Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 16 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by DJA 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by packers stem 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (49 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (5 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #111  
Old 12-27-2016, 01:57 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It's a little known fact that I provide a service to members of the forum by defining simple English words, with the help of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Prove, v. "To establish as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument."
You have no academic knowledge, David. You have no education within history or any social science. But in spite of this, you use concepts when you accuse people here, which have been heavily criticized by historians and social science.

Research has shown that there are huge problems with the concept of "truth".

But when I ask you what you mean by "prove it", you can only refer to a dictionary using the concept of "truth".

When you accuse people here you must have support for your arguments.

Now: WHAT do you mean by "prove it"?

1. Is it a judicial concept?
2. Is it an historical concept?
3. Is it a scientific concept?

No. It is the unscientific concept of David, based on a dictionary.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:24 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how to prove a fact, because he seems to be having difficulty with that simple concept.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:27 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how to prove a fact, because he seems to be having difficulty with that simple concept.
I very seldom mention French philosophers. The problem that you have, David, is that the French philosophers have defined the word you are using without you knowing why you use it or how to use it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:30 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=David Orsam;404333]Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how


Quote:
to prove a fact, because he seems to be having difficulty with that simple concept.
And now you are making a new mistake. You do not "prove a fact" in historical work. You establish a fact. Again David: What is your definition of "prove it" - and now, also, what is your definition of a "fact", and how do you estblish it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:34 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
You have no academic knowledge, David. You have no education within history or any social science. But in spite of this, you use concepts when you accuse people here, which have been heavily criticized by historians and social science.

Research has shown that there are huge problems with the concept of "truth".

But when I ask you what you mean by "prove it", you can only refer to a dictionary using the concept of "truth".

When you accuse people here you must have support for your arguments.

Now: WHAT do you mean by "prove it"?

1. Is it a judicial concept?
2. Is it an historical concept?
3. Is it a scientific concept?

No. It is the unscientific concept of David, based on a dictionary.
Classic Pierre buII5h1t. Pierre, as David has already stated, in a post to which you are understandably reluctant to respond, we can assume that what David means by "prove" corresponds broadly to what YOU meant by "prove" when you wrote, a year and a quarter ago that you needed one or two bits of sparse data to "prove" your hypothesis.

If you're so concerned about definitions all of a sudden, tell us oh great one, what did the word mean when you used it, "scientifically". Such a little crapweasel.

Typically, having presented as a "present" a detail from your hypothesis that convinces no-one, that is roundly rejected as being risible, you resort to once again asserting your academic superiority over your detractors and arguing over precise definitions of "proof". What a sad fool you are.

I've got news for you, fool: if this Juwes/judges gibberish is representative of your standards as a "historian", the exact definition of "proof" is going to be the least of your problems. If I were you I would instead be worrying about the meanings of words such as "derision", "farcical", "laughing-stock", and "amateurish".

Christmas greetings to all genuine students of the case, from the wintery beauty of the city of Gdansk.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:42 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=Henry Flower;404336

Quote:
If you're so concerned about definitions all of a sudden, tell us oh great one, what did the word mean when you used it, "scientifically". Such a little crapweasel.
Hi Henry,

Yes, the little crapweasel will tell you.

To "prove it" you must be able to establish "it" as an historical fact. And to be able to do this, you must:

1. Have many independent reliable and valid sources.

2. Be able to construct valid and reliable causal explanations, motive explanations and functional explanations from these sources.

3. Establish a coherent explanatory history on these sources.

Regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 12-27-2016 at 02:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:47 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Research has shown that there are huge problems with the concept of "truth".
Having carried out some new research over the last five minutes, I have now resolved the huge problems that historians and social scientists have been having with the concept of "truth".

If we look at this statement posted on this forum by Pierre on 20 September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who."


Was that the truth, or was that false?

My research has established that this was false.

So if we take the statement: The person who wrote a letter signed "Gogmagog" was not Jack the Ripper.

We now have the truth.

And, hey, it wasn't even difficult. A child of six can understand it.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:49 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Having carried out some new research over the last five minutes, I have now resolved the huge problems that historians and social scientists have been having with the concept of "truth".

If we look at this statement posted on this forum by Pierre on 20 September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who."


Was that the truth, or was that false?

My research has established that this was false.

So if we take the statement: The person who wrote a letter signed "Gogmagog" was not Jack the Ripper.

We now have the truth.

And, hey, it wasn't even difficult. A child of six can understand it.
Yes, a child of six can understand what you have written here.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:49 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Having carried out some new research over the last five minutes, I have now resolved the huge problems that historians and social scientists have been having with the concept of "truth".

If we look at this statement posted on this forum by Pierre on 20 September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who."


Was that the truth, or was that false?

My research has established that this was false.

So if we take the statement: The person who wrote a letter signed "Gogmagog" was not Jack the Ripper.

We now have the truth.

And, hey, it wasn't even difficult. A child of six can understand it.

Well why do you think Pierre would understand it?
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:50 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

[quote=Pierre;404335]
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Can I first apologise to members of the forum for speaking English based merely on the dictionary definitions of words. What a dreadful error on my part.

If anyone knows how to translate from English into Pierrespeak (I think it involves the use of meaningless long words and mention of obscure French philosophers) then you perhaps you can explain to him how




And now you are making a new mistake. You do not "prove a fact" in historical work. You establish a fact. Again David: What is your definition of "prove it" - and now, also, what is your definition of a "fact", and how do you estblish it?

Please Pierre not back to this nonsense approach of arguing over what is a fact.
Last time it ended up with the suggestion that gravity would not exist if there was no one to report it.

You are arguing concepts rather the the universal constants.

Your argument with David is truly about semantics. You know fully well when he said prove it he meant to use your terms to establish it as a historical fact by the use of supporting and disclosure sources and data.

He even explain what he meant why such games? Are we back to evasion again!


With regards to the present, there was none.
What we had was the equivalent of a trailer for a film; however it gives the briefest synopsis possible, is purely audio, no pictures or film and gives no idea who stars in it.

See: title somone lied about being a judge.

Story: he was wronged but decided to stop the threat by killing unknowns.

Staring: can't tell you its a secret

Director: Pierre




My offer still stands



Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 12-27-2016 at 02:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.