Cadman Street

[tozzin]

Can anyone shed any light on the original occupants of the works below on Cadman Street, it’s next to the old B and J Sippels cutlery works, it may be the works of Charles Cadman & Sons but can’t be sure, any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Heartshome]

Hi Tozzin. Nice photo!  You may be right about Charles Cadman & sons, Canal Works,

as they were established 1751, so would presume that building would be part of their premises.

[tozzin]

6 hours ago, Heartshome said:

Hi Tozzin. Nice photo!  You may be right about Charles Cadman & sons, Canal Works,

as they were established 1751, so would presume that building would be part of their premises.

Sadly Heartshome it’s not my photo, it’s my nephew, Michael who took it, he’s passionate about the history of Sheffield and its industrial buildings, especially the oldest railway line in Britain  that ran near  what is now The Manor Estate and Manor Park, lots of it is still in situ under the road at the Manor Park end of Harborough Avenue.

Thanks for the reply about the canal works and I think it was Charles Cadman works. The squiggly beneath the date must mean something, some kind of old trademark maybe.

[Edmund]

Brothers Charles, Edwin and Henry Cadman comprised the firm Charles Cadman and Sons, file manufacturers and merchants. They operated in the Lambert street area from the late 1700s until at least 1833, and were listed at the Canal Street Works, Blast Lane in Whites 1837 directory.
The partnership was dissolved in 1842 when Charles retired, though the remaining brothers kept the original company name.  Various companies operated from the works/warehouse in Cadman Street, and the Cadmans were probably not the first there.
Edwin and Henry were commisioned and operating canal boats in 1836 and in 1841 their new sea going 70 ton vessel overturned on its launch at Masbro killing 50 people.
The Canal Works/Warehouse is not shown on Leather's 1823 plan but it was already built when the adjacent Canal Tavern was up for sale in June 1822.

[tozzin]

13 minutes ago, Edmund said:

Brothers Charles, Edwin and Henry Cadman comprised the firm Charles Cadman and Sons, file manufacturers and merchants. They operated in the Lambert street area from the late 1700s until at least 1833, and were listed at the Canal Street Works, Blast Lane in Whites 1837 directory.
The partnership was dissolved in 1842 when Charles retired, though the remaining brothers kept the original company name.  Various companies operated from the works/warehouse in Cadman Street, and the Cadmans were probably not the first there.
Edwin and Henry were commisioned and operating canal boats in 1836 and in 1841 their new sea going 70 ton vessel overturned on its launch at Masbro killing 70 people.
The Canal Works/Warehouse is not shown on Leather's 1823 plan but it was already built when the adjacent Canal Tavern was up for sale in June 1822.

You always come up trumps Edmund, brilliant. I did work in the polishing shop of Sippels which was situated just across the road from Sippels main works.

[Heartshome]

7 hours ago, Edmund said:

Brothers Charles, Edwin and Henry Cadman comprised the firm Charles Cadman and Sons, file manufacturers and merchants. They operated in the Lambert street area from the late 1700s until at least 1833, and were listed at the Canal Street Works, Blast Lane in Whites 1837 directory.
The partnership was dissolved in 1842 when Charles retired, though the remaining brothers kept the original company name.  Various companies operated from the works/warehouse in Cadman Street, and the Cadmans were probably not the first there.
Edwin and Henry were commisioned and operating canal boats in 1836 and in 1841 their new sea going 70 ton vessel overturned on its launch at Masbro killing 50 people.
The Canal Works/Warehouse is not shown on Leather's 1823 plan but it was already built when the adjacent Canal Tavern was up for sale in June 1822.

Brill info Edmund. It's great how we can all put a little piece into the jigsaw of Sheffield history.⭐

[tozzin]

On 08/04/2022 at 17:06, Heartshome said:

Brill info Edmund. It's great how we can all put a little piece into the jigsaw of Sheffield history.⭐

Sadly the council are complicit in the loss of our historic inheritance, for instance Victorian street signs like the one on Chippinghouse Road, cast iron with a hand and outstretched finger, indicating the street continues across Abbeydale Road, but Amey are allowed to remove these fantastic Road signs to do with them what they will, several have been exported to America to be sold for a huge profit for some nameless Amey employee. This they will totally deny but they denied, selling street cobbles, selling tram lines but they did.

[Heartshome]

30 minutes ago, tozzin said:

Sadly the council are complicit in the loss of our historic inheritance, for instance Victorian street signs like the one on Chippinghouse Road, cast iron with a hand and outstretched finger, indicating the street continues across Abbeydale Road, but Amey are allowed to remove these fantastic Road signs to do with them what they will, several have been exported to America to be sold for a huge profit for some nameless Amey employee. This they will totally deny but they denied, selling street cobbles, selling tram lines but they did.

Yes! I've heard about this, trouble is, there is always someone out for a 'quick buck' at the expense of OUR HISTORICAL

ARTIFACTS, and they probably don't originate from Sheffield either. Hence the reason they couldn't care less.

[Guest leksand]

On 08/04/2022 at 09:26, Edmund said:

Brothers Charles, Edwin and Henry Cadman comprised the firm Charles Cadman and Sons, file manufacturers and merchants. They operated in the Lambert street area from the late 1700s until at least 1833, and were listed at the Canal Street Works, Blast Lane in Whites 1837 directory.
The partnership was dissolved in 1842 when Charles retired, though the remaining brothers kept the original company name.  Various companies operated from the works/warehouse in Cadman Street, and the Cadmans were probably not the first there.
Edwin and Henry were commisioned and operating canal boats in 1836 and in 1841 their new sea going 70 ton vessel overturned on its launch at Masbro killing 50 people.
The Canal Works/Warehouse is not shown on Leather's 1823 plan but it was already built when the adjacent Canal Tavern was up for sale in June 1822.

I'm not sure there's much point in this and I'm pretty sure I know what the collective reaction will be. However, I do think it is important to take issue what you've done here, because not everybody reading the thread will appreciate the simplicity or accesibility of the process that you've used to get what you've presented here, or the cursory nature of the scrutiny applied in selection

In this case there is nothing but the shadiest of speculation to connect any of the content posted to the original enquiry. Moreover, and I really hope you can prove me wrong, there doesn't seem to be any genuine interest in proper investigation. You have quite blithely drawn in information which the slightest scrutiny indicates is irrelevant, to present an unwarranted case for longevity, and dismissed contradictory contemporary evidence by dint of your assertion alone! I wouldn't want to guess whether this is the consequence of naivety, arrogance or indifference and am not really sure which, if any, is preferable.

I don't think it's terribly important in the context of this thread, as to a large extent those being deceived are patently quite happy to be deceived. However, in broader terms, it would appear that perhaps you feel uneasy about a perceived offence at questions being left unanswered. I would ask, if you personally had requested directions from somebody would you take satisfaction in knowing they felt rewarded for having made up a route rather than admit they didn't know, once it became evident what they had done? Would you go back and accept the next set of directions they gave? And the next? Obviously, a great deal of what you post and what you have posted is useful and has helped a lot of people, but much of your methodology does look terribly suspect and leaves, as here, a tarnished residue for the undiscerning user. It really is no different to the indiscriminately expanded family trees that many people get irritated about. And all it is is slight overextension, a slight, perhaps encouraged, aversion to scrutiny which you surely have the capability to address.
 
Anyhow upshot is, tozzin, somehow empowered by this nonsense, charges off on a another crusade. The problem is, perhaps you can see, however worthy the cause may outwardly appear that the concept of history on which it is founded can readily be dismissed, essentially, as mysticism - and one involving a rather odd personality cult at that!

In a broader sense though, if anyone is genuinely interested, there is every reason to believe that you can find out who built the works pictured and, if you're lucky, the plans may even have been preserved too. I mean, there is a pretty big clue in the original photo, and it is not at all clear why anyone should entertain these fantastic flights before dismissing the obvious, other than habit.

[Lysanderix]

Whoops…I thought we were simply “chatting” in this part of the forum.

[tozzin]

49 minutes ago, leksand said:

I'm not sure there's much point in this and I'm pretty sure I know what the collective reaction will be. However, I do think it is important to take issue what you've done here, because not everybody reading the thread will appreciate the simplicity or accesibility of the process that you've used to get what you've presented here, or the cursory nature of the scrutiny applied in selection

In this case there is nothing but the shadiest of speculation to connect any of the content posted to the original enquiry. Moreover, and I really hope you can prove me wrong, there doesn't seem to be any genuine interest in proper investigation. You have quite blithely drawn in information which the slightest scrutiny indicates is irrelevant, to present an unwarranted case for longevity, and dismissed contradictory contemporary evidence by dint of your assertion alone! I wouldn't want to guess whether this is the consequence of naivety, arrogance or indifference and am not really sure which, if any, is preferable.

I don't think it's terribly important in the context of this thread, as to a large extent those being deceived are patently quite happy to be deceived. However, in broader terms, it would appear that perhaps you feel uneasy about a perceived offence at questions being left unanswered. I would ask, if you personally had requested directions from somebody would you take satisfaction in knowing they felt rewarded for having made up a route rather than admit they didn't know, once it became evident what they had done? Would you go back and accept the next set of directions they gave? And the next? Obviously, a great deal of what you post and what you have posted is useful and has helped a lot of people, but much of your methodology does look terribly suspect and leaves, as here, a tarnished residue for the undiscerning user. It really is no different to the indiscriminately expanded family trees that many people get irritated about. And all it is is slight overextension, a slight, perhaps encouraged, aversion to scrutiny which you surely have the capability to address.
 
Anyhow upshot is, tozzin, somehow empowered by this nonsense, charges off on a another crusade. The problem is, perhaps you can see, however worthy the cause may outwardly appear that the concept of history on which it is founded can readily be dismissed, essentially, as mysticism - and one involving a rather odd personality cult at that!

In a broader sense though, if anyone is genuinely interested, there is every reason to believe that you can find out who built the works pictured and, if you're lucky, the plans may even have been preserved too. I mean, there is a pretty big clue in the original photo, and it is not at all clear why anyone should entertain these fantastic flights before dismissing the obvious, other than habit.

Have you been down to Blast Lane and Cadman Street ? From  Broad Street to Cadman Street there was a lack of firms, they more or less start at Cadman Street, the Canal Works opposite B & J Sippels I know about I worked there for a short time, I’m not trying to invent , fool, bamboozle anyone all I’ve done is posted what I’ve read and found, believe it or not there are people who are passionate about the old industrial buildings, all I did was ask for help to pinpoint Henry Cadmans works, what’s amiss with that? If you something about the date stone in the picture please share it as at the time of writing there are several people searching plans, archives and trademarks to discover exactly who had the building erected.

[tozzin]

6 minutes ago, Lysanderix said:

Whoops…I thought we were simply “chatting” in this part of the forum.

Seems someone doesn’t like me asking for help.

[Lysanderix]

Tozzin…my post was made just before yours….sorry but I just thought some of the earlier comments were getting a little beyond the concept of “chat”😋

[Guest leksand]

2 minutes ago, tozzin said:

Have you been down to Blast Lane and Cadman Street ? From  Broad Street to Cadman Street there was a lack of firms, they more or less start at Cadman Street, the Canal Works opposite B & J Sippels I know about I worked there for a short time, I’m not trying to invent , fool, bamboozle anyone all I’ve done is posted what I’ve read and found, believe it or not there are people who are passionate about the old industrial buildings, all I did was ask for help to pinpoint Henry Cadmans works, what’s amiss with that?

Yes tozzin I have and I know the broader area pretty well as I used to regurarly use the roads around there when walking to and from Rotherham.

I'm not questioning anyone's passion for this, simply the methodology and process for what is being presented as history. There is a building there with a datestone that reads 1873. Why do you feel drawn to support a suggestion that it was there in 1822 when, aside from any other complaint, there is stated evidence (and rational investigative process ahould suggest) it was not?

 

[tozzin]

12 minutes ago, leksand said:

Yes tozzin I have and I know the broader area pretty well as I used to regurarly use the roads around there when walking to and from Rotherham.

I'm not questioning anyone's passion for this, simply the methodology and process for what is being presented as history. There is a building there with a datestone that reads 1873. Why do you feel drawn to support a suggestion that it was there in 1822 when, aside from any other complaint, there is stated evidence (and rational investigative process ahould suggest) it was not?

 

 I never said it was there in 1822 , this is getting like Sheffield Forum so I’ll end my replies to you.

[Guest leksand]

28 minutes ago, tozzin said:

Seems someone doesn’t like me asking for help.

This is perhaps part of the problem tozzin. You don't recognise when people are trying to help you. You habitually presume that correction is attack and use it to embed a position which is frequently flawed.

[Guest leksand]

4 minutes ago, tozzin said:

 I never said it was there in 1822 , this is getting like Sheffield Forum so I’ll end my replies to you.

"You always come up trumps Edmund, brilliant." - rather suggests acceptance of what he/she presented.

The suggestion is based on misappropriation of evidence connected to the presented subject by little if anything more than the words canal and workshop. The methodology used to construct the argument is very problematic. It has received unquestioning support from several sources which acts as a means to enhance it's validity in the eyes of most people and would appear to act as a spur to further production. If you have a genuine interest in preserving fact as an element of history then this should be a concern to you.

The thing is the driver for this appears to just be mutual congratulation, which could just as easily be fed by proper research and considered content, as most of the forum is. You're all perfectly capable of doing this, so what is the objection?

 

 

[Edmund]

4 hours ago, leksand said:

I'm not sure there's much point in this and I'm pretty sure I know what the collective reaction will be. However, I do think it is important to take issue what you've done here, because not everybody reading the thread will appreciate the simplicity or accesibility of the process that you've used to get what you've presented here, or the cursory nature of the scrutiny applied in selection

In this case there is nothing but the shadiest of speculation to connect any of the content posted to the original enquiry. Moreover, and I really hope you can prove me wrong, there doesn't seem to be any genuine interest in proper investigation. You have quite blithely drawn in information which the slightest scrutiny indicates is irrelevant, to present an unwarranted case for longevity, and dismissed contradictory contemporary evidence by dint of your assertion alone! I wouldn't want to guess whether this is the consequence of naivety, arrogance or indifference and am not really sure which, if any, is preferable.

I don't think it's terribly important in the context of this thread, as to a large extent those being deceived are patently quite happy to be deceived. However, in broader terms, it would appear that perhaps you feel uneasy about a perceived offence at questions being left unanswered. I would ask, if you personally had requested directions from somebody would you take satisfaction in knowing they felt rewarded for having made up a route rather than admit they didn't know, once it became evident what they had done? Would you go back and accept the next set of directions they gave? And the next? Obviously, a great deal of what you post and what you have posted is useful and has helped a lot of people, but much of your methodology does look terribly suspect and leaves, as here, a tarnished residue for the undiscerning user. It really is no different to the indiscriminately expanded family trees that many people get irritated about. And all it is is slight overextension, a slight, perhaps encouraged, aversion to scrutiny which you surely have the capability to address.
 
Anyhow upshot is, tozzin, somehow empowered by this nonsense, charges off on a another crusade. The problem is, perhaps you can see, however worthy the cause may outwardly appear that the concept of history on which it is founded can readily be dismissed, essentially, as mysticism - and one involving a rather odd personality cult at that!

In a broader sense though, if anyone is genuinely interested, there is every reason to believe that you can find out who built the works pictured and, if you're lucky, the plans may even have been preserved too. I mean, there is a pretty big clue in the original photo, and it is not at all clear why anyone should entertain these fantastic flights before dismissing the obvious, other than habit.

This site is a bit of fun for people with a genuine interest in Sheffield buildings, industry, people and their doings.  It's not an academic site with requirement for peer review prior to publishing, strict referencing criteria and in-depth analysis of original source materials.  Anyone wanting that sort of content is in the wrong place.

Good natured appreciation of postings encourages people to engage, and discourages potential trolling activity.

No plans here to change my approach, but I will in the future be on the lookout for hypocrisy in posts made by those promising a rigorous academic methodology, but not delivering.

[Guest leksand]

24 minutes ago, Edmund said:

This site is a bit of fun for people with a genuine interest in Sheffield buildings, industry, people and their doings.  It's not an academic site with requirement for peer review prior to publishing, strict referencing criteria and in-depth analysis of original source materials.  Anyone wanting that sort of content is in the wrong place.

Good natured appreciation of postings encourages people to engage, and discourages potential trolling activity.

No plans here to change my approach, but I will in the future be on the lookout for hypocrisy in posts made by those promising a rigorous academic methodology, but not delivering.

I'm very glad to here it & I do hope you will be rigerous. I just wish you would apply a little more of your unquestionable talent to scrutiny of your own contributions. That way everyone wins.

[Lysanderix]

I enjoy the simple things in life ,having spent years in academia where the methodologies applied to rigorous research are a daily fact of life.
If the same principles are applied to “ chatting” on a local history forum then, may I suggest ,we shall all be the poorer since those who feel unable/unwilling to defend their research/ comments will no longer contribute….🥸

[Organgrinder]

13 hours ago, Edmund said:

This site is a bit of fun for people with a genuine interest in Sheffield buildings, industry, people and their doings.  It's not an academic site with requirement for peer review prior to publishing, strict referencing criteria and in-depth analysis of original source materials.  Anyone wanting that sort of content is in the wrong place.

Good natured appreciation of postings encourages people to engage, and discourages potential trolling activity.

No plans here to change my approach, but I will in the future be on the lookout for hypocrisy in posts made by those promising a rigorous academic methodology, but not delivering.

Edmund is quite correct and I agree with him entirely.

This has been, for many years a friendly site, and has only recently had these instances of  unpleasant posts.

I sincerely hope we are not going to degenerate to the level of many other forums where trolls abound in numbers.

If anyone thinks that a member has given an incorrect fact, they can easily state what they believe is the correct one without taking the other member to task.

Let's keep it friendly please. 

[tozzin]

14 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Edmund is quite correct and I agree with him entirely.

This has been, for many years a friendly site, and has only recently had these instances of  unpleasant posts.

I sincerely hope we are not going to degenerate to the level of many other forums where trolls abound in numbers.

If anyone thinks that a member has given an incorrect fact, they can easily state what they believe is the correct one without taking the other member to task.

Let's keep it friendly please. 

I’m sorry if it looks as if I’m grabbing at straws , I do not or try not to jump to conclusions and believe everything I come across, as for me saying Edmund had come up trumps was a reference to him going back further than I could, all the input about Cadman Street is being forwarded to a third party to use in his search to discover the reason of the year above the archway in the photo also the strange squiggly mark.

I always thought this was a very friendly site and have found it very helpful.

[Edmund]

On 08/04/2022 at 06:54, tozzin said:

Sadly Heartshome it’s not my photo, it’s my nephew, Michael who took it, he’s passionate about the history of Sheffield and its industrial buildings, especially the oldest railway line in Britain  that ran near  what is now The Manor Estate and Manor Park, lots of it is still in situ under the road at the Manor Park end of Harborough Avenue.

Thanks for the reply about the canal works and I think it was Charles Cadman works. The squiggly beneath the date must mean something, some kind of old trademark maybe.

Hello Tozzin,

Here's an advert for Charles Cadman & Sons from 1867.  It confirms that they were in the Canal Works in 1867, and that their corporate mark was "BIEN" (so the squiggly mark is probably not their makers mark).  The mark was granted to an ancestor by the Cutlers Company and on the death of the holder in 1783 bequeathed to Benjamin Cadman, then to Charles (nephew) and then to Henry (son). Cadman's took Stanley Brothers to court in 1851 as Stanleys were pirating the Cadman "BIEN" mark on their files.

I've not been able to find any trace of building work that matches the 1873 inscription.  In January 1869 Cadmans took F.T. Mappin (of the adjacent Sheaf Works) to Chancery Court in London seeking an injunction to stop them using their five Nasmyth steam hammers. The outcome was not reported. The substance of the court case was:

"This was an application for an injunction by the plaintiff, Mr. Henry Cadman, of Sheffield, against Mr. Fredk. Thorpe Mappin, under the following circumstances: Plaintiff holds under the Duke of Norfolk certain premises where he carries on the business of steel manufacturer, the "Canal Steel Works," under the style of "Charles Cadman and Sons." Mr. Mappin is proprietor of the "Sheaf Works," adjoining the premises, and the plaintiffs complaint is that the working of certain Nasmyth's Steam hammers in the Sheaf Works is an injury and a nuisance to him in conduct of his business, and he accordingly seeks to restrain the working of these hammers.

...Within the last five years, however, the Sheaf Works have been extended until they now are brought close up to the west side of Cadman-street, and there is now a row of five steam hammers immediately along the east side of the plaintiff's premises ...The five Nasmyth's steam hammers are represented as unusually large and powerful; one or more or all of them are worked almost constantly day and night; and when worked they occasion a deafening noise and great vibration of the ground and air ... the plaintiff and his sons cannot transact their business in the counting-house, and some of the clerks have found their health injured by the noise and vibration that several have left the plaintiff's service in consequence ... many of the occupiers of the plaintiff’s cottages in Cadman-street have left and others have demanded a reduction of their rents ... the structure both of the cottages and of the file warehouse and packing rooms has been injured by working of the hammers, while the manufacture of steel has suffered materially from vibration; and in September last, part of the front of one of the melting furnaces gave way and fell, owing to this vibration ... the emission of steam from the Sheaf Works, which steam blows across Cadman-street, and entering the plaintiff’s warehouses corrodes and injures the steel goods stored there ... "

[Guest leksand]

The works pictured are consistently noted as the Sheaf Works on 19th Century mapping, in common with the far larger & earlier development on the opposite side of the canal. There is no construction on your pictured area on the 1850/1 survey and little in the broader plot. However, by the 1863 revision the canal aligned portion of the site is shown as developed and a tramroad runs along somewhere close to the southern boundary. On an 1873 revision the extent of development is unaltered although the tramroad is gone. This would suggest that 1873 is quite possible as a date for development of the southern part of the site. If this was a prospective development you really wouldn't expect significant redevelopment of the canal path-side portion so soon after initial construction. However, if it was directly associated with the major works on the other side of the canal then you might consider complete rebuilding a more feasible prospect. By the 1890 survey there are some differences to the plot footprint to that of today but the current "layout" is, essentially, recognisable and some alteration to the extent of the canal side section has occured.

There will be notes of planning applications, certifications and the like from 1873 in the planning registers at archives. They may not be simple to find as, at this stage, we don't know who the developer was and we can't be sure what the stated address will be (it might be straightforward though). In addition to this there is a chance that application notes will be grouped so may not be listed in the position expected (ie. they may appear in an earlier register than expected). If the plot is considered part of the broader Sheaf Works, then Turton of Maltravers St might be worth a check. I think Cadman and possibly Lumley Street (as was) were designated at that point but the apparent address may, strangely, not be relevant in indexing, particularly if applications were grouped. I haven't used the earlier registers a lot so am not sure if the format is quite the same as those I'm familiar with. Obviously, once developer & application numbers become apparent so could relevant archives.

On 11/04/2022 at 07:05, tozzin said:

I’m sorry if it looks as if I’m grabbing at straws , I do not or try not to jump to conclusions and believe everything I come across, as for me saying Edmund had come up trumps was a reference to him going back further than I could, all the input about Cadman Street is being forwarded to a third party to use in his search to discover the reason of the year above the archway in the photo also the strange squiggly mark.

I always thought this was a very friendly site and have found it very helpful.

With regard to Edmund's initial post; both refering to a map and baselessly denouncing it's validity is wild and ought to set anybody's alarm bells ringing. It is perhaps indicative of how Edmund is viewed on the forum - either revered or dismissed - that it did not, so you really don't need to defend your reaction. My instinct in that situation is just to wonder why anyone would falsify information like that, and I assumed it was something Edmund had complete control over. However, having noted his reaction to this & an earlier enquiry regarding another erratic post I really am not sure his conception of process is quite as I might have judged. Bizarrely, I don't think he recognises an error, or any failure of logic in what he has presented, and although his suggestion fails any normal scrutiny, he can't see a problem. Moreover, he thinks he is perfectly capable of scrutinising others utilising the standards which have allowed that statement to pass.

Upon further consideration, I think that Edmund must hold very great faith in his subscriptions (which represent his primary expertise) and specifically their front end search interfaces (which, to him, is scrutiny). He probably isn't aware of the limitations of source (a bit like your own past assumptions with trade directories [addressed to tozzin]) or that source detection rates aren't actually that great (so that a far broader resource sits within easy reach for the inquisitive). His recent suggestion that a significant case wasn't reported appears naive and rather lends to this view. Hence, when he enters his search strings the perception must be that he has a complete history returned at his fingertips and its just a case of picking novel items and joining the dots - there is no conceivable scope for fault. The broader reaction he receives here, which is probably, to a significant extent, a response to novelty, one imagines, can only embed his worldview. If objects he selects aren't greatly seperated subjectwise then it won't necessarily be apparent that there is a different mode of perception in play. However, if significant logical jumps are required, when his items have little or no genuine correlation (which isn't a conceivable outcome in his mental construct), then things start to look rather less sensible.

Perhaps others have identified this before and I am a little slow on uptake. However, even if one person genuinely cannot distinguish between rational and fraudulant constuction I doubt many would genuinely wish to invite falsity. In disagreement people will be succeptable to smokescreening and hyperbola but I have made no request for academic standards of scrutiny to be required, my objection is to blatant falsification, of which Edmund, whether he can understand it or not, is guilty. I would hope that those who are drawn primarily to "chat" do not begrudge those who value the fantastic educational and investigative aspect of the site the desire to, if not avoid, then at least highlight serious misinformation, and maybe consider exactly what and how they presume to delineate what they defend.

[Sheffield History]

On 10/04/2022 at 17:08, leksand said:

I'm very glad to here it & I do hope you will be rigerous. I just wish you would apply a little more of your unquestionable talent to scrutiny of your own contributions. That way everyone wins.

Your posts seem to have an aggressive tone 

we don’t do that on here 👍

keep to fun and friendly please