Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
And actually, the core issues MUST be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood. That´s why I have taken you to task numerous times.

And Steve has now taken you to task for the use of the word ‘gone.’ It means ‘no longer there.’

Youre very quick to hit others with a ‘lets stick to the known facts.’ So lets just do that Fish.

[Elamarna]

Oh, I will partake in the discussion, alright. But the discussion about "misunderstood evidence" and "gone lungs" you must have with yourself.

And actually, the core issues MUST be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood. That´s why I have taken you to task numerous times.

You have taken me to task?

That would mean you are always right would it not and i wrong?

That smacks of a certain degree of arogance my friend

What ACTUALLY happens is we debate and do not agree, you no more take me to task than i do you.


Thete is no MUST about it Christer, if the information is faulty one CANNOT address the core issues in any useful way.

I will just repeat, you said the section of lung was gone like the 2 hearts, there is no evidence i can see to support that theory, provide some please.


Steve

[Fisherman]

And Steve has now taken you to task for the use of the word ‘gone.’ It means ‘no longer there.’

Youre very quick to hit others with a ‘lets stick to the known facts.’ So lets just do that Fish.

Yes, and a cut neck does not exist - as long as it was the Ripper who provided it.

"Gone" does mean "no longer there", yes. And the lower part of the left lung in Kellys body was attached to the upper part of it until it was "torn away" by the killer. After that, it was no longer there, but instead elsewhere, unattached to the upper part.

You DO know the meaning of the word "away", I take it?

[Fisherman]

You have taken me to task?

That would mean you are always right would it not and i wrong?

That smacks of a certain degree of arogance my friend

What ACTUALLY happens is we debate and do not agree, you no more take me to task than i do you.


Thete is no MUST about it Christer, if the information is faulty one CANNOT address the core issues in any useful way.

I will just repeat, you said the section of lung was gone like the 2 hearts, there is no evidence i can see to support that theory, provide some please.


Steve

To take somebody to task means to correct somebody, and such things are done on different occasions.

It therefore follows not that I am always right and that you are always wrong (one of your favourite things to imply, a little illusion of grandeur on my behalf - something I feel may be found in other abodes), but that you have on occasion been wrong and been corrected.

Many thanks for revealing the width of your language understanding. It should help people to understand the value of your contributions about gone lungs and such matters.

The next example is where you say that I stated that the "section of lung was gone like the two hearts". I actually never said that, it is instead something you cooked up on your own.

I said that the lung section was gone (from it´s place) and that the heart TOO was gone (from IT`S place).

But I would not quibble over your wording; the section of lung was gone as were the two hearts. Not "like" the two hearts as in "in the same way".

If a son of mine goes to the neighbour for a cup of coffee and another son goes to Brazil, then they will both be gone from my house.

I really should not have to explain this to you, and - not least - you really should not push your luck by claiming things on my behalf. Such things will be immediately pointed out. Like now, for example.

Now, can we PLEASE discuss the topic of the thread instead of having this rather witless discussion?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and a cut neck does not exist - as long as it was the Ripper who provided it.

"Gone" does mean "no longer there", yes. And the lower part of the left lung in Kellys body was attached to the upper part of it until it was "torn away" by the killer. After that, it was no longer there, but instead elsewhere, unattached to the upper part.

You DO know the meaning of the word "away", I take it?

Please stop wriggling Fish, its a little embarrassing.

‘Torn away’ means ‘no longer attached to.’ It does not imply that it was no longer present at the scene.

‘Gone’ however certainly does imply that it was ‘no longer at the scene.’ I.e. that it had been taken away.

The two phrases are not interchangeable.

[Elamarna]

To take somebody to task means to correct somebody, and such things are done on different occasions.

It therefore follows not that I am always right and that you are always wrong (one of your favourite things to imply, a little illusion of grandeur on my behalf - something I feel may be found in other abodes), but that you have on occasion been wrong and been corrected.

Many thanks for revealing the width of your language understanding. It should help people to understand the value of your contributions about gone lungs and such matters.

The next example is where you day that I stated that the "section of lung was gone like the two hearts". I actually never said that, it is instead something you cooked up on your own.

I said that the lung section was gone (from it´s place) and that the heart TOO was gone (from IT`S place).

But I would not quibble over your wording; the section of lung was gone as was the two hearts. Not "like" the two hearts as in "in the same way".

If a son of mine goes to the neighbour for a cup of coffee and another son goes to Brazil, then they will both be gone from my house.

I really should not have to explain this to you, and - not least - you really should not push your luck by claiming things on my behalf. Such things will be immediately pointed out. Like now, for example.

Now, can we PLEASE discuss the topic of the thread instead of having this rather witless discussion?

We are discussing the topic, just not the way you want. What a shame!

You now of course resort to semantics and an attempt to belittle my use of my own language.

Such is what i have come to expect.

I am fully aware of of the meaning of "taken to task". And stand by the comment i posted.



Your example of your two sons is total irrelvent to what we are discussing.

The actual facts can speak for themselves.

I have quoted exactly what you posted twice, and now a third time

"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jackson´s heart was."



Once again there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THE SECTION OF LUNG WAS GONE.

You link the two organs by use of the words "gone" & "ALSO" which you put in caps for emphasis. To now suggest you had seperate means for each, one taken from the scene by killer, the other not taken from the scene really asks people to accept a differentb meaning to what is posted Christer.

And of course if the lung section was indeed seperate from body, but not taken by the killer, it suggests that the tearing is merely collateral damage caused by removal of the heart and not significant in the slightest.

As you so rightly said to Herlock "torn away" means seperated from the other part of the lung. IT DOES NOT mean it was removed from the thorax and so could still have been in place just not connected to the upper part. It may well have been adhered to the chest wall in places.

The thing is like so often you do not wish to listen to anything that you do not agree with.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Please stop wriggling Fish, its a little embarrassing.

‘Torn away’ means ‘no longer attached to.’ It does not imply that it was no longer present at the scene.

‘Gone’ however certainly does imply that it was ‘no longer at the scene.’ I.e. that it had been taken away.

The two phrases are not interchangeable.

And when did I say that it was no longer at the scene? When was I unaware that the heart only was what was taken away from Miller´s Court - and not even that is 100 per cent certain? Why in the whole world would I claim that a lung part was taken away from Miller´s Court? I mean, there ARE some really dumb people out here, but luckily, there are those who are not - and they would be all over me like a rash.

Then again, I may prefer having knowledgeable people over me like a rash than people who think that I cannot tell whether there was a lung missing from Milers Court or not.

Regardless of what "gone" may mean to you, haven´t I been perfectly clear in saying that I mean "gone" as in "gone from where it belonged"?

I sometimes ask myself what is wrong with some people out here. I really do. This was supposed to be a forum for discussing the Jack the Ripper case, not a forum for people who are too gone to realize that.

I am done with this discussion as of now. I´m sure that you and Steve can have a really nice evening or two discussing it, so you won´t go glip of the treat, Herlock.

Enjoy.

[Fisherman]

If anybody out here would be interested in discussing the case, I welcome that very much. It would make for a refreshing change.

[Elamarna]

And when did I say that it was no longer at the scene? When was I unaware that the heart only was what was taken away from Miller´s Court - and not even that is 100 per cent certain? Why in the whole world would I claim that a lung part was taken away from Miller´s Court? I mean, there ARE some really dumb people out here, but luckily, there are those who are not - and they would be all over me like a rash.

Then again, I may prefer having knowledgeable people over me like a rash than people who think that I cannot tell whether there was a lung missing from Milers Court or not.

Regardless of what "gone" may mean to you, haven´t I been perfectly clear in saying that I mean "gone" as in "gone from where it belonged"?

I sometimes ask myself what is wrong with some people out here. I really do. This was supposed to be a forum for discussing the Jack the Ripper case, not a forum for people who are too gone to realize that.

I am done with this discussion as of now. I´m sure that you and Steve can have a really nice evening or two discussing it, so you won´t go glip of the treat, Herlock.

Enjoy.

Backtracking i see, very subtly but nevertheless backtracking.

The definition you provide so to speak for "gone" is from after the event, .

The meaning of what was posted was very clear.

Tissue was taken away by the killer, if the heart remained as Trevor says, then it is no mpre gone than any other organ which was removed.

Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?

Her breasts are removed is that significant?

Sleep well

[Fisherman]

I´ll pick up tomorrow and see if there is anyone interested in discussing the case. So far, the answer is "no".

It is understandable.

[Elamarna]

If anybody out here would be interested in discussing the case, I welcome that very much. It would make for a refreshing change.

We discuss the case and disagree with your viewpoint, and all at once we are not discussing the case.

I will happily disciss the torsos and possible links to the canal system, the strange behaviour of john Arnold/leary.


Steve

[Elamarna]

And when did I say that it was no longer at the scene? When was I unaware that the heart only was what was taken away from Miller´s Court - and not even that is 100 per cent certain? Why in the whole world would I claim that a lung part was taken away from Miller´s Court? I mean, there ARE some really dumb people out here, but luckily, there are those who are not - and they would be all over me like a rash.

Then again, I may prefer having knowledgeable people over me like a rash than people who think that I cannot tell whether there was a lung missing from Milers Court or not.

Regardless of what "gone" may mean to you, haven´t I been perfectly clear in saying that I mean "gone" as in "gone from where it belonged"?

I sometimes ask myself what is wrong with some people out here. I really do. This was supposed to be a forum for discussing the Jack the Ripper case, not a forum for people who are too gone to realize that.

I am done with this discussion as of now. I´m sure that you and Steve can have a really nice evening or two discussing it, so you won´t go glip of the treat, Herlock.

Enjoy.

Of course the reply as absolutly no relevence to the post it is responding to.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its ironic to see a Fisherman wriggling on a hook.

Gone means absent. End of.

[Sam Flynn]

You DO know the meaning of the word "away", I take it?

The full phrase is "torn away", a common compound phrase which doesn't mean "taken from the premises", anymore than "jerked off" means you've detached your penis and thrown it out of the window.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The full phrase is "torn away", a common compound phrase which doesn't mean "taken from the premises", anymore than "jerked off" means you've detached your penis and thrown it out of the window.