Quote:
Originally Posted by Retlaw
I don't care what number The Hope & Anchor is now, but back in the time of the dilapidated Slater's photo, the Hope was No 21- 23, making the Slater's Arms on the corner, just lower down by three properties NUMBER 13.
|
Ok so you don't care what the numbering sysetm is today, and evidently you don't believe the old licensing records or the 1871 census returns.
Then how come the numbers on that block of Whalley Rd, have exactly the same numbers they had then, very large coincidence.
You have'nt answered that.
The Hope & Anchor was 27/29 then & still is, count the doorways back down from there, and 23 is still standing. Nu 21 is the one thats missing, its the vacant plot which is now occupied by a large ornamental plant pot.
You can rant as much as you like, but the numbers were and still are as they always were. Your flogging a dead horse.
Retlaw[/QUOTE]
Sorry, something else I meant to add to my last. Once again, you are referring to a couple of irrelevant documents. The 1869 licensing report and the 1871 census return tell us nothing about the photo being discussed, a 1930's shot of The Slater's Arms.
I have based my research on facts, you have based yours in the realms of fantasy. None of your documents or photos back up any of your claims. You just keep repeating that you're right and I am wrong, yet provide nothing to substantiate your claims. You have attempted to browbeat me into accepting your point, as you have no doubt done before, to others, on similar threads. On this thread alone, you have miffed off me, Anzac and Andrew. You had earlier tried to silence others, by highlighting their lack of knowledge while boasting of your own extensive knowledge. Bully boy tactics really.
You can keep on repeating yourself over and over, but for anyone interested enough, all they need to do, is take a look back as far as page 16, study the evidence set before them from that point and arrive at their own conclusion. Case closed.