Lord Orsam's Blog

[Gary Barnett]

Thank you, Lord Sugar.

I’m actually Lord Schwartz but it’s an easy mistake to make - both names begin with S.

[Gary Barnett]

Actually, Caz your point about the pronunciation was an excellent one. Cowan may have just been a variant spelling of Cohen that was nevertheless pronounced as Cohen.

[Caroline Brown]

I’m actually Lord Schwartz but it’s an easy mistake to make - both names begin with S.

Ooh you are naughty, Gary, but I like you.

[Caroline Brown]

Actually, Caz your point about the pronunciation was an excellent one. Cowan may have just been a variant spelling of Cohen that was nevertheless pronounced as Cohen.

Well I did think it might be a bit like Lawende and Lavender.

Naturally it would have helped Jewish businessmen to adopt a different spelling that didn't automatically look Jewish, even if it could be made to sound Jewish.

[Caroline Brown]

I’m actually Lord Schwartz but it’s an easy mistake to make - both names begin with S.

And of course, there's a neat 'sugar and spice' [and all things nice] link too.

[Gary Barnett]

And of course, there's a neat 'sugar and spice' [and all things nice] link too.

So there is!

[Paul]

3. MR THE CLANGER
Good to see Gary the Clanger making his SIXTIETH post on the Waterstone's blog. Even though it's supposed to be about Rubenhold's book, the Clanger is continuing his one-man campaign against the bookseller's policies about selling books during the Coronavirus crisis. A blog page relating to a book about Jack the Ripper is undoubtedly the appropriate place to be making these types of comments and doesn't reveal an unhinged person on a pointless solo vendetta.
But while he's busy waging his war against Waterstones he still can't seem to find time to ask his great mate and fellow seeker of the truth, Paul Begg, if he accepts that there are serious errors in his book regarding the issue of the resignation of Monro. It's only Rubenhold whose mistakes he challenges, not Begg, never Begg.

I wonder why Gary would waste his time asking me to respond to Orsam's ego?

[Gary Barnett]

3. MR THE CLANGER
Good to see Gary the Clanger making his SIXTIETH post on the Waterstone's blog. Even though it's supposed to be about Rubenhold's book, the Clanger is continuing his one-man campaign against the bookseller's policies about selling books during the Coronavirus crisis. A blog page relating to a book about Jack the Ripper is undoubtedly the appropriate place to be making these types of comments and doesn't reveal an unhinged person on a pointless solo vendetta.
But while he's busy waging his war against Waterstones he still can't seem to find time to ask his great mate and fellow seeker of the truth, Paul Begg, if he accepts that there are serious errors in his book regarding the issue of the resignation of Monro. It's only Rubenhold whose mistakes he challenges, not Begg, never Begg.

I wonder why Gary would waste his time asking me to respond to Orsam's ego?

The first time I really became aware of him was when he described the folks on JTRF as ‘Muppets’. He now claims he was only referring to one individual, but his wording was ‘the Muppets on JTR Forums’. Not ‘a Muppet’ or ‘some/certain Muppet’s’ but ‘the Muppets’ i.e. all of us.

It seems his fawning acolytes are filled with joy when he reveals that I once called him a ‘twerp’ and a certain author who shall remain nameless a ‘pampered twat’ but, true to form, he neglects to mention that in both cases my insults were made in response to personal insults previously received. In the manner in which he omits certain facts, he is on a par with .... a certain author who shall remain nameless.

I was pleased by the quotes by HR’s followers he posted. And even more pleased by his suggestion that in posting 60* responses to HR’s 878- word blog (one of dozens of similar attacks she has made over the past couple of years), I might be considered ‘unhinged’. He may well have a point. Anyone who responds excessively to the criticism of others probably is unhinged. I look forward to his 10,000 word response to this. Your one sentence, Paul, may not merit more than a few hundred.

*I haven’t counted them myself, I feel it might be a bit ‘unhinged’ to do so.

[Gary Barnett]

I genuinely have to thank E&OE for encouraging research into the Cowan (probably pronounced Cohen) family. It seems that in 1851 they were living in Great Prescot Street, Whitechapel and were owners of a soap boiling factory.

The 1851 census shows some of my own ancestors, recently arrived from Ireland, living a short distance away in STGITE, and records my 3xg grandfather’s occupation as a labourer in a soap works. I wonder if he worked for the Cowans?

As we know, Phineas Cowan went on to become and Alderman and a Sheriff of the City of London. His successful life is well documented. The life of my great great grandmother, the daughter of the soap boiler’s labourer, can best be traced through the records of the STGITE workhouse and Tothill Fields prison. Her son went on to marry the celebrated ‘Shadwell bottle washer’ of Bluegate Fields and they produced my grandmother amidst the opulence of Breezers Hill.

[Caroline Brown]

Hi Gary,

I suspect His Royal Orsamness is also still smarting from your discovery of an example of 'top myself' from the 1870s. If he brushed up on his general knowledge a bit, he could probably enter for Mastermind, with his specialist subject being 'bearing a grudge'.

I wouldn't advise him to choose 'The Barretts of Goldie Street' because a score of nil could be quite embarrassing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Gary Barnett]

Hi Gary,

I suspect His Royal Orsamness is also still smarting from your discovery of an example of 'top myself' from the 1870s. If he brushed up on his general knowledge a bit, he could probably enter for Mastermind, with his specialist subject being 'bearing a grudge'.

I wouldn't advise him to choose 'The Barretts of Goldie Street' because a score of nil could be quite embarrassing.

Love,

Caz
X

Was he once a ‘top myself’ denier? I bet he owned up to that clanger with a resounding fanfare.

Even more reason not to buy a used ‘one off’ from him. All he’s proved to me is that he has been unable to find a contemporary example of the phrase. Now if I thought he was infallible, I might take his word for it. But I don’t, so I can’t.

[Caroline Brown]

I don't think he was a 'top myself' denier as such, but it must have pained him to see you drill another hole in the modern Barrett hoax theory, which would have had our Mike using a phrase which a Victorian literature expert asserted was not recorded before the late 1950s.

It seems they should have asked an expert in Victorian language, and I'm not sure that would be Lord O's specialist subject either.

[Gary Barnett]

Fanfare!

I hold my hand up to one clanger pointed out by the Grudgemeister:

When I looked into the ‘Church Street’ incident some years ago, I made the mistake of thinking that Deal Street had at one time been named Albert Street.

In fact it was the other way round, Albert Street was renamed Deal Street, which is understandable because the two streets run into each other across Pelham Street and probably had the appearance of a single street - possibly the reason for Eyewitness’s mistake?

I wonder why the name Deal Street took precedence over that of Albert Street, leading to the anomaly of Albert Family Dwellings and Albert Cottages ending up in Deal Street?

[Gary Barnett]

I don't think he was a 'top myself' denier as such, but it must have pained him to see you drill another hole in the modern Barrett hoax theory, which would have had our Mike using a phrase which a Victorian literature expert asserted was not recorded before the late 1950s.

It seems they should have asked an expert in Victorian language, and I'm not sure that would be Lord O's specialist subject either.

Ah, I see, but no doubt he welcomed my discovery and considered its implications for ‘one-off’.

If he did, I probably would have missed it - when he and Pierre were swamping Casebook with their nonsense, I popped out for a cup of tea for a few months.

[Gary Barnett]

I don't think he was a 'top myself' denier as such, but it must have pained him to see you drill another hole in the modern Barrett hoax theory, which would have had our Mike using a phrase which a Victorian literature expert asserted was not recorded before the late 1950s.

It seems they should have asked an expert in Victorian language, and I'm not sure that would be Lord O's specialist subject either.

It’s a while since I looked into it, but I’m sure I found examples of ‘topping’ used to mean committing suicide generally - not exclusively by hanging - in the 20s and 30s.