|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Etymology of "Boss" in the "Dear Boss" Letters
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Etymology of "Boss" in the "Dear Boss" Letters
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 08:19 pm |        | Hi again, Stewart.
Our posts crossed, as they may be doing right now. I meant no evil, I was just tired. The people who've devoted their time to these letters would never say we have proved them to be genuine or anything close to that. All we're arguing now amongst ourselves is whether the letters were a press hoax. They may still be a hoax, but are they so certainly a press hoax. It's just we keep hearing the same things and nobody seems to want to take the time to read what we've said. So forgive my petulance.
What I meant by "People who don't want to believe or just consider the possibility they might be genuine..." ? All we argue here is the possibility of genuineness...belief in the possibility of that, or even consider the possibility: two different states of minds having been made up without hearing us out.
Hopkins is stating or restating gossip. The nature of gossip is that many people repeat it. It doesn't make it true. I don't wish to be harsh to Mr. Hopkins, but neither do I want to argue against gossip.
One thing I notice about your writing, Stewart, and I hope you don't take this wrong (cuz I know you know where I live!), but you tend to use inference, insinuation, suspicion, gossip, and all those less tangible things to make a concrete point seem factual or proven -- the amount or volume of suspicions still comes down to nothing without evidence. You are a respected authority in this field AND in criminology. I'll use an analogy from the police's point of view. A policeman's suspicions can often mean the difference between life and death on the streets, but in the world of thoughts and arguments...for a cop, a court of law...those suspicions can't be used as evidence of anything except probable cause.
Case in point: "I also cannot agree with you that they 'potentially let the murderer go free.' The fact or belief that he may have been responsible for the letters probably didn't emerge until long after the murders ceased. Either way I don't think it would have made any difference to the capture of the criminal."
You can be sure most Londoners, let alone press people, saw those posters. If it was Bulling's handwriting, no one had any idea that the letters might be a hoax. It was safer and more responsible to turn Bulling in. If someone in the press recognized his handwriting, they ran the risk of letting the real murderer go free -- even if you and I don't believe Bulling was JtR, the people of 1888 couldn't play it so cool. I'd have busted him if I lived in 1888, saw the letters, and linked them to Bulling.
"Probably didn't emerge" isn't as definite as we can get. You found a third letter. Did the police act on it? Robert Smith (?) found a fourth letter. Did the police act on it? No posters, no mention in the papers. Inference could be fairly drawn that sometime between the second (card) and the third (letter), the police did not pursue this line of investigation. I don't fault them; what could they do -- the knowledge and technology was not there! But Littlechild and others seem to have later found fault with others over those frustrating letters -- especially Bulling and Moore.
I hope you don't retire from these boards, Stewart. Everyone values your presence. The same goes for Paul Begg. You guys generously share your time and expertise. No disagreement is worth the loss of either of those qualities. If I've done anything to tick you off, I apologize. Please stick around.
Take it from a man who's threatened retirement from these boards many times...it's addicting. Please stay.
Yaz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 02:34 am | | Yaz,
This whole subject is contentious which why I said when I began contributing that I did not intend to become involved in specious argument.
When drawing your own conclusions as to what actually happened you are left with the writings of those who were either there, or nearer than we are to assess. Ergo, I quote what has been said to allow those who maybe do not have access to this material to assess it for themselves. You obviously feel that this 'gossip' isn't worth the paper its written on. I was frankly surprised that you feel that my own assessment is coloured with 'inference, insinuation, suspicion, gossip, etc.'
People usually want to know why I think something and I explain why, at the same time clearly indicating that this is MY OPINION. The publicity given to the letters by the police was, I feel, an error. And, if anything, it was that publicity that hindered the hunt for the killer. A similar thing happened in the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper where the police gave huge publicity to a tape recording (in a similar vein to and based on the original 'Ripper' letters), purporting to come from the killer. The tape was a hoax. It caused the police huge problems in their investigation, and great embarrassment. IT HINDERED the hunt for the real killer.
I simply do not agree with your reasoning on this one. Do you feel that you yourself do not use any inference, insinuation, suspicion, even gossip, in your own writing?
No, I thought I was giving my balanced opinion but you obviously feel differently. Thank you for your interest Yaz. And with that a jaded Stewart really must retire.
All the very best,
Stewart |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 03:54 am | | Hi all.
He he he. I do seem repeatedly to start something with my silly assertions and questions.
Stewart, Yaz, et. al. Keep up the good work. It fills the board with important discussion AND raises my little ego.
I know I made it too simple as I asked why Bulling had not been eliminated (from enquiries). I was thinking of modern-day science rather than 1888, where I believe (albeit without having looked into the matter) it must be possible to make a more exact comparison as then. Correct me if I am wrong.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 07:11 am | | Hey, Bob,
I don't think you caused anything with your questions and your assertions are certainly not silly. It is a legitimate question to ask why Bulling and Moore kept the original third letter and merely transcribed it for the police. Also if a handwriting analysis was performed in 1888 and, if not, why not. Their actions certainly don't seem very creditable in this instance. If we believe the letters genuine, or at least not a press hoax, we have to address that issue.
I don't know Stewart very well and maybe I presumed too much familiarity with my jokes about him being an ex-cop and all that rigamaorle about finding where I live and checking fingerprints. Maybe when he says he's retiring he just means to go sleep now...I don't know what time it is where he lives. I hope that's all it means.
As an ex-cop, he belongs to an honorable and important profession. I meant no disrespect of his former career. Also, these letters touch on both the police in general (but specifically, circa 1888) and specifically to the work Stewart did on one policeman (Littlechild). Any questions or statements we make concerning them in regards to the letter risk demeaning or belittling Stewart's past profession and his current one. I wanted to make that clear after Chris' post on our mutual suspicion as to the quallity of post-facto police assertions, assumptions, "conclusions." We question only that small part of their (the Littlechilds, Macnaghtens, Abberlines, Simses, Hopkinses) work...and in NO WAY do we question the work of a researcher-expert like Stewart (or Paul Begg, Phil Sugden, Melvin Harris, whoever). If he hadn't found Littlechild's letter, we'd have that much less to natter-on about.
Looking back, I can see where my constant posts to Stewart would get on his nerves. I'll stop that right away. I just hope he gives me the chance to prove my sincerity by not retiring in the sense of leaving these boards...too many other people also appreciate his work, generosity, and expertise for us to lose it over one asshole (me!) hounding the poor man to distraction.
I hope we'll continue working on the letters -- even though our work may lead to nothing. I also hope Stewart accepts my sincere regrets and pledge to not annoy him further. I hope he comes back.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 08:34 am | | Come back, Stewart, we need you.
To address my point about Littlechild getting Bulling's name incorrect when he wrote "Bullen" and Monro's name wrong when he spelled it "Munro," of course you are quite correct, some people do not spell well but that should not be a reflection on their competence in other areas. The writer F. Scott Fitzgerald was a notoriously bad speller but nonetheless a great writer. Similarly, I suspect Littlechild was a good policeman although his spelling or memory of names left something to be desired. As Paul Begg remarked on another board, that is what editors are for.
Obviously, as you reiterated, what you are expressing on the genuineness of the Dear Boss letters is your opinion based on years of considering police and journalists' views of the series. We certainly do not wish to demean your opinion and moreover greatly value your input. Yaz and myself and others may be blowing off a lot of hot air but I hope nevertheless are making a few useful points along the way even if you cannot agree with some of the discussion. It is extremely valuable to have "old hands" such as yourself and Paul Begg to set us right when we wander off track. I would urgently request that you hang in with us and help us in the same way that you have so valuably helped us in the past.
Chris George |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 08:48 am | | Stewart...please don't leave. There are others here besides Yaz (Yaz..sit! stay! Good boy!) who appreciate your efforts.
Edana |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 10:21 am | | <p><c>Arf!</c></p>
<p></p>
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 11:06 am | | Hi Guys,
You really are a great bunch, some of the best! I am not retiring in any fit of pique, nor because anyone has particularly upset me. Goodness, we all have to accept criticism, and, indeed, invite it if we set pen to paper. And therein lies the rub. I went against all my own better principles in becoming embroiled in argument on these boards.
I did say that should I stray from merely imparting primary source material to readers my objectivity may slip. Well, I strayed, I couldn't help it. Yes, I still believe in all I have said, and I would ask readers to look again at what I have had to say and ponder on it. You may still disagree, but please realise I do not pretend it to be anything more than my informed opinion.
Perhaps, because I have had more exchanges with one or two of you, I have developed something of a predilection for you, but thank you all for your kindnesses. As one or two may be aware I retired from the police force two years short of my full thirty. This was because of ill-health, and I am not yet fully recovered.
I am more than happy to assist those in touch with me by e-mail, and will continue to do so. It really is no-one's fault but my own that I leave, please believe that. In Paul Begg and Alex Chisholm you have two of the most knowledgeable and fine minds in this field of interest. And, of course, others too.
Had I remained my attitude may have appeared to be rather churlish, when in actuality it is not. Thank you all for your friendship. Au revoir.
With all good wishes,
Stewart |
Author: avala
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 12:26 pm | | Dear Stewart,
It is with great regret that I gather the news of your leaving these boards.Reluctantly and perforce,I have to accept your decision.I sympathize with your decision and I am not going to attempt to change your mind on your active participation here.I just hope that you monitor this site and,from time to time,rein us in when we head for dead ends.Your expertise and your personal kindness must not be totally withdrawn from all the sincere and eager participants.
No doubt,we do greatly appreciate both Mr. Chisholm's and Mr. Begg's unique contributions.It is that very uniqueness that we shall now have to abandon;your background in law enforcement is just to valuable for us to do without.
Best Regards,
avala |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 01:07 pm | | Hi Stewart,
I add my regrets to those of the others, but I have no doubt that you will, from time to time, peek in our corner to see what new madness we're up to.
Best regards,
Bob
Hi Edana,
Just to say welcome back from under Lizzie's bed.
Bob. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 01:23 pm | | Hi, all:
I second Avala's sentiment that Stewart Evans brings something special to Ripperology with his experience of having been a serving police officer. It is very valuable to get his perspective on the case when we consider that most of us do not have his background but come to it from many diverse backgrounds but that do not allow us to share some of the insights he offers into the field of Ripperology.
With sincere appreciation for all you have contributed to Ripperology thus far and will continue to do so in the future, I say, "Thank you, Stewart."
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 01:53 pm | | I have not had a chance to contribute to the discussion on this board, but have been lucky to benefit from Stewart's kind replies in the matter of my queries on Tumblety and some MJK mysteries. In a field like this, where differences of opinion can quickly degenerate into ad hominem attacks and vicious name-calling, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to benefit from the thoughts of as personable and knowledgeable an author as Stewart, who welcomes all comers, no matter how inane the questions might seem.
Stephen Ryder has done us all an enormous service by establishing this Casebook, and it is good to know that Stewart was able to share his expertise with us, even if only for a short moment.
Alex and Paul are, of course, exemplary researchers and charming men; so is Stewart, and it is a pity he must leave us. I know I am not alone in wishing him all the best and hope he'll make "guest appearances" among us in the future.
CMD |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 03:58 pm | | Dear Stewart,
I hope that you at least read this post, and that you do, at least read these boards for a long time to come. You have no idea of my personal exitement when I saw that you were back online, and prepared to contribute to these discussions, which has now turned to a great sadness, that you feel you have to depart. The fact that you were prepared to offer a Questions & Answers forum proves your selfless devotion to the subject of the Whitechapel mystery, and you will be greatly missed.
I would just like you to know that I had printed, kept and shown to close friends, and family, the personal responses that you have given me, and I shall always treasure them. I still, from time to time read your articles and dissertations here on Casebook, such as the walk through Whitechapel, which I find priceless. The thought that you touched and walked through the very door as Jack the Ripper, in Hanbury Street, stirred my imagination, no end.
I just cannot tell you how sadly I feel about your decision to depart from these boards, though I do understand that your health must come first. May you be with us, and contribute many more written works for the world to share for many years to come. I cannot say any more, only that these boards were all the much better for your contributions, and you will be sadly missed. I hope I haven't sounded too corny, I just feel very sad at this decision, and I wanted just to let you know somehow, the great appreciation that I have.
My Sincere Thanks and Very Best Wishes !
Jeff D |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 09:13 pm | | Without wishing to finally eulogise an old codger who I trust will be very much full of beans for a very long time to come, I would wholeheartedly concur with all the foregoing well-deserved praise offered to Stewart. Since our first contact he has commanded my greatest respect and his knowledge and understanding of this subject is vast, if not unrivalled. (I have to say, however, his impression of yours truly seems woefully misguided)
Nevertheless, given Stewart's insight it was only natural his opinions would be sought on all aspects of this case, and with his customary generosity he would try to oblige. But just trying to keep abreast of the latest discussions on different boards is virtually a full-time occupation. To try to do this while contributing considered opinion to various discussions at once, and at the same time address queries on the Question and Answer page, strikes me as being almost impossible. Add to this his interests and projects in other areas and Stewart's decision to withdraw is not only perfectly understandable, it seems to have been all but unavoidable.
So while we will all be the poorer without his regular contributions I hope Stewart will continue to keep a watching brief and perhaps on occasion offer the odd pearl of wisdom.
Thanks
Alex |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 09:34 pm | | It makes me sick that Stewart felt he had to leave. That a man who for 28 years risked his life, jeopardized his health and well-being, all to serve and protect his community should be so antagonized that it's better for him to leave here...a place he should enjoy...it's just sickening. And I know all too well who is responsible for bringing on this situation.
Stewart, I want you to know this -- no matter if you find it corny or stupid -- and it's only partially beyond the scope of the Casebook.
A police officer -- a man, a human being -- with pride and honor may feel that he's been well-paid by the few pennies out of our tax dollars that went into his salary and now go into his retirement pay. I don't. If you're listening, Stewart, I want to tell you that I am not going to argue that you deserve special treatment or to be singled out for any stupid sentimental reasons...I'm telling you that you have earned a special place -- in the physical community you served for 28 years, and here as well. An honest debt is honestly paid. Please don't refuse what people here want to give back to you.
If you are sick, get well. If you are tired, rest. If your patience has been stretched to the limits, wait for it to relax and loosen. Then return here -- to your electronic community. There is a debt to be paid you, whether that makes you feel uncomfortable or not, and it must be paid. People are ready and willing to pay it. Your conditions for first coming back here were violated by me. That is all over. This is your community, a place where you have an interest, might find relaxation and stimulation -- but you should not be subject to aggravation.
Moreover, this community owes you, not just for those 28 years in service, but for your intellectual generosity and guidance. Other people are owed different debts; people like Paul Begg and Melvin Harris and Alex Chisholm are owed debts of respect and courtesy for their reasearch, publications, knowledge. Those debts are well-earned and well-paid. Please don't deny people here the opportunity to pay you what they owe, even if it seems to you a little more than what the others receive. And, ironically, it isn't as if the exchange was a fair one...people still want something from you, despite the 28 years and all the physical and mental injuries of your police work.
A community owes all its public servants like policemen and women, firemen and women -- more than just a few pennies from their taxes, and for far longer than the physical term of their service. You are one of thousands that we owe. But they aren't here. Hopefully, they'll receive their due somewhere else, in some other method of payment. But you are here with us. Let us give a little in return for what you've given us.
Please take all the time you need to rest and recuperate. You will have no more trouble here. If this place offers even a little satisfaction, stimulation, or relaxation, please come back as soon as you are able. I hope you're still listening and getting well. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 09 December 1998 - 01:25 pm | | Hi all,
Yes, it is a great pity if Stewart has really left the board for ever, but he has brought so much to it even in the last few days, I feel he should be left in peace to do whatever it is that an ex-policeman does. Thanks for everything, Stewart.
In any case, I suspect that Stewart will be still keeping an watchful eye on us scallywags. There are still enough names on the board, big and, like mine, small to provide stuff of all grades and descriptions so I don't worry about the future.
Hi Yaz,
I really hope that I never 'cause' anything on the board. I must admit, however, that I am pleased with myself when I start some discussion or even only a branch of it. I am still a 'learner', when even out of the kindergarten, and it tickles my ego when my voice is heard amongst my peers, even when the fur then flies. You profis can handle that.
I have a load more on Bulling and Co., but will get and read Stewart's book (amongst others) before making too much of a clown of myself.
Let's see what Santa brings this year.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: SKeenan
Wednesday, 09 December 1998 - 03:10 pm | | Damn it! Mr. Evans retired? I just found this site a couple of weeks ago!
Nobody I hang with has even the slightest interest or insight in the Whitechapel Murderer, so I felt I was confined to reading old books in the stuffy library at York U. This site opened my eyes. Mr. Evans, though I did not confer with him directly, has been nothing but a beacon of knowledge for me and I'm sure for others. Please come back Mr. Evans, or I'll simply have to go back to bothering the equally worthy Mr. Begg on the Kosminski page!
Humbly,
SKeenan |
Author: Scarlet
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 12:00 pm | | Hi, folks- interesting read. How about Jack as a schizophrenic and writing all the letters. From my experience with a very afflicted schizophrenic person living in my household and viewing writing samples during different phases of the affliction, I will say the handwritings could be attributed to completely different people. I'd like to hear your thoughts!
Scarlet |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 12:23 pm | | Hey, Scarlet.
Don't know much about schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. From your experience with a schizophrenic person, do you think such people are capable of much planning, adaptation to immediately and quickly changing circumstances? Also, I've heard sufferers from both diseases are more of a danger to themselves than to others -- the "other" personality may engage in "dangerous" behaviors but still only "dangerous" to themselves. Is this true, more or less?
I can't see JtR or any other serial killer being too severely impaired to function, and quickly adapt to escape detection or leave no clues behind. Besides Berkowitz, have any been diagnosed as delusioinal, schizophrenic, or having MPD? I can't think of any.
Yaz |
Author: cdrmoses
Friday, 30 July 1999 - 09:57 pm | | I am new at this and would like to offer a few observations from a layman's point of view and I am probably plowing old ground. The Dear Boss letter is a paridoxical facinoma and cannot be taken literally, for example the use of the term "proper red stuff" leads to this and I think the term has a deeper meaning. Boss can also be Old French, boce, or French bosse, and refers to things, such as a protuberance in a Gothic vault; a projection or knob; a round swelling part or body. A boss is something that is noticeable or possibly a hinderance, i.e. a bump in the road, or possibly a point of general irritation.
The person who wrote the letter is very well educated, has excellent penmanship and syntax which is a nice conversational style. It reminds me of someone with a light and measured accent such as from Kitterminster. The shape of the letters is important and shows the character of the person who wrote the letter. It was penned by a no nonsense person, well organized and was most probably obsessive compulsive. The work is likely by a man but with feminine traces - the work overall seems to have the polished roundness of a lady but with the direct approach of a man. Every h stem is staight up and down made with one stoke, each I is executed with ecomony and the bow does not cross the stem which is very cold indeed, the bar of each t does not cross the center line and is to the right. This is not a person to mess around with. The person is also a nonconformist and free thinker - the letters in some words are not connected for example g et, c hance. The person is definitely not a physician because he used a ginger beer bottle, which he must have brought with him, as a container for the proper red stuff, which clotted before use. Even in 1888 doctors knew about clotting ergo a physician would have used a stoppered medical container, possibly containing a preservative. I have never seen a physician's script anyone could decipher easily - even apothecaries had and have a ruddy hard time.
Using knife as singular possesive (...my knife's...) is frightening and indicates his knife is a projection of his personality, like a gun today. Note carefully he does not say the knife.
The author contradicts himself - he is down on whores but yet he refers to the victim in this letter as a lady. He never uses any vulgar language to refer to his victims which is very odd indeed. He is anxious to get back to work after a grand piece of work - which indicates victims before this one.
The use of the term "trade name" is interesting and probably would not have been in general use with the masses as this is a business and legal term, thus meaning the author knew the difference between generic and trade, and he seems pleased with the alias.
Overall, the person who did the letter seems to be a malignant personality - an antisocial. They can come on very friendly and lull one into a false sense of security but watch out when one drops their guard. Some antisocials start out in life torturing small animals, such as dogs and cats, and then graduate to fire starting and then to rape and murder with horrendous results. The first one being gruesome and the last one horrendous, and incomprehensible.
Off the subject a bit, Saucy Jacky is a puzzle. Jack could refer to a sailor or to someone named James, archaic, or John - most probably John. Saucy - meaning rude, impudent, disdain for superiors and authority; officious meaning kind, obliging, or dutiful which I highly doubt; volunteering ones services where they are not asked for nor needed. This person was rude Jack - hating authority and feeling superior to those trying to catch him. He was tweeking the cheeks of Scotland Yard without a doubt. A true antisocial to the core. |
Author: Diana Comer
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 02:54 pm | | | Your posting smacks of expert knowledge. Are you a handwriting analyst, a psychologist, or psychiatrist? |
Author: anon
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 03:15 pm | | | Or wacky graphology, (a bit like astrology you know). |
Author: anon
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 02:07 am | | Boy you know everything, anon! Maybe someday you'd care to share that vast wealth of information in that ultra-super brain you have :)
anon |
Author: cdrmoses
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 10:20 pm | | Anon, my aim is to enjoy the Ripper files and discussions and try my best to make some sense of who and what Jack was all about without insulting the integrity of others. If you have an interest, before chemotherapy I had an IQ of about 155 for what little that is worth. I have a terminal illness and am just trying to fill up the time I have left. Nothing I brought up is super human or super intellectual - it is simply fact and textbook.
I have been told that Jack always left a calling card of sorts behind at each crime scene. Does anyone know if that could be true and what the objects might be? Has anyone heard of a person by the last name of Taylor having anything to do with the Ripper murders, such as being an inspector? |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 03 August 1999 - 02:42 am | | Hi cdrmoses,
No-one by the name of Taylor appears in my JtR A-Z unfortunately. Maybe someone else can help.
I have just been reading that the poor barrow-lads working the streets of Victorian London always referred to their employers as 'Jack'.
So was 'Dear Boss' written by another symbolic boss? Just for jolly perhaps? Maybe he even had a lad or two helping him with a barrow....
Pleas keep posting mate. 99.9% of readers and contributors here are normal specimens of humanity and will respect each other's views perfectly well. The 0.1% really isn't worth getting steamed up about.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 03 August 1999 - 03:30 am | | | I seem to recall that the "Dear Boss" letter came in an envelope addressed to "The Boss, Central News Agency" I assume that the central news agency was similar to the modern UPI. It appears that he simply wanted the letter to go to the administrator of the agency I would think. |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 03 August 1999 - 06:56 pm | | Hello, Diana:
Indeed, the first Dear Boss letter is addressed to "The Boss, Central News Office, London City." The Central News Agency was a rival of Reuters, and akin to the UPI or AP that we know today. As George R. Sims, himself a journalist, said, who but a journalist would know to send the letters to a news agency? A member of the public would incline to send to a newspaper, would they not? So there is a strong school of thought to accept the police view that the perpetrator of the Dear Boss letters may have been a journalist or even someone within the Central News Agency, perhaps Thomas J. Bulling or his boss Charles Moore.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 04 August 1999 - 01:04 am | | Hi All,
What about the killer himself? Couldn't he have been sufficiently connected with journalism, either through his own work, or that of friends or rellies, to know his options?
For instance, my suspect's own daddy was a journo. He worked as Bow Street Police Court reporter for The Times, and probably most of the other papers too. Though he later went into another career, lecturing on humour, his first lecture being called 'Wit and Humour-their use and abuse', taking in punning and satire, illustrating his lectures with anecdotes, examples of repartee and "puns and jokes innumerable". He also had an admirable perception of the grotesque and the ludicrous. (Could have been useful on these boards!)
So could the tongue in cheek Dear Boss and other letters have been penned by someone with this type of family background?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 04 August 1999 - 05:11 am | | Hi, Caz:
You make some good points. Indeed someone with journalists in the family could have had the knowledge to send the Dear Boss letters to the Central News Agency.
Chris |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 01:10 am | | Hi Chris,
Especially someone who was heavily into practical jokes, and may well have even sent anonymous postcards to his own far more famous and successful brother (also a former Bow Street Court reporter) without his knowledge?? :-)
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
