|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:55 am: | 
|
Sorry Jenni,
I'm not here anymore.
 |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
John,
I know the feeling only too well! |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
"can't help it some times myself, i just do things i know are wrong! "
I am curious, Jenni: do you include asking Robert Smith to work with you in getting further testing on the Diary accomplished one of the things you do that you know are wrong ? Robert Smith released the Pegg reports to this board and by releasing them to these board ensured that they were dismissed out of hand, received a free-for-all bashing, and vanished without a trace, even to the point that you continue to post on the DiTA Day thread as if nothing has changed.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
"as if nothing has changed."
Yeah, as if...
'Round and 'round we go,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Robert,
are you trying to wind me up, because if so congratulations.
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
"are you trying to wind me up, because if so congratulations. "
Not at all. A sincere question. I'm trying to reconcile your results in working with Robert Smith to what you post on the message boards.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Robert,
let me see, i think the two are quite compatible don't you? geez, its not like I'm leading some kind of double life.
Or wait, maybe you think I'm living in a fantasy world denying things i know happened, just because i'm some kind of weird nutcase?
or wait maybe you can't tell when I'm joking.
really should i have to end my sentences with clearly i am only referring to this last conversation about the point of reopening this thread, not other things i may be doing.
theres no hidden meaning.
In case anyone is in any doubt let me just repeat, i like Robert Smith i trust him and i do not think anything remotely bad about him. Got it?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
That always seemed pretty clear to me, Jenni.
And I can't think of anything you've ever written anywhere that says anything else.
Of course, I guess what you've actually typed doesn't actually matter around here sometimes.
It is just a game of pretend politics after all,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
And another thing this whole Dita thread thing is getting ridiculous.
i should say i know for a fact (for obvious reasons) that Robert Smith is more than willing to have the diary tested.
Maybe you think I'm being two faced to John?
maybe I just dont take it as seriously as some people. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Well John,
if Robert thinks I'm some kind of devious wind up merchant, maybe he should just come out and say it.
I don't understand his point personally.
Maybe he will enlighten me?
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
"And another thing this whole Dita thread thing is getting ridiculous.
i should say i know for a fact (for obvious reasons) that Robert Smith is more than willing to have the diary tested."
That is indeed what I was looking for...clarity on where you stand. It is hard in cyberspace to tell when one is joking, in the absence of facial expressions.
Yes, Robert Smith is more than willing. If I might paraphrase Malcolm X, Robert didn't land on the Diary, the Diary landed on him.
"maybe I just dont take it as seriously as some people."
That's fine, Jenni. Ripperology is a hobby for me, as well. But some people have had their professional and personal reputations dragged through the mud, and that IS serious. (Not to mention poor Mr. Maybrick, who has had the worst of it.)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I suspect you're in the wrong place if you are waiting for "enlightenment."
As for the DiTA thread -- it'll always be there, ridiculous indeed, but ready and waiting to celebrate the results of thorough and complete tests on the watch and diary when and if they ever appear. And as each year passes, our anniversary party will always be a moment of fun.
Meanwhile, we all know it's not a Picasso, don't we -- even if we won't all say so.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on July 27, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Geez,
Robert,
it is only the dita thread i don't take seriously.
Do you think i would waste my time organising tests for no good rreason?
For my own warped amusement?! |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Hey Sir Robert,
If you have a problem with what someone has written about testing or about the owner of the diary, why not take it up with the person who wrote it rather than one who wrote nothing about it?
Or is there nothing actually in the words themselves, as they appear, that you can take specific issue with?
Your umbrage seems awfully misdirected.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on July 27, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
"Do you think i would waste my time organising tests for no good rreason?"
I would think not. But I see plenty of posts from folks slagging the lack of testing, and you of all people know that the infernal thing IS available for testing.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Once again, Jenni is being attacked for something she never wrote.
I wonder why?
--John
PS: It should be noted that the latest DiTA report clearly assumes, as Sir Robert does, "that the infernal thing IS available for testing." Read it and see. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Robert,
what is your point?
where have i said or indeed implied, ever that Robert Smith would not make the diary available for tests.
No I am intrigued as to when i would have said this, since it is something i never have believed.
Jenni |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
No I'm serious.
what exactly is your point?
What is it that is so evil that I have done? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
For what it's worth, I've read every word written in Diary World and I can never remember you writing any such thing. You've repeatedly written quite the opposite, in fact. But Sir Robert's not about to attack the people he thinks might actually have written such things, so he presses you.
It's kind of sad, really.
But understandable.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
Hi John,
well at least i'm not cracking up
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
I'm not going to get involved in a petty past-time game of 'you said/I said'.
I'm asking about apparent contradictions between actions and beliefs.
I asked you a question about where you stood, and you answered it. Thank you.
You said: "i should say i know for a fact (for obvious reasons) that Robert Smith is more than willing to have the diary tested."
That's what I wanted to hear. I can't very well be claiming you are saying things when I am asking questions.
"maybe I just dont take it as seriously as some people."
The boards aren’t just read by a few people, but are read by a lot of people, including journalists, media representatives, researchers, all of whom derive impressions of people from the discussion that goes on there. We’re talking about reputations being damaged here, not about some silly little game that nobody takes seriously.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I can't now recall who first took our eyes of the Poste House ball, but I can see which theorists it benefits, to forget that 'the Post(e) House' doesn't have to mean an establishment officially named The Post(e) House, as it was once boldly claimed here, just because it is capitalised.
Anyway, if anyone wants to know why more test results have not yet appeared on the boards, there are quite a few obvious reasons:
Tests have to be researched, arranged and, in most cases, funded; the diary may be in a lab somewhere for several months, as was the case with Dr Platt's testing.
As Robert Smith explained, and as everyone without exception acknowledged at the time, he needs to be contacted by independent parties (like Jenni) in order for the testing ball to start rolling again each time.
I find it quite ironic, therefore, that those who shout loudest for more tests a) can hardly bring themselves to acknowledge the published Platt tests, which Jenni and Robert were organising behind the scenes (while in public the former was playing cheerleader to John's monthly faux pas), and b) will be the last to know about tests in progress - unless they themselves volunteered their services (and we know who pulled out for personal reasons before he had helped to organise a sausage).
Those who do, do; those who don't, criticise.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 28, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
tell me honestly, am I losing the plot here?
For some reason you only seem interested in having a go at me for no good reason.
Do i have to go back and look for the post i made sometime in the last twelve months about how disgusted i was about James Maybrick's grave?
Do i have to point out that i do take it seriously. Maybe you will realise just how seriously i take it soon enough Robert, i don't know.
Personally nothing annoys me more than wrecking the reputation of someone who is long dead. Who is unable to defend themselves, making up lies about them. That really p**ses me off no end. As long as I'm here, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that happening, got it?
You know diary world gets stupid when you cant post anything without it getting taken out of context.
For the last time the it i was referring to was the dita thread. Not diary world or the casebook, both of which i take very seriously.
Now if you want me to write down for you a list of my beliefs you only need ask
Jenni |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
You know this is getting too weird for words.
if i had more time Caroline I'd expalin why.
until later |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
" Maybe you will realise just how seriously i take it soon enough Robert, i don't know. "
I will assume that this isn't meant as some cyber-threat, and that you are referring to a forthcoming effort vis a vis the Diary.
As far as I am concerned, I applaud the latter if that's the case.
And as a complete non-sequitur, I'm looking forward to meeting the folks of Diary World at Brighton.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Well, this is too funny for words.
Jenni, who has never written a single word against Robert Smith or a critical remark about the several years that have been allowed to pass since the question of thorough and complete retesting of the watch and diary was first discussed, is being lectured to by Caroline and Sir Robert. And what has she ever said or done to deserve the lectures?
Absolutely NOTHING.
They must be mighty desperate for a fight if this is all they can think to do.
And how can she defend herself when she has never written anything to defend?
Now I, on the other hand, am a completely different story. I know all about having one's "reputation" dragged around the electronic dirt a bit. And I HAVE in fact written repeatedly about the lack of a thorough set of professional and comprehensive scientific tests on the watch and on the diary after all these years.
Recently, in fact, I wrote this:
"Unfortunately, as of this moment at least, neither the diary nor the watch have been reported to have undergone thorough comprehensive scientific testing by fully outfitted professional labs using all the latest available technology. It didn't happen when I first asked three years ago. It didn't happen the year after that. And it didn't happen this past year either. That's over a thousand days that we've all lived through and still we have seen no reports telling us that either the watch or the diary has been thoroughly and properly analyzed by professionals provided with unlimited access to the materials to be tested.
"Perhaps it is happening now. Perhaps my friend Jeff Leahy is still working on getting it to happen sometime very soon. Perhaps Albert is finally going to give in and pursue the tests called for by the very experts who first examined the watch. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. In any case, we know for a fact what at least one lab has said regarding fully testing the diary. I reported here years ago that the McCrone lab has said it believed that resolving the current scientific conflicts in the data at the least and dating the diary at best might indeed be possible but that they'd need to get a look at the book first. Then, a year later, Shirley Harrison reprinted in her own book a letter from the very same lab that said much the same thing. Then, just this year, Jeff Leahy showed up and reported that he had spoken to McCrone and guess what they told him? Yup, the very same thing. Again. I don't know how many times someone has to hear something before they believe it, but that's three times now the lab has said they'd like to get a look at the book in order to determine exactly what they would be able to do to help solve the problems we already have and to date the diary. I hope the book is on its way to them (or someone like them) even as I write these words or that it's already there. Don't you?"
And I have also written about the owner of the diary, as well, unlike Jenni.
Recently, in fact, I wrote this:
"Put it this way. If I owned a painting which looked like a Picasso and was signed 'Picasso,' but which expert after expert told me was obviously not a Picasso, and I still told people it might be a Picasso and I allowed it to be reproduced in a book that claimed it was a Picasso and I made money off the idea it might be a Picasso, then I would deserve any scorn people might choose to throw my way. Begg, Fido, Evans, Sugden, Skinner, even Morris have all said that the diary is a hoax. Expert after expert agrees. But its owner still won't admit openly and in writing that it's a fake and he still allows it to appear in new editions of a book claiming that it might be real (and now even claiming that Maybrick was killing people in America as well). It's absurd and it deserves to be laughed away as a self-interested refusal to admit the simple and obvious truth -- as Caroline Morris once put it so clearly -- 'Maybrick didn't write that diary.'"
Now then, if either Caroline or Robert Anderson want to address these remarks directly, they can go to the appropriate thread and do so. I'll even send them the link to the message in question, if they'd like.
Otherwise, I'll assume that they'd prefer to hang here on the Poste House thread taking Jenni to task for something she's never said and trying to explain for the millionth time why something still hasn't happened.
It's a tough job, but I guess someone has to do it.
Amused as always by these silly little games,
--John
PS: I believe it was Sir Robert who started this discussion about testing on this odd choice of a thread, by the way.
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Geez, Robert, if it wasn't getting on my nerves so much, the way you are going on at me like I am *insert name of choice here*, I'd be dying of laughing right now.
Lets get things straight here. No, i was not threatening you, nor have i ever threatend anyone on these boards about anything.
No whats happened here is that you have p**sed me off well and truly. Which I'm sure is giving you a tremendous sense of satisfaction, because lets face it, it was you who started it, wasn't it?
Let us get this one thing straight before I continue on my merry way. I take Ripperology very seriously. Evidently a lot more seriously than you, since I don't spend my time on these boards randomly having a go at people who in fact have done nothing at all to me. Who in fact I have not conversed with for several weeks, who were not addressing me.
No I'm not referring to anything other than maybe you will realise from what i say that I am not here to see how many hours of my life i can spend defending myself against people like you accusing me of things, i've not done, have never done and am not likely to do. i can think of better ways of wasting my time. If it wasnt serious to me i'd be wasting my time in one of those delightful ways, instead of responding to people who clearly are trying to start a fight with me, because they have not the inclination to question the person who is really offending them (Hi John).
i was not referring to anything specific. i was referring to the way you seem to want to twist everything I say to make out i do not take ripperology seriously.
so i'll say it again, to me there is nothing worse in the entire world than framing a dead person for murder. Even if they were a drug taking weirdo. even if they had affairs. Even if they hit there wife.
As i seem to need to spell it out for you Robert, i will repeat it,
Robert Smith I'm in no doubt he would agree to whatever tests would be suggested to him. I like Robert Smith, I have not got a bad word to say about him. Nor in fact have i ever had a bad word to say. In fact lets be clear about this, i was the one, if i remeber correctly (and i do) who tried to stop any massive fights last summer. i do recall getting off my fat lazy ass and organising some tests. Thats hardly the actions of someone who doesnt like or trust Robert Smith. And guess what, theres a reason for that. i like and trust Robert Smith. Got it because whatever you say next I refuse to repeat these obvious facts for your benefit. So just note it down now will you.
As for John, he and i both know what we do and do not agreee on and where we think it is appropriate to expresss any such differences of opinion if they should arise. So maybe you think I'm being hypercritical saying i like Robert Smith and yet bantering (as you put it) with his 'enemy' John Omlor, but quite frankly, i don't see why that should concern me. And while i'm at it, i don't see why it should concern you.
And in fact I dont really care.
Thank you so much.
Jenni
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
And Caroline, if your going to say things about me at least have the nerve to back it up with some kind of evidence (of which you clearly have none, knowing as you do naff all about it) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
"So maybe you think I'm being hypercritical saying i like Robert Smith and yet bantering (as you put it) with his 'enemy' John Omlor, but quite frankly, i don't see why that should concern me. And while i'm at it, i don't see why it should concern you.
And in fact I dont really care. "
Nor should you. Unfortunately, I have no clue as to why you think I do, nor why you're posting this rant. Nor have I EVER referred to John as anyone's 'enemy '. And as for banter...the comment was : "when you banter, it's not as if we're in a bar with a pint and can see the twinkle in the eye..."
Last time: I asked you to clarify your position. I wanted to know how you stood, and you did. If that's a bother or a trouble, well, that's a pity.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Well said, Jenni.
And "Hi" back.
--John  |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:48 am: |
|
then lets let that be that, before i say anything else that is stupid! |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Hey Caroline
'I can't now recall who first took our eyes of the Poste House ball, but I can see which theorists it benefits, to forget that 'the Post(e) House' doesn't have to mean an establishment officially named The Post(e) House, as it was once boldly claimed here, just because it is capitalised. '
but capitalisation does indicate a noun does it not. Does it not indicate it is the name of something?
cafe, Cafe Nero,
no?
Jenni
thank goodness i noticed that in time to edit!
(Message edited by jdpegg on July 29, 2005)
(Message edited by jdpegg on July 29, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Now that was a bad move. Caroline will soon return and try once again to pathetically pimp Pepys -- despite the fact that even there she couldn't find an actual Poste House the way it's written in the diary.
Not one.
Of course, there IS an actual Poste House the way it's written in the diary.
And we know where it is.
And we know when it got that name.
And we know that the precise name in the diary and the precise name of the pub are identical and the diary takes place in Liverpool and the diary first appeared in Liverpool and the pub with that unique proper name is in Liverpool.
Amazing, huh?
Fortunately, we have at least an ounce of common sense between us.
So we can draw the obvious conclusion despite the desperate, ahistorical, and less than precise use other sad seventeenth century stuff.
It's not really sad, though, because it's just so funny.
Now, let's watch it happen.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Jenni
Yes, shame on you!
Don't you know it's been proved beyond any doubt, that if the diarist had been writing between two and three centuries earlier than she was, it would have been perfectly natural to write posthouse, or Post-house, or post-house, or Post House, or Posthouse, or ... almost anything but what it actually says in the diary!
Maybe that's just as well, as one thing we can all agree on is that the diary wasn't written in the 17th century, when spelling and capitalisation weren't what they became after Dr Johnson did his stuff. (Caroline Morris, being such a dictionary afficionado - finger rarely out of the Concise OED - will be well aware of this.)
But hold on. What's that I hear? Can I prove the diary wasn't written in the 17th century ...?
Chris Phillips
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Chris
Damned sure you can!...... given enough time and 'dictionaries'.
I'm sorry ...but I find a Dictionary a comforting place to find words that make sense!
Suzi |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Chris,
yes and you can prove it wasn't written in the 17th century, think about it and you'll realise why.
John,
well I am just assuming that Caroline will not have anything to say about stating this about me 'while in public the former was playing cheerleader to John's monthly faux pas'. I mean maybe I have her wrong maybe she would want to apologise for stating something wrong as though it were true. Then again...
Caroline,
what have you got to say about it?
Robert,
its never a bother or trouble to clarify facts. what is insulting is your baseless attacks on my character. Just so we understand each other.And now I've calmed down, you know what exactly to what i was referring to in my post, as well you should since you started it. maybe that was because you could see the whole discussion about the post house was going no where??
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, I wasn't going to mention the fact that patterns and standards of capitalization were significantly different for prose in the 17th century than they were in the 19th (or late 20th, when the diary was written). I was going to save that gem until later, after we had heard another desperate round of "look what I found!"
But you're right, of course.
And still no Poste House, either.
Except in the diary.
And we know where else.
But none of this will stop her, folks.
The "say anything to keep hope alive" arguments are coming soon enough.
Common sense be damned, there must be something, somewhere....
(It's all they have, you know.)
Meanwhile, a simple reading and simple, straightforward explanations of all the problems in the text are readily available under a single scenario.
Still, I'm looking forward to the next act here under the big top.
--John 
PS: Jenni, you won't hear either of them admit to anything, I promise. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
John,
the big top? Are you feeling ok?
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Did you, or did you not, join in heartily with the monthly celebrations of 'nothing new, nothing real' in Diary World, where the mantra was 'the labs are empty, and we'll all be dead before the diary is ever allowed out of Robert Smith's hands again'?
Yes you did - at the same time as you knew, because you had organised it, that the diary was being tested by Dr Platt.
If you never took that thread seriously, you nevertheless posted there quite happily, as if the mantra against Robert had your approval.
Now you have explained that it didn't and that it was all a bit of a joke to you, I'm sure everyone is relieved, and we can move on.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes, the big top. This is, after all, just a circus.
And since Caroline obviously no longer reads the DiTA thread, I suppose she can be excused for not knowing what has been written there about future comprehensive tests on the watch and the diary and our communal confidence that they will happen any day now.
Of course, she should not be excused for writing about what's in a thread she obviously has not read recently.
But then again, we shouldn't be surprised, either. It's normal behavior for some folks around here.
I think I hear the calliope starting up, so I'm off to find my seat,
--John
PS: I told you you'd get nothing from them.
(Message edited by omlor on July 30, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Hi there Caroline,
I'm so glad you mentioned it since the answer to your question Did you, or did you not, join in heartily with the monthly celebrations of 'nothing new, nothing real' in Diary World, where the mantra was 'the labs are empty, and we'll all be dead before the diary is ever allowed out of Robert Smith's hands again'?
because I think you will find the answer to your question is NO!
But the place to discuss this further is of course on the thread in question where I will be only too happy to take this up with you and Robert Anderson, and anyone body else who has any kind of problem with anything i say. In fact i will see you there.
Jenni |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
John,
you know we should be talking about this in the dita thread which is now in pub talk. And thank God it wasnt there before else i wouldn't be able to see my previous messages to know the ghastly crimes i have commited.
Big top? Circus, sounds about right to me.
Maybe some people are never happy?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Jenni,
Caroline claims you joined "in heartily with the monthly celebrations of 'nothing new, nothing real' in Diary World [...] at the same time as you knew, because you had organised it, that the diary was being tested by Dr Platt."
You say you didn't.
I went back and checked the thread.
You're right.
She's wrong.
Between the time the Platt tests were being arranged and their appearance I believe you posted on that thread a grand total of four very short times. Once to ask what Valentine's meat juice was, once to thank Chris for telling you, once to say hi to Don Souden and say you were looking forward to the holidays, and once to say I had written more than five words.
Each post was tiny and there was no "cheerleading" or "joining in heartily with the celebrations" or any other such nonsense.
Caroline was just wrong. Again. She was writing without knowing what she was talking about and without bothering to check the text, which was readily available.
Another lesson in reading and it's importance. And another lesson in who bothers to read carefully before coming here and making stuff up and who doesn't.
This happens over and over again.
It is telling. In fact, it's downright emblematic.
This is just one more example, one more joke in the Diary World routine.
File it with the others,
--John
PS: I have long felt that ALL the threads on the diary should be in Pub Talk. After all, historically speaking none of this has anything to do with the Ripper or with the Whitechapel murders or even with 1888. We're just the freak show here.
(Message edited by omlor on July 30, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
I'm filing it on the dita thread John, where you can read my delightful posts shortly! |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
of course all this is a distraction form the real problem, the fact that the Poste House in Cumberland Street does actually exist. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
It should be noted here that Jennifer Pegg then went to the DiTA thread and listed and recapped every post she has ever made to that thread.
And yes, the record clearly indicates that during the entire time in question she sent only four very short posts -- a post to ask what Valentine's meant juice was, a post to thank Chris for telling her, a post to say hi to Don Souden and a post to tell me I had written more than five words. That's it.
No cheerleading. No joining in heartily with the monthly celebrations. Nothing even remotely like that.
Also, she listed every other post she has made to the thread since then (there were not very many) and none of them were more than a few lines long either and none of them were actively cheerleading for the DiTA thread in any way or celebrating it.
Unfortunately, this comprehensive review of her extremely limited contributions to that thread got lost in the Pub Talk ether today. (If anyone saved it or was sent it, please feel free to repost it here for the record and in the name of accuracy.)
But fortunately, the written record of the specific time in question remains available there, in an earlier archived thread, in case anyone (like say Caroline, who should have done so before posting), wants to go back and look at the truth of the record.
The last part of our discussion today remains on the DiTA thread for now, but I wanted some permanent record of the fact that Jenni had done this work and posted the results carefully and they clearly proved that she was right about what what she has and has not written, especially during the time the Platt tests were being arranged and conducted, and Caroline is dead wrong. Just as Sir Robert was wrong in his characterization of her participation there as an "apparent contradiction" as well.
I assume she'll receive a couple of apologies.
Of course, I could be dead wrong about that.
Having come to the end of the day,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on July 30, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Thanks John.
am waiting for apology from Sir Robert and Caroline.
Am sure will get one since both are wrong and made baseless accusations against my character.
Surely anyone who did that would want to apologise. Esp. after being proved wrong..
Esp. after genuinely offending me.
(Message edited by jdpegg on July 31, 2005) |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Aah - but nothing and no-one ever moves on in diary world. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hello
It seems that the Master of Ceremonies (should that be Lord of Misrule?) of the Freak Show is back in action so who can resist?
How can we still be flogging the dead nag that is the situation regarding the chloracetamide "result"? The one result that "indicated" the presence of it has more holes in it than my gardening trousers and has been paraded around (much like a Whitechapel whore) in all its "finery" which on closer inspection turns out to be fairly tawdry stuff indeed.
Now Im heading over to the reconstruct Marys face thread where it appears that real progress on this case is being made......
Mr P./Lars
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
"Robert didn't land on the diary, the diary landed on him." - What is that supposed to mean??? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
