ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 12:33 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:i have made references to sports techniques in my writing and i have no experience playing sports beyond one traumatic summer of pee wee baseball, and i certainly never took any seriously in any form.

But i have eyes.
Keeping track of cards is a mental process. How exactly do you observe that with your eyes from the outside? How exactly do you realize that it is harder to do when players are slow, without actually doing it yourself?
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 26th, 2018, 1:33 pm

"The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who take all day to decide what card to play."

Not to overstate the terribly obvious, but the sentence above, although it references playing cards, has absolutely no connection to Gallaway.
Chris goes to great lengths to somehow ingratiate Gallaway into the book this line is taken from, but ultimately fails to do so.

In short, it's a oblique line that references playing cards ... but has ZERO connection to Gallaway.

It borders on a foolish attempt to impact the long term record of how the search for Erdnase progressed, but I'll just take it for what it actually is ... a fundamentally unproven hypothesis based on half a dozen massive leaps of faith, mixed in with the occasional outright lie.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4078
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 26th, 2018, 1:42 pm

now if erdnase had commented on keeping track of cards during game play and made the claim that it was harder with slower players, this would be relevant.

but he didn’t.

so it isn’t.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 26th, 2018, 1:57 pm

lybrary wrote:[Gallaway] does quote and attribute when he borrows from others.

. . . except on p 91, the first two paragraphs of which are copied from p. 311 of Handbook of quality-standard papers, without attribution or quotation marks. Other sentences from this page in Estimating are also copied from the same source. For example, the last paragraph of Estimating, p. 91 is taken from the section "Broken Packages" of Handbook, p. 315. The top table of Estimating p. 94 is pulled from the table on Handbook p 311.
. . . except that Estimating p. 117 is copied from American Printer and Lithographer May 20 1917 p 33.

In other words, Gallaway copies freely when it suits his purposes, sometimes with attribution and sometimes without, and therefore the appearance of a passage that appears in a known Gallaway work in some previous work isn't evidence that the previous work was written by Gallaway. It also lends support to the idea that language which appears in known Gallaway works that is reminiscent of Erdnase was copied, rather than originally written by Gallaway.

(He also quotes without attribution from the Declaration of Independence on p. 53, but that source is so obvious I wouldn't call it "plagiarism," like the other examples are.)

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4078
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 26th, 2018, 2:22 pm

i think bill just proved that Chris is Galloway.

;)

Bob Coyne
Posts: 560
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: New York, NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 26th, 2018, 3:01 pm

lybrary wrote:
Bob Coyne wrote:But then in the photos, that you also say are also of Gallaway, there's one on top of page 98 (in the upper right, touching the paper roll) where the pink is quite small relative to the other fingers (i.e. it's normal sized).
In the photo you reference the pinky is not totally straight and the only comparison you can make is to the ring finger, which matches the illustration. The pinky is shorter than the ring finger. The surprising feature of the hand is that pinky and index finger are almost the same length. This is not a comparison you can make from the photo you are referencing.

Bob Coyne wrote:Also, in the illustration, the index finger is extremely short (it extends no further than the pinky!). Though in Erdnase, the index finger is quite long, extending almost as far as the middle and ring fingers. So they're very different in that respect.
Not at all correct. You have to compare index with pinky in illustration 79. In illustration 79, as has been noted before the middle-finger could be somewhat bent. The card hides that. That means it is not possible to make a direct length comparison. However both index-finger and pinky are exposed and their relative length matches the illustration from "The Monotype System" book.


I looked at that photo again. The pinky in the paper roll photo looks to only be very slightly bent (as is possibly the ring finger). I don't see how it could possibly change it's length very much at all.

Regarding the Gallaway illustration and Erdnase Fig 79.... The stunted index finger in the Gallaway illustration extends just to the last joint of the middle finger (the base of the last phalange). You would need the middle finger on that hand to bend a lot, so that the index finger instead extends much further relative to the middle finger -- in Fig 79 it extends roughly 2/3 of the way up the middle finger fingernail, which is way past the last joint. With that amount of bending, the last phalange of the middle finger would be at an extreme angle away from the viewer. And at that angle, you'd be luck to see the middle fingernail at all. It certainly wouldn't look like it does in Fig 79 (relatively normal).

Anyway, since these pictures aren't publicly accessible (as far as I know), it makes it hard to discuss in a manner that's intelligible to people who don't have your ebook. So I'll drop it.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 4:06 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:The top table of Estimating p. 94 is pulled from the table on Handbook p 311.
Incorrect. The tables, while generally describing the same facts, are different. For example look at the 22x32 row in the 40lb column. The Handbook shows the number 30, Gallaway writes 29 1/2, etc. Also, Gallaway formats the table entirely differently. It is not a copy of the table as you indicate.

Bill Mullins wrote:. . . except that Estimating p. 117 is copied from American Printer and Lithographer May 20 1917 p 33.
Also wrong, because if you would have turned to the page before in the American Printer and Lithographer you would have read this:
The type matter on these two pages, with the exception of this caption, makes up the new Standard Proposal Blank that has been approved, after a great deal of thought, examination of trade customs as already adopted by local organizations, and legal advice, by the Executive Council of the United Typothetae and Franklin Clubs of America. Every printer should at once reprint his proposal or estimate blanks, and use these two pages for copy. The matter when used should occupy the first and third pages of a sheet, folded legal style, double letterhead size, folded at the head. Repeated use by printers in all parts of the country would add strength to these trade customs.
In other words it was prepared for explicit copying and they are asking for wide adoption without any attribution, because the template they prepared doesn't include one. Gallaway was member of the United Typothetae and taught estimating courses there.

Bill Mullins wrote:(He also quotes without attribution from the Declaration of Independence on p. 53, but that source is so obvious I wouldn't call it "plagiarism," like the other examples are.)
The snipped from the Declaration of Independence was repeated 10 times in different font sizes to show how they differed. It is obvious that this is not what he writes, but simply text he uses as an example for typesetting. No quoting or attribution is necessary. This is also text in the public domain so no copyright statement or permission was necessary either.

Bill Mullins wrote:. . . except on p 91, the first two paragraphs of which are copied from p. 311 of Handbook of quality-standard papers, without attribution or quotation marks. Other sentences from this page in Estimating are also copied from the same source. For example, the last paragraph of Estimating, p. 91 is taken from the section "Broken Packages" of Handbook, p. 315.
This is from a list of trade customs and can hardly be called copying several paragraphs of prose has he does with Copyfitting. Copying a bullet point like "The Basic Size shall be 25x38 inches." can hardly be called plagiarism. Also copying a sentence like "The minimum basic weight for machine-finished paper shall be 45 pounds, for supercalendered paper 50 pounds, and for paper coated on one side 60 pounds, and on two sides 70 pounds." is hardly a case that requires quotation marks. I guess strictly speaking he should have made a comment about the source, but these trade customs were disseminated for copying and wide distribution, because the originators wanted it widely known. This can hardly be compared with pulling paragraphs from a book from another author. You have to provide better examples than all those fake ones.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 26th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Chris -- your ebook says (and this is a direct quote from p. 94, of a copy I downloaded today): "Studying Gallaway’s books we see that he acknowledges when he uses material that he did not write himself."
This is obviously not true, as the examples above show.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 4:47 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:Chris -- your ebook says (and this is a direct quote from p. 94, of a copy I downloaded today): "Studying Gallaway’s books we see that he acknowledges when he uses material that he did not write himself."
This is obviously not true, as the examples above show.
You always leave out common sense and tacit boundary conditions which any reasonable person would understand apply. What I meant with my statement was obviously taking text/paragraphs of prose from other authors. Taking a list of trade customs that was explicitly meant to be copied without attribution is obviously not what I meant. Here are examples of paragraphs Gallaway copied from his earlier writing without attribution:
Copyfitting is a system for use with typewritten copy. The printer who permits composing-machine operators to work from manuscript copy does not need any system—he must be making so much money outside his composing room that efficiency bores him. Strong language, but no stronger than the facts justify. Consider this: A machine operator setting 4000 ems an hour is hitting more than 8000 keys every sixty minutes, more than two keys every second! How much time has that man to decide whether to use a comma or a semicolon, and whether “prophet” goes up or down? The printer must take out of copy the author’s mistakes and inconsistencies before he can get paid for his work; the place to do this is in the proof-room with a pencil, not in the composing room with a machine worth several thousand dollars. The foundation of composing-room efficiency is typewritten copy properly edited to suit the style required.

Copyfitting gives the printer an accurate system of measuring the copy and cuts, the "raw material," from which he is required to make a definite number of pages of a given size. It means that the printer need no longer be a "cut-and-try" workman, who keeps altering his work until he makes it fit. It makes the printer an artisan who accurately plans his work before he starts it, just as the architect plans to save time and waste in building. It is the application of the science of measurement to composition; it is not magic. It supplies the tools for quickly and accurately measuring typewritten copy and cuts so that the layout man can plan with the same ease and certainty as does the architect.

Copyfitting will be a disappointment to the man who “can tell by looking at it,” for it is not a method of getting results without effort, like the conjurer who takes white rabbits out of a silk hat; it is a system that makes easier and much more accurate the planning that is now being done by word-count and “guesstimate.”
If you can show us something like this where Gallaway copies without attribution then it would be valid. But besides the verbatim borrowing there are two other points to overcome: linguistic fingerprint and photographic resemblance. BTW, anybody who has read Gallaway's "Estimating for Printers" will quickly recognize Gallaway's style from the above paragraphs which were taken from "Copyfitting".
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 26th, 2018, 6:59 pm

lybrary wrote:What I meant with my statement was obviously taking text/paragraphs of prose from other authors.


Which is exactly what he did -- he copied text/paragraphs from the Handbook. I only quoted a little, but that whole section of Estimating is ripped from the Handbook. Yes, he may have changed a few elements in tables here and there, but this is obviously not original work.

. . . these trade customs were disseminated for copying and wide distribution, because the originators wanted it widely known.
Wow, you are reaching here. From the volume of posts on the Genii Forum over the last two years, you obviously want it widely known that you think Gallaway is Erdnase. So I suppose it's okay to put your ebook on the torrent sites?

The authors copyrighted this Handbook. They did not put it into the public domain. It was not "explicitly meant to be copied without attribution".

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 7:08 pm

The "Printing Trade Customs" were meant for copying without attribution:
Every printer should at once reprint his proposal or estimate blanks, and use these two pages for copy.
They explicitly said 'use for copy'. It can't get any clearer. That is why they are called 'customs'. These rules and customs are meant to be distributed so that everybody knows them. Gallaway took from the Handbook only a few lines mostly with data and numbers, often changed, corrected or amended parts. There was no copying of large portions. No quoting or attributing is expected in such cases. Next time I write down an address or phone number I will have to quote and reference the phone book?
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 7:31 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:The authors copyrighted this Handbook. They did not put it into the public domain. It was not "explicitly meant to be copied without attribution".
It looks like some of the text in the Handbook from 1922 did not originate with them. One sentence you said Gallaway is copying without attribution
A full package shall be construed as that number of sheets ...
appears in a number of other publications, too.

- "Modern Pulp and Paper Making: A Practical Treatise" by G. S. Witham, Sr. (1920)
- "The Paper Record: A Semi-annual Directory for the Buyer of Writing and Printing Papers" (1918)
- "The American Stationer, Volume 80" (1916)

As I said, customs that were generally known, and repeated by many. That is not considered copyrighted material that needs attribution. With so many repeating and using it, who should be attributed? You are again totally wrong.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 7:40 pm

Roger M. wrote:... mixed in with the occasional outright lie.
Could you please provide examples?
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 26th, 2018, 8:58 pm

lybrary wrote:
Roger M. wrote:... mixed in with the occasional outright lie.
Could you please provide examples?


There are dozens, if not hundreds of examples Chris ... but let's just use one from your most recent newsletter, where speaking of Gallaway you state:

- And yes, he also wrote "Expert at the Card Table", instructions for sleight-of-hand with cards.

This is an outright lie.
You have no idea if Gallaway wrote Expert at the Card Table.
You've presented not a shred of convincing evidence, such that even one person here on the forum agrees with you ... indeed there are hundreds of posts now on the Genii Forum basically telling you to quit pulling this stuff out of your rump, to basically quite making stuff up.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 10:31 pm

Roger M. wrote:
lybrary wrote:
Roger M. wrote:... mixed in with the occasional outright lie.
Could you please provide examples?


There are dozens, if not hundreds of examples Chris ... but let's just use one from your most recent newsletter, where speaking of Gallaway you state:

- And yes, he also wrote "Expert at the Card Table", instructions for sleight-of-hand with cards.

This is an outright lie.
You have no idea if Gallaway wrote Expert at the Card Table.
You've presented not a shred of convincing evidence, such that even one person here on the forum agrees with you ... indeed there are hundreds of posts now on the Genii Forum basically telling you to quit pulling this stuff out of your rump, to basically quite making stuff up.
How can it be a lie if, as you say, nobody knows who wrote it? It is what I have concluded from the facts. Your conclusion may be different. It could only be a lie if I know for a fact that Expert was written by somebody else. I don't. I think it was written by Gallaway. That is not a lie.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 26th, 2018, 11:22 pm

That you can’t, or choose not to distinguish between, and understand the difference between “ yes, he also wrote EATCT”, and “I think it was written by...” IS your problem Chris. (both quotes are yours)

One is a blatant lie as it states as a fact something that is (to date) unknowable, the other isn't, but is an example of what everybody else here is doing ... proposing a candidate that they happen to believe in.

I can’t help you understand the difference I’m afraid ... but your inability (or unwillingness) to parse the above two quotes as meaning two very different things encapsulates everything that’s fundamentally wrong with your your presentation.
You frequently go back and forth between fabrication and positing ... and either you don't know you do it, or you do know you do it, and just don't care.
Last edited by Roger M. on April 26th, 2018, 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 11:31 pm

Roger M. wrote:That you can’t, or choose not to distinguish between, and understand the difference between “ yes, he also wrote EATCT”, and “I think it was written by” IS your problem Chris. (both quotes are yours)

I can’t help you understand I’m afraid ... but your inability (or unwillingness) to parse the above two quotes as meaning two very different things encapsulates everything that’s fundamentally wrong with your your presentation.
Still not a lie old chap. All you do is take my statements out of context.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 26th, 2018, 11:33 pm

***to be fair, I was editing my post when Chris posted, he hadn't read my post as it's written ... which may or may not have affected how he responded***

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 27th, 2018, 12:01 am

lybrary wrote:Still not a lie old chap. All you do is take my statements out of context.


No Chris, I actually can tell (and posit that everybody else here can as well) when you're intentionally shifting the context of your presentation to suit your whim, and to make yet another fanciful fabrication in an effort to establish your candidate.

In your hands "context" is treated like a morphing inconvenience.

You should really contemplate changing your approach Chris - you won't ... but if you did, you'd definitely be the primary beneficiary.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 27th, 2018, 1:51 am

lybrary wrote:The "Printing Trade Customs" were meant for copying without attribution:
Every printer should at once reprint his proposal or estimate blanks, and use these two pages for copy.
They explicitly said 'use for copy'. It can't get any clearer. That is why they are called 'customs'. These rules and customs are meant to be distributed so that everybody knows them. Gallaway took from the Handbook only a few lines mostly with data and numbers, often changed, corrected or amended parts. There was no copying of large portions. No quoting or attributing is expected in such cases.


So what? You are obtusely missing the point.

You've recently made claims:
That Gallaway played cards; that photos of Gallaway's hands match the drawings in Expert; and that you've discovered new examples of him using religious imagery and magic-related phrases in his writing. All of these are based on the premise that Gallaway wrote passages in Copyfitting. And that is based on the similarity of passages in Copyfitting to pages in the RR Donnelley course. You assert that the Donnelley course is by Gallaway, but the only evidence you've given for that is that passages in it are also in Estimating for Printers (do you have other evidence -- is Gallaway named as the author of the entirety of the Donnelley course?). And you say finally, that any thing Gallaway quotes without attribution or quote marks is take from earlier works by Gallaway, because you have an example of that happening once or twice between Estimating and the Donnelley course.

So all your new discoveries rest on this final statement. It is your axiom, it is the linchpin of everything. And if we disprove it, if we find things Gallaway quoted from other authors which are not attributed or put in quotation, everything resting on it falls down.

And that's what happened. We now know that Gallaway does quote the work of others without attribution or without noting it in quote marks. The fact that (as you claim) he was not violating some legal or ethical principle in doing so is irrelevant. It is the existence of the quotes, and not their justification or lack thereof, that is so damning. And since he does this, we can't be sure he wrote the relevant passages in Copyfitting. And without knowing that, we can't say he played cards, or that we know what his hands looked like, or that the use of religious imagery and magic-related phrases was a long-term thing with him. It calls into question every one of the new "facts" that you've come up with lately.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 27th, 2018, 9:00 am

I don't blame Chris for writing things like, "...and yes, Gallaway also wrote EATCT". Because I know that this is his opinion, his conclusion. Within the context of his eBook (or even this thread), it is clear that he is presenting a theory. He is not claiming to have positively proved it.

You folks are being hypocritical. Anyone that has ever asserted that "none of the candidates needed the money. It was just a joke", or "It's obvious which parts of the reunion book were written by Sanders", or that Gallaway is an "impossibility" is in no position to castigate others.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 27th, 2018, 9:25 am

Bill Mullins wrote:That Gallaway played cards; that photos of Gallaway's hands match the drawings in Expert; and that you've discovered new examples of him using religious imagery and magic-related phrases in his writing. All of these are based on the premise that Gallaway wrote passages in Copyfitting.
The magic phrases are also in his R.R. Donnelley course, because they are part of the paragraphs he re-used. That is how I found out about "Copyfitting" in the first place.

Bill Mullins wrote:And that is based on the similarity of passages in Copyfitting to pages in the R.R. Donnelley course.
They are not similar, they are identical. He uses verbatim several paragraphs from Copyfitting for his R.R. Donnelley course.

Bill Mullins wrote:You assert that the Donnelley course is by Gallaway, but the only evidence you've given for that is that passages in it are also in Estimating for Printers (do you have other evidence -- is Gallaway named as the author of the entirety of the Donnelley course?).
Yes. In the book "The Training Department of the Lakeside Press" Edward Gallaway is identified as the author of the course.

Bill Mullins wrote:And you say finally, that any thing Gallaway quotes without attribution or quote marks is take from earlier works by Gallaway, because you have an example of that happening once or twice between Estimating and the Donnelley course.
That is what we see so far. He quotes or attributes when he takes from others, he does not quote or attribute when he takes from his own past writings. I have not exhaustively searched and compared every paragraph Gallaway wrote, but so far as I can determine it, any substantial use of text from other authors he does quote, and text from his own writings he does not quote. (That excludes things which are meant for general distribution and do not need attribution such as trade customs which were created by various unions and organizations and were meant to be freely copied and used. Many did copy and repeat them as I have documented in a prior post.)

Bill Mullins wrote:So all your new discoveries rest on this final statement. It is your axiom, it is the linchpin of everything. And if we disprove it, if we find things Gallaway quoted from other authors which are not attributed or put in quotation, everything resting on it falls down.
No it does not. The re-use and quoting practices were the way I found out about his work for Lanston Monotype. It is evidence that suggests Gallaway may have written these, but the linguistic and photo evidence that the person shown is Edward Gallaway, proof it. Even if his quoting pattern is at some point found out not to be 100% consistent, the linguistic fingerprint is obvious and very strong. The photographic evidence of a married man, with a bold spot, light hair, and with all facial features matching the portrait we have of Gallaway means the author of "The Monotype System" and "Copyfitting" is Edward Gallaway.

I understand that you don't want to accept it. You and others have mocked me for months that there is no evidence of Gallaway playing cards. Now there is evidence of him playing cards very skillfully. We even have a photo of him making a fan of rulers. His hands look very much like the hands Smith illustrated. I understand that you are shocked and can't accept it. Your reaction of flinging any piece of mud you can find in hopes it sticks is understandable. But you are wrong, as you have been wrong all along.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 27th, 2018, 9:43 am

lybrary wrote:... Now there is evidence of him playing cards very skillfully.


That's the issue, there isn't actually any evidence of him playing cards at all, let alone skilfully ... unless you have enough of an imagination (as you do) to make the dozen or more giant leaps of faith required in order to believe that the passage was written by Gallaway.

That's the rub ... you have the imagination Chris, and the willingness to create facts in your head based on what you've imagined ... most other (if not all other) folks in this thread don't have that kind of imagination, and indeed don't want that kind of imagination as a basis for a research tool, at least in the context of this thread.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 27th, 2018, 9:57 am

Roger M. wrote:That's the issue, there isn't actually any evidence of him playing cards at all, let alone skilfully ... unless you have enough of an imagination (as you do) to make the dozen or more giant leaps of faith required in order to believe that the passage was written by Gallaway.
Re-use practices, linguistic fingerprint, and photographic evidence are plenty to support Gallaway wrote these books. It is much more than most other authorship cases can offer.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 27th, 2018, 10:29 am

lybrary wrote:
Roger M. wrote:That's the issue, there isn't actually any evidence of him playing cards at all, let alone skilfully ... unless you have enough of an imagination (as you do) to make the dozen or more giant leaps of faith required in order to believe that the passage was written by Gallaway.
Re-use practices, linguistic fingerprint, and photographic evidence are plenty to support Gallaway wrote these books. It is much more than most other authorship cases can offer.


I would disagree with that thinking.
I would consider Sanders "Mutus Nomen" reference to be, even just taken on its own ... far stronger evidence than anything you've presented to date for Gallaway.

When contemplating Sanders Mutus Nomen reference, stop for a moment and consider that Sanders has just personally referenced a card trick featuring a 20 card mnemonic of some complexity. You've not only put a deck of cards in Sanders hands, you've also demonstrated a deep knowledge and interest in playing cards and card tricks.
You've also demonstrated the lengthy amount of time Sanders would have put in to learn the trick - time that keeps that deck of cards in Sanders hands on a continuous basis ... time not only to learn the trick, but then to perform it for people ... repeatedly.

Add in Sanders purchase of multiple decks of playing cards in a single purchase, then add in Sanders playing around with shuffling letters about to make new names, then add in the Montana cartoon as per the Dalrymple reference ... and you're suddenly looking at far more hard "evidence" with Sanders that you've presented to date for Gallaway.

The existing Sanders evidence renders your assertion that your Gallaway case "is much more" than other cases completely false.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 27th, 2018, 10:39 am

I was talking about the case for Gallaway having written "The Monotype System" and "Copyfitting" books, not his case for Erdnase. The case for Gallaway writing
The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who “take all day” to decide what card to play.
is supported by his re-use practices, linguistic fingerprint, and photographic evidence.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 27th, 2018, 10:44 am

lybrary wrote:
Bill Mullins wrote:You assert that the Donnelley course is by Gallaway, but the only evidence you've given for that is that passages in it are also in Estimating for Printers (do you have other evidence -- is Gallaway named as the author of the entirety of the Donnelley course?).
Yes. In the book "The Training Department of the Lakeside Press" Edward Gallaway is identified as the author of the course.

I don't believe the passage you link to supports the conclusion you are drawing. It says, "A Course in Printing Estimating by Edward Gallaway of the Estimating Department furnishes the basis for adult training in the general subject of printing methods." And it includes a photograph of one volume, Part II: Composition (which does name Gallaway as the author). But you quote from a volume entitled Printing Practice (p. 95 of the most recent edition of your ebook), and from the descriptions given here, it appears that A Course in Printing Practice and A Course in Printing Estimating are different works altogether. So the fact that A Course in Printing Estimating is known to be by Gallaway doesn't say anything about the authorship of Printing Practice; and the house of cards tumbles.

Are you conflating the two? Which of these works have you examined? Will you make them available, perhaps as appendices to the next edition of your ebook?

lybrary wrote: His hands look very much like the hands Smith illustrated.

On p. 99 of the most recent version of your ebook, you compare Fig 79 of Expert to a drawing you claim is of Gallaway's hands. They obviously have different sized fingernails.
Last edited by Bill Mullins on April 27th, 2018, 10:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 27th, 2018, 10:49 am

lybrary wrote:I was talking about the case for Gallaway having written "The Monotype System" and "Copyfitting" books, not his case for Erdnase. The case for Gallaway writing
The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who “take all day” to decide what card to play.
is supported by his re-use practices, linguistic fingerprint, and photographic evidence.


I see that.
It doesn't alter my point though, which was that your use of "Re-use practices, linguistic fingerprint, and photographic evidence" as a foundation for your research was easily reduced in importance when one enjoys reading simple, indisputable facts.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 27th, 2018, 11:14 am

Bill Mullins wrote:It says, "A Course in Printing Estimating by Edward Gallaway of the Estimating Department furnishes the basis for adult training in the general subject of printing methods." And it includes a photograph of one volume, Part II: Composition (which does name Gallaway as the author). But you quote from a volume entitled Printing Practice (p. 95 of the most recent edition of your ebook), and from the descriptions given here, it appears that A Course in Printing Practice and A Course in Printing Estimating are different works altogether. So the fact that A Course in Printing Estimating is known to be by Gallaway doesn't say anything about the authorship of Printing Practice; and the house of cards tumbles.

Are you conflating the two? Which of these works have you examined? Will you make them available, perhaps as appendices to the next edition of your ebook?
"Printing Estimating" and "Printing Practice" are one and the same course. If I can make it available does not depend on me. The scans I have received so far do not allow me to republish them.

Bill Mullins wrote:
lybrary wrote: His hands look very much like the hands Smith illustrated.

On p. 99 of the most recent version of your ebook, you compare Fig 79 of Expert to a drawing you claim is of Gallaway's hands. They obviously have different sized fingernails.
That is true, and I address this in my ebook. The photos in the book clearly show large fingernails as Smith has drawn. So Gallaway had large fingernails resembling the ones Erdnase appeares he had. I can think of a number of reasons why the fingernails are drawn smaller in this one illustration. It could simply be a tracing error. The boundary of the fingernails to the rest of the fingers is an internal boundary that may not have shown that well during tracing. Or the tracer may have decided to trace the nails inside the boundary he saw rather than on top of it. The fingernails may have been freshly cut before this trace/photo was prepared, making them shorter than they appear on the other photos and shorter than the ones Smith traced. Maybe the nails were added later without any reference to the photo. The 1916 edition of that same book has this illustration changed to a stylized hand without fingernails at all.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1627
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Joe Mckay » April 27th, 2018, 12:09 pm

Some of you may find this interesting. Just something I stumbled across today on the Gibeciere (a magazine devoted to magic history) website:
In honor of our 10th Anniversary we’ve decided to give a free article away.

One of our feature articles in this, the 19th issue, is about Tyler Wilson’s great discovery of The 52 Wonders. This rare little pamphlet shares some interesting commonalities with Erdnase’s Artifice, Ruse and Subterfuge at the Card Table. The interesting thing is that 52 Wonders is 25 years earlier than Erdnase!

You can download a facsimile of the entire book and also Tyler Wilson’s introduction to it for free!

http://conjuringarts.org/2015/01/free-gibeciere-article/

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 27th, 2018, 3:21 pm

lybrary wrote:
Bill Mullins wrote:It says, "A Course in Printing Estimating by Edward Gallaway of the Estimating Department furnishes the basis for adult training in the general subject of printing methods." And it includes a photograph of one volume, Part II: Composition (which does name Gallaway as the author). But you quote from a volume entitled Printing Practice (p. 95 of the most recent edition of your ebook), and from the descriptions given here, it appears that A Course in Printing Practice and A Course in Printing Estimating are different works altogether. So the fact that A Course in Printing Estimating is known to be by Gallaway doesn't say anything about the authorship of Printing Practice; and the house of cards tumbles.

Are you conflating the two? Which of these works have you examined? Will you make them available, perhaps as appendices to the next edition of your ebook?
"Printing Estimating" and "Printing Practice" are one and the same course.


This is very strange. I'm assuming that A Course in Printing Estimating Part 2 Composition Sec 1 Imposition is the book that appears here. From its copyright registration of Jan 4, 1923, it had two parts, and 11 sections, and I've got no problem believing that all of them were written by Gallaway.

But a year later, the Course in Printing Practice starts to be copyrighted. And while Part 2 Sec 1 of it appears (from the
copyright registration) to duplicate the Course in Print Estimating volume by Gallaway above, and could reasonably be surmised to also be by him, later parts seem to include topics that one wouldn't expect Gallaway to have any particular expertise in. Such as Part 4 Paper. And Part 5 Bindery Operations, and Part 7 Offset printing.

These other volumes all appear after the 1923 Lakeside Training book that you cited as a source earlier, so it doesn't have any thing to say about who wrote them. My interpretation would be that Gallaway wrote the Estimating course, and it was successful so Lakeside added more subjects and developed more training books to support them. But I see no evidence that Gallaway wrote these other volumes. If such evidence exists, then I'm certainly willing to be convinced.

In the context of the questions I asked previously, it doesn't help that you don't cite volume #'s when you quote from the Printing Practice course. (You also quote material as being from "Estimating", without specifying if it is from Estimating for Printers or A Course in Printing Estimating.) Are these quotes from parts that Lakeside stated to be from Gallaway? Or are they from later parts, and you've just assumed that Gallaway wrote them as well? If the latter, then I reiterate my criticism above: that you don't know that all of the links in the evidence chain are legitimate.

And another thing: On p. 96 of the most recent edition of your ebook, in reference to the phrase "of the face in which the matter is set", you say that a Google search "reveals that these phrases are unique, they do not appear in any other book in the Google database" beyond Copyfitting and Estimating for Printers. The phrase also appears in The Inland Printer in a 1913 article on Composition by Edward Passano. Given how well-read you claim Gallaway to have been, and that this is a subject in which he obviously would have been interested, printed in a leading journal of his field, we can assume (as you often say) that he read this article. Thus, further evidence that he copied the words of others when writing himself. (The article was reprinted in a stand-alone booklet; perhaps this was where Gallaway copied it from?)

Note that you also can't assume that the other phrase you look at, "the space to be occupied by the cut", is unique, because a Google search is so inaccurate. It doesn't even reveal the presence of the phrase in Copyfitting.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 27th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:But a year later, the Course in Printing Practice starts to be copyrighted. And while Part 2 Sec 1 of it appears (from the
copyright registration) to duplicate the Course in Print Estimating volume by Gallaway above, and could reasonably be surmised to also be by him, later parts seem to include topics that one wouldn't expect Gallaway to have any particular expertise in. Such as Part 4 Paper. And Part 5 Bindery Operations, and Part 7 Offset printing.
The Training Department book states:
A Course in Printing Estimating by Edward Gallaway of the Estimating Department furnishes the basis for adult training in the general subject of printing methods.
It was a comprehensive course of printing not a narrow estimating course, because a good estimator needs to understand every part of the entire printing process. Gallaway, at that point a senior executive in one of the largest printing companies in the US, was knowledgeable about all elements of printing and wrote a course that touched on every phase in the printing process, such as composition, imposition, lock-up, make-ready, presswork, binding, paper, ink, cutting, folding, tipping, pasting, shipping, ... but it had an estimator's emphasis. The introduction of Printing Practice states:
The students of Printing Practice who intend to become estimators should realize that they are to be printing engineers and when once in possession of all the facts must form a mental picture of the job as it is to be completed. ... He should know something about the various departments, the equipment and the capacity and limitations of the various machines. He must know Standard Practice. He should have respect for the printing business and the part he is playing in it and in conclusion: those students of Printing Practice who desire to become estimators should realize that this job is one of the most confidential in the organization, for the estimator becomes the possessor of rates, discounts, practices, and schedules which have taken years to acquire, and which have cost thousands of dollars to compile. Learn silence and discretion. Do not discuss matters pertaining to your work except with those to whom you are responsible.
The title of the course changed from "Printing Estimating" to "Printing Practice". That is all. It is the same course and Gallaway wrote it.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5189
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 28th, 2018, 12:33 am

I see.
If they were the same, do you have any thoughts as to a volume which had been submitted for copyright on Jan 4 1923 was resubmitted for copyright on Jan 8 1924?
How do you rule out the possibility of other authors on the volumes which first appeared in 1924 and later? Are any of them internally credited?
And your ebook say that it has 16 parts. Do you have access to all of them?

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 28th, 2018, 8:36 am

Bill Mullins wrote:I see.
If they were the same, do you have any thoughts as to a volume which had been submitted for copyright on Jan 4 1923 was resubmitted for copyright on Jan 8 1924?
I am assuming the change in title from Printing Estimating to Printing Practice made them resubmit it.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1884
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Leonard Hevia » April 28th, 2018, 9:28 am

Bob Coyne wrote:I recently ran across something pretty remarkable that I haven't seen mentioned before. It's from an 1996 letter, among several available online that Bill Mullins pointed me at. Sanders, at the time, was at the Montana Historical Society.

We already know that Sanders’ early diaries and notebooks contain examples of him playing with and rearranging the letters in his own name. To me, that's one of the strongest factors in his favor, adding significant weight to the observation that his name is an anagram of Erdnase's.

In the letter, Sanders writes about the soon-to-be-adopted name for his home state of Montana: “It is a short, sightly, and simple name, and one of much euphonic beauty; one which the people of this state would not care to part with for any possible COMBINATION OF LETTERS.”

What an interesting and revealing way to describe a name! It shows that his predilection for thinking of names in terms of letter combinations extended well into his adulthood. This letter was written close to the time he unveiled his own combination of letters, the anagram S.W. Erdnase.


This is a significant find by Bob. It tells us that Sanders still had anagrams in his mind well into adulthood at 35 years of age. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence on top of the substantial list of evidence favoring this remarkable man.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 28th, 2018, 10:26 am

Leonard Hevia wrote:
Bob Coyne wrote:I recently ran across something pretty remarkable that I haven't seen mentioned before. It's from an 1996 letter, among several available online that Bill Mullins pointed me at. Sanders, at the time, was at the Montana Historical Society.

We already know that Sanders’ early diaries and notebooks contain examples of him playing with and rearranging the letters in his own name. To me, that's one of the strongest factors in his favor, adding significant weight to the observation that his name is an anagram of Erdnase's.

In the letter, Sanders writes about the soon-to-be-adopted name for his home state of Montana: “It is a short, sightly, and simple name, and one of much euphonic beauty; one which the people of this state would not care to part with for any possible COMBINATION OF LETTERS.”

What an interesting and revealing way to describe a name! It shows that his predilection for thinking of names in terms of letter combinations extended well into his adulthood. This letter was written close to the time he unveiled his own combination of letters, the anagram S.W. Erdnase.


This is a significant find by Bob. It tells us that Sanders still had anagrams in his mind well into adulthood at 35 years of age. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence on top of the substantial list of evidence favoring this remarkable man.


The phrase "combination of letters" does not necessarily mean "anagram". In this context, it is clearly Sanders' way of saying "any word". All words that have more than one letter in them are alphabetical combinations.

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 125
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » April 28th, 2018, 10:41 am

Leonard Hevia wrote: This is a significant find by Bob. It tells us that Sanders still had anagrams in his mind well into adulthood at 35 years of age. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence on top of the substantial list of evidence favoring this remarkable man.


"Erdnase" didn't use anagrams; he merely reversed a name. Sanders made a note of a mathematical card trick; there is no evidence that he knew anything about sleight of hand with cards. His name hasn't been associated with McKinney or the name Dalrymple.

Sanders cannot have been "Erdnase"!
Peter Zenner

Bob Coyne
Posts: 560
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: New York, NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 28th, 2018, 12:04 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Leonard Hevia wrote:
Bob Coyne wrote: [...]In the letter, Sanders writes about the soon-to-be-adopted name for his home state of Montana: “It is a short, sightly, and simple name, and one of much euphonic beauty; one which the people of this state would not care to part with for any possible COMBINATION OF LETTERS.”

What an interesting and revealing way to describe a name! It shows that his predilection for thinking of names in terms of letter combinations extended well into his adulthood. This letter was written close to the time he unveiled his own combination of letters, the anagram S.W. Erdnase.


This is a significant find by Bob. It tells us that Sanders still had anagrams in his mind well into adulthood at 35 years of age. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence on top of the substantial list of evidence favoring this remarkable man.


The phrase "combination of letters" does not necessarily mean "anagram". In this context, it is clearly Sanders' way of saying "any word". All words that have more than one letter in them are alphabetical combinations.

Yes, of course that's the gist of the meaning. But the underlying metaphor he uses to express that thought is what's important here -- and it's quite revealing!

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1884
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Leonard Hevia » April 28th, 2018, 1:05 pm

Zenner wrote:"Erdnase" didn't use anagrams; he merely reversed a name. Sanders made a note of a mathematical card trick; there is no evidence that he knew anything about sleight of hand with cards.


A name reversal is a simple anagram. And yet he purchased six decks of playing cards in one transaction. Laymen don't purchase six decks of cards in one transaction.


Zenner wrote:His name hasn't been associated with McKinney or the name Dalrymple.


An association with McKinney isn't a requirement. The author could have stepped in as an outsider to publish the book. Bob already pointed out earlier in this thread that Demarest discovered a possible Dalrymple ancestry in the Sanders family lineage.

Sharpen your sword Zenner.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 560
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: New York, NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 28th, 2018, 1:18 pm

I have a new version of my Erdnase-Sanders linguistic correspondences online.

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdnase-sanders-use-of-language.html

Several changes since I last posted it:

1) An introduction providing context and the overall evidence for Sanders and how the language fits into it.
2) More annotations: All Erdnase excerpts include page numbers. Excerpts from Sanders' class reunion writing mention when from bios or poems.
3) Includes some nice new examples, including those from a couple new sources
4) Converted to HTML (w/ convenient intra-document hyperlinks)
5) Includes some raw data in the form of tables of word counts of many "thematic" words.
6) Addendum with Sanders full 1906 mining letter mapped to a dozen corresponding Erdnase excerpts.
7) A section of highights, containing a dozen of the most salient and interesting correspondences collected in one place (pulled from the larger set of examples).
8) two new findings: on Sanders' mention of anagrams and use of syllabic shuffling (as in the "ruse and" <=> "andrews" in the book's subtitle)


Return to “General”