for a source you wish to have. The past does not create sources from wishes. And I do not provide sources made up from wishful thinking. The past provides sources from the past, long before anyone in 2016 could sit and wish they would be there.

The myth is that if you wish for something and ask Santa, you could get what you wish. But if you ask me, you can not get it. Because I am not Santa and the past is not Xmas. It is a very distant reality, existing only in the form of very sparse sources, and I am just a simple historian. The past is gone. What we have is history, based on sources from the past.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I did not ask for a source I wished for, such a statement is palpably untrue!

By posting "YES" it was implied that there was a source which PROVED the Juwes was the incorrect reading of the word.

While the reply did not state "Judges" was the correct reading, the previous two sentences including the question, leave this in little doubt.

I simply asked if such a source existed.
In addition I gave a specific example, as while I am prepared to listen to an argument suggesting the word could have been Judges rather than Juwes; I could see nothing else which could PROVE that "Judges" was the conclusive answer.
The specific example I asked about was not something I wished for; given I do not believe the GSG has anything to do with the murders why would I wish for such?


I had hoped that maybe we would be enlighten, if not on the content of any alleged data source which may have established the high degree of probability for this conclusion the post suggested, then at least on the type of document?



The rest of the post is pointless attack on a child’s culture, which is then extrapolated upon to apply to others. Please tell me which adult expects to get a wish from Santa?


All this to cover a sweeping statement which was was made,- "Yes", that a data source had been found which proved the reading of "Juwes" was incorrect, which it appears cannot or will not be backed up.

regards

Steve

[GUT]

Typical Pierre waste of bandwidth if you ask me.

[Elamarna]

The Mr. Geoghegan who represented Mr. Levy Was Mr. Gerald Geoghegan who would represent Frederick Deeming in 1892 in his appeal of a death sentence in the colony of Victoria (Australia), and would defend Dr. Thomas Neill Cream at his trial for murder in November 1892.

Jeff

That is a real coincidence is it not Jeff, to defend 3 suspects.

Steve