The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science?

[Bob Prudhomme]

This is a perfect example, Marlene, of what I am talking about. This poster is working on the premise that there was a 2nd Marguerite when no such thing has ever been proven.

No, that isn't at all what I was thinking. What I meant was it was unlikely a tonsillectomy would be mistakenly claimed on the insurance form. What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim? There is a chance that Laza misunderstood Marguerite's explanation of a osteopathic tonsil massage but somehow I doubt it. Greg is ignoring that David spoke to the pharmacist and he said tonsillectomy surgery was a regular part of Dr Philben's practice.

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

Greg

It is a sad day when one Commonwealth citizen has to explain the King's English to another Commonwealth citizen but, you are from Australia, after all. Considering the fact your ancestors were convicts and Irish rebels, one can begin to understand the situation better.

Mr. Doyle is not referring to two Marguerites in his sentence, he is referring to either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI. Are you able to comprehend that the word either is applied to Marguerite, Laza OR the FBI, and not two Marguerites?

[LR Trotter]

My little short legged Rat Terrier, as brave as she is, need not jump off the porch and join any Big Dog fights. But, I have looked around a little searching for the date of Lee Harvey Oswald's Mastoidectomy, and other than a referencing of the year 1945, and his age being 6 years, I was unable to find a date. If it occured when he was age 6, of course that would mean on or after October 18, 1945. I believe that the date of the Tonsillectomy, as listed on the National Life & Accident Insurance Company life insurance application, was January 17, 1945. So I wonder, as I wander, if a possibility exists that a Mastoidectomy was mistated as a Tonsillectomy? Or possibly the Insurance Agent misunderstood what was said? A third possibility, at least to me, is maybe a "Tonsillitis Treatment" was either misstated or misunderstood as a "Tonsillectomy". We have a Mother, Marguerite Claverie Pic Oswald, applying for an insurance policy and dealing with an Insurance Agent wanting to sell the policy. And, I would think a mistake on the form is quite possible. On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something. I try to know what I know, but I try much harder to know what I don't know, due to volume.
That being said, I am convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was impersonated, at least in the early 1960s, but I am on the fence to the degree. As previously stated, I have not read "Harvey and Lee", but I have seen a lot of the discussion and internet posted portions of the book.
::vroom::

Larry,

I am not posting at present due to the ludicrous reasons given for being put on moderation and having a thread made invisible. But this deserves to be an exception as I believe you may have provided a solution. You can forget any mix-up between tonsillectomy and mastoidectomy. That doesn't float on just about every ground I can think of. But "tonsil treatment" being put down as "tonsillectomy"? That sounds plausible.

Even more so when you consider that Philben advertised that he did pediatrics only.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5842[/ATTACH]
"PRACTICE LIMITED TO PEDIATRICS"

If this is not posted here by the mods, you will find it in the Harvey & Lee section at my site. I will give them a chance to post it first. Two hours seems fair enough.

Thanks Greg, and after seeing Mr Hargrove's post with the Mastoidectomy record, I agree. As for a "Tonsillitis Treatment" being called a "Tonsillectomy", if that did happen, I would doubt it was the first time, and certainly not the last.
::nurse::

For the record, I lean towards a "misstatement" or "misunderstanding" regarding the "possibility" of a "Tonsillitis Treatment" being recorded as a "Tonsillectomy" on the Life Insurance Application Form, rather than a "misrepresentation". But, I do allow for all possibilities along with the leaning. And, it is beyond my comprehension why a simple possibility can be so strongly discounted, especially if the only record is the insurance application. If the question is whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had a Tonsillectomy in 1945, I can honestly say that I do not know.
::vroom::

[Jim Hargrove]

Megathanks to all for examining the topic of Lee Oswald's tonsillectomy in such excruciating detail.

After reading all the posts, I've decided to put the tonsillectomy issue back up on the Harvey and Lee website, but in deference to Greg Parker's Herculean efforts here, I'm going to downgrade the issue from "magic" to... uh... just "fascinating" or something.

And now, surely, it is time to heed the numerous requests from our long-suffering hosts to move on to another topic. Assuming there will be no more insults hurled at Mr. Armstrong below, I'm outta this thread. Thanks again.

Jim

[Greg R Parker]

This is a perfect example, Marlene, of what I am talking about. This poster is working on the premise that there was a 2nd Marguerite when no such thing has ever been proven.

No, that isn't at all what I was thinking. What I meant was it was unlikely a tonsillectomy would be mistakenly claimed on the insurance form. What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim? There is a chance that Laza misunderstood Marguerite's explanation of a osteopathic tonsil massage but somehow I doubt it. Greg is ignoring that David spoke to the pharmacist and he said tonsillectomy surgery was a regular part of Dr Philben's practice.

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

Greg

It is a sad day when one Commonwealth citizen has to explain the King's English to another Commonwealth citizen but, you are from Australia, after all. Considering the fact your ancestors were convicts and Irish rebels, one can begin to understand the situation better.

Mr. Doyle is not referring to two Marguerites in his sentence, he is referring to either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI. Are you able to comprehend that the word either is applied to Marguerite, Laza OR the FBI, and not two Marguerites?

Robert,

Are you still reigned on by King George VI? Has news not yet reached Canada that he fell off his perch in 1952 and was replaced by a female?

You know, I agree, It is sad. But you know what's sadder? When the person doing the correcting gets it wrong. I'll let you figure it out, or ask someone with a 3rd grade education where it was you took a detour off the cliff.

[Albert Doyle]

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

I wrote it. I know what I meant. I meant either (singular) Marguerite or Laza or FBI. I was making a comment about the gist of my post. That gist was that there was no motive to fabricate a tonsillectomy on the insurance form.


Capiche?

[Bob Prudhomme]

No, that isn't at all what I was thinking. What I meant was it was unlikely a tonsillectomy would be mistakenly claimed on the insurance form. What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim? There is a chance that Laza misunderstood Marguerite's explanation of a osteopathic tonsil massage but somehow I doubt it. Greg is ignoring that David spoke to the pharmacist and he said tonsillectomy surgery was a regular part of Dr Philben's practice.

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

Greg

It is a sad day when one Commonwealth citizen has to explain the King's English to another Commonwealth citizen but, you are from Australia, after all. Considering the fact your ancestors were convicts and Irish rebels, one can begin to understand the situation better.

Mr. Doyle is not referring to two Marguerites in his sentence, he is referring to either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI. Are you able to comprehend that the word either is applied to Marguerite, Laza OR the FBI, and not two Marguerites?

Robert,

Are you still reigned on by King George VI? Has news not yet reached Canada that he fell off his perch in 1952 and was replaced by a female?

You know, I agree, It's is sad. But you know what's sadder? When the person doing the correcting gets it wrong. I'll let you figure it out, or ask someone with a 3rd grade education where it was you took a detour off the cliff.

Just for the unenlightened and the unwashed masses amongst us, an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The King's English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The King's English is a book on English usage and grammar. It was written by the Fowler brothers, Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler, and published in 1906, and thus pre-dates by 20 years Modern English Usage, which was written by Henry alone after Francis's death in 1918.
The King's English is less like a dictionary than Modern English Usage; it consists of longer articles on more general topics such as vocabulary, syntax and punctuation, and draws heavily on examples from many sources throughout. One of its sections is a systematic description of the appropriate uses of shall and will. The third and last edition was published in 1931, by which time Modern English Usage had superseded it in popularity.
Because all living languages continually evolve, the book is now considered outdated in some respects, and some of the Fowlers' opinions about correct English usage are at times incorrect with regard to contemporary standards. For example, the Fowlers disapprove of the word "concision" on the grounds that it had a technical meaning in theology, "to which it may well be left"; but "concision" is now a common synonym for "conciseness". The Fowlers also criticised the use of standpoint and just how much (as in "Just how much more of this can we take?"), describing them as undesirable "Americanisms", but both are now common in British English. The book nevertheless remains a benchmark for usage, and is still in print.

[Greg R Parker]

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

I wrote it. I know what I meant. I meant either (singular) Marguerite or Laza or FBI. I was making a comment about the gist of my post. That gist was that there was no motive to fabricate a tonsillectomy on the insurance form.


Capiche?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/either

"What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim?"

As can be seen, you have offered more than 2 choices. In your placement of "either", you have therefore suggested EITHER of two Marguerites, Laza, or the FBI...

Sorry if that is not what you meant, but that is most assuredly what you said.

[Greg R Parker]

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

Greg

It is a sad day when one Commonwealth citizen has to explain the King's English to another Commonwealth citizen but, you are from Australia, after all. Considering the fact your ancestors were convicts and Irish rebels, one can begin to understand the situation better.

Mr. Doyle is not referring to two Marguerites in his sentence, he is referring to either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI. Are you able to comprehend that the word either is applied to Marguerite, Laza OR the FBI, and not two Marguerites?

Robert,

Are you still reigned on by King George VI? Has news not yet reached Canada that he fell off his perch in 1952 and was replaced by a female?

You know, I agree, It's is sad. But you know what's sadder? When the person doing the correcting gets it wrong. I'll let you figure it out, or ask someone with a 3rd grade education where it was you took a detour off the cliff.

Just for the unenlightened and the unwashed masses amongst us, an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The King's English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The King's English is a book on English usage and grammar. It was written by the Fowler brothers, Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler, and published in 1906, and thus pre-dates by 20 years Modern English Usage, which was written by Henry alone after Francis's death in 1918.
The King's English is less like a dictionary than Modern English Usage; it consists of longer articles on more general topics such as vocabulary, syntax and punctuation, and draws heavily on examples from many sources throughout. One of its sections is a systematic description of the appropriate uses of shall and will. The third and last edition was published in 1931, by which time Modern English Usage had superseded it in popularity.
Because all living languages continually evolve, the book is now considered outdated in some respects, and some of the Fowlers' opinions about correct English usage are at times incorrect with regard to contemporary standards. For example, the Fowlers disapprove of the word "concision" on the grounds that it had a technical meaning in theology, "to which it may well be left"; but "concision" is now a common synonym for "conciseness". The Fowlers also criticised the use of standpoint and just how much (as in "Just how much more of this can we take?"), describing them as undesirable "Americanisms", but both are now common in British English. The book nevertheless remains a benchmark for usage, and is still in print.

Exactly. It is archaic - at least in every other English speaking country.

Hopefully what you meant is "The Queen's English". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...'s-English

[Bob Prudhomme]

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

I wrote it. I know what I meant. I meant either (singular) Marguerite or Laza or FBI. I was making a comment about the gist of my post. That gist was that there was no motive to fabricate a tonsillectomy on the insurance form.


Capiche?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/either

"What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim?"

As can be seen, you have offered more than 2 choices. In your placement of "either", you have therefore suggested EITHER of two Marguerites, Laza, or the FBI...

Sorry if that is not what you meant, but that is most assuredly what you said.

I believe if we looked up the word "mule" in the dictionary, there may just be a picture of Greg beside it.

Albert explained precisely what he meant in his statement which, by the way is exactly how I interpreted his words, yet you still carry on with your silly argument.

[Greg R Parker]

"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.

As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.

I wrote it. I know what I meant. I meant either (singular) Marguerite or Laza or FBI. I was making a comment about the gist of my post. That gist was that there was no motive to fabricate a tonsillectomy on the insurance form.


Capiche?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/either

"What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim?"

As can be seen, you have offered more than 2 choices. In your placement of "either", you have therefore suggested EITHER of two Marguerites, Laza, or the FBI...

Sorry if that is not what you meant, but that is most assuredly what you said.

I believe if we looked up the word "mule" in the dictionary, there may just be a picture of Greg beside it.

Albert explained precisely what he meant in his statement which, by the way is exactly how I interpreted his words, yet you still carry on with your silly argument.

Robert,


in his explanation, he added an extra "or". If that had been in place in the original, I would have taken the meaning he intended.


When one explains what one has written by adding extra words to the original text, it accentuates the flaw in the original even further.