|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
King Arthur's Round Table: Ripperologists Lack of Knowledge
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
King Arthur's Round Table: Ripperologists Lack of Knowledge
Author: Sir Hadenough
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:11 pm |        | All the documentary evidence that survives indicates that the average Ripperologist frequenting these Boards has a distinct lack of knowledge of the facts a dismal understanding of what facts there are.
What is particularly noticeable is that the discussions ramble along aimlessly for days and then dwindle into nothingness with no real conclusion and certainly no new facts revealed.
The star posters on these boards appear to lack all modesty and revel in showing their prowess to the lesser mortals they address themselves to.
Little wonder is it that the case is no nearer resolution and the answer seems to get further away rather than closer. Not only do they confuse their readers, they lose themselves along the way also. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:19 pm | | I have only been on the boards for a few weeks.
I am certainly guilty about lack of knowledge of the facts but many of my colleagues who post seem very knowledgeable. My own knowledge is consistent with someone who is enthusiastic but only able to refer to secondary source in view of a full time occupation (I average 110 hours at work a week).
I have found humilty, generosity and no prowess amoungst the people on the boards I have been on. Just genuine and enjoyable facts that have been educational to me.
Perhaps you should have a separate board for very knowledgeable people such as yourself, or perhaps amateurs such as me should be asked to leave the board. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:22 pm | | | I assume that this is a dig at me in view of the title of the message. I would not be at all hurt if it was generally felt that I leave the boards and would be quite content to lurk as I did prior to getting involved. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:45 pm | | Tom,
I hope you will do no such thing!
If Sir Hadenough has had enough he is not obliged to hang around.
Please don't think he speaks for the rest of us. I can only speak for myself, but I am willing to bet that most people here have thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts of all the 'star' posters lately, and found little evidence of revelling in anything apart from the discussions in hand. With the exception of the odd anon and pseudonymous posters (and some are very odd) all have come across to me as very modest about their own field of expertise.
And because your own and Mike Villon's posts have kept me so enthralled, I have forgotten to post much myself (and that's got to be a plus for everyone, including Sir Hadenough.) So please keep it up as time permits Tom and don't get distracted by these time-wasting side arguments. There really are only a very small number of bitter and twisted posters among us who pop their jealous-looking heads up from time to time.
Caz
aka Lady Goodenough |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:47 pm | | Tom -
I must, I suppose, share some of the blame for the "Round Table" attack, as I took the lead in setting up the board. I hope you will not let Sir Hadenough's swipe get you down - on the contrary, you have been 'blooded.'
Sir Hadenough - if you don't like the discussion, then don't read it. If you feel a discussion is rambling along aimlessly, then please apply some needed direction. If you know the facts being discussed are in error, then please step forward and correct them. I don't know of anyone on these boards who is infallible, including myself. |
Author: Sir Hadenough
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:52 pm | | No this is not a dig at any one individual, least of all a hard-working individual who has the humility to admit his own lack of knowledge in the study of the murders.
In fact Thomas you should be encouraged by the fact that many have asked you for elucidation of medical points where your knowledge must be unquestioned.
I see that I have nowhere claimed to be very knowledgeable so your comment on this point is rather confusing, did you assume this? The observations were made in regard to the general trend in most of the threads on these boards.
The majority, if not all, of the contributors are amateurs, what is an expert or a professional in this field of study? True some, like Mr DiGrazia, are more knowledgeable than others who are very boorish and know-it-all in their own interpretation of the facts.
My point is that in reading all these discussions a newcomer can become more confused rather than enlightened by what he reads. Then at the end of the discussion he has no real answers, only questions and opposing opinions.
Still perhaps this is where the fun lies for them. I think it is I who should depart. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 02:37 pm | | Sir Hadenough brings up an interesting dilemma that has been mentioned previously on these boards. Is it better to retain an open dialogue among individuals of differing levels of expertise, as we have it now, or should we rather allow only those with a sufficient background on the case to comment?
I know the majority (myself included) will side with the current setup, which, though democratic, does admittedly allow a fair amount of tripe into the discussion boards. I have toyed before with the idea of setting up an "Experts Only" board to house the comments of the purely research-oriented. But the same problem arises: how to tell an "expert" from a "non-expert." The line of demarcation, if one even exists, is gray and transient -- furthermore, who has the right to bestow such an exclusionary label on any one of us?
In any event, if anyone has ideas on how to improve the boards, I will be open to suggestions. I do realize there is a dichotomy here between the "philosophers" and the "researchers" -- those who enjoy brainstorming and expounding upon new ideas and possibilities, versus those who wish to post more serious-minded, purely research-oriented findings. Obviously we can not please everyone, but perhaps we can find a way to better represent the needs of both sides? |
Author: anon
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 03:26 pm | | Sir Hadenough,
Your posts have made a few things clear to me and raised a couple of questions. Could you please answer them for me?
What do you consider to be 'documentary evidence'? How much knowlegde should one poses to become an expert Ripperologist in your opinion? What facts are there? I am just a dummy. Are you an expert in the field of the Ripper? How come I haven't read your posts on these Boards before? On a scale between 1 and 10, 1 being posses no knowledge and 10 being an expert, how would you rate yourself?
Would you mind doing some JTR trivia in here?
No new facts revealed. I guess you're about to reveal new facts shortly, hang on folks! No real conclusions? Give us yours. Hey, this message thread is rambling along aimlessly!
You certainly don't lack any modesty(talking about documentary evidence, now we have some). Since you are here to give us an lecture, who doesn't consider himself to be a lesser mortal?
Are you still reading this? I thought you had already departed by now. |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 06:05 pm | | With reference to Mr. Ryder's post above, and peripheral discussions:
Based on my 4-year history on these Boards, I'm aware that for the most part, the following post will fall on deaf ears. But here goes anyway, in the hope it might make half a sow's ear's worth of difference:
Every single time that someone pipes up suggesting rules or standards in posting, or segregation of "au fait" from "rudimentary" posters, or complains about someone's outlook or style being inadequate for Ripperology, EVERY SINGLE TIME, it is a case of a billioused buzzard getting himself off by kicking the first nice, soft, round ass he is priveleged to mislead himself into perceiving on the playground. EVERY SINGLE TIME it is an attempt to deny free speech, free expression, and free envisionment of the case evidence for the sake of a narrow, caustic, ill-conceived, personal or exclusivist agenda. If measures are taken to set up an "expert's" board, or set qualitative "posting standards" or other restrictions here, the result would swiftly be the most mean-spirited abuse and misuse of such rules by the robustly glib for advancement. Unscrupulous ideological people such as anon would plume themselves with the semblance of board-orthodoxy according to the established rules, however those rules are set up, and clean up by mercilessly beating the less glib over the head with one-sided pretexts. We NEVER want to go this route here. Indulgence of the need on the part of some to make themselves feel superior by tapping their fingers on a keyboard is a part of the price the rest must pay to remain free on this web site.
Look at the posts on these boards and determine who posts consistently ideologically. Would you like to live under the control of such people? That is what I believe you will have, in spades, if ANY concept of what is to be considered kosher is promulgated here.
I'm pretty well immune to being dumped on, having gone through my baptism of fire a year or so back, but many others are not, and would possibly be unmanned. It is for all of us I write.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 06:50 pm | | No need for much further comment after Hadenough's clarification/explanation. We all get tired now and again. The "truth" always seems so close but then is apparently snatched away by a seemingly cold (or indifferent or even innocuous -- need my spellchecker fer that wurd!) comment or question or reminder by another poster. Maybe it sometimes looks and certainly feels cruel or hostile, but most likely it's just somebody else who had a tough day or has grown momentarily tired by their own frustration.
In my short tenure here, I've seen a big, almost radical improvement in the general tone of almost all postings and topics...without the threatened concomitant maudlinness that some prophesied.
If you cared enough to have "had enough," maybe you'll get another breath...a second (or third...) wind and turn into Comeback4more, good sir!
Stranger things have happened on these boards, right before my own little peepers, Sir Hadenough.
As to an "Experts Only" board: I beg to offer the opinion that there are already a few posters who have taken said matter into their own hands and created their own separate sections wherein you venture at your peril.
(Hi down there, Big Kahuna! How's trix?).
These things have a way of working themselves out.
(And no, I am not referring even obliquely to you, Doc...110 hours??? Is your middle name Nosferatu, by any chance? Can you even spell "sleep?").
No need to intervene, IMHO, Stephen.
Yaz |
Author: Diana
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 08:40 pm | | | If Jack had been caught, twelve ordinary citizens who were not experts would have been chosen to evaluate and sift the evidence. They would have placed in their hands the awesome power of life and death. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 09:00 pm | | There are no experts in Ripperology.....
What is there to be expert about?
A few hundred newspaper articles that at best contain repetative summaries, and at worst contain gross exagerations.
Two actual inquest files, which can be nowhere thought to be complete, and are by no stretch of the imagination considered the last word.
A dozen or so actual photo's of victims and some dubious artifacts that are claimed by some to by 'relevent' to the case.
We might have expert mechanics, who know more than the average mechanic, and can fix things right.
We might have expert craftsmen, tradesman, technicians etc, but knowing the contents of those PRO files and knowing whats right from wrong in the news articles and yet not being able to provide any answers, any solutions, by no means requires anyone to consider themselves an expert in Ripperology.
All of us share an interest, some more devoted than others. Some of us even specialize in certain aspects of the case.
There are those of us who have a skill that can contribute to the overall understanding of certain details, medical for one, legal for another.
But lets not ever get the idea that this study of ours is within the domain of an expert ......there are no experts in Ripperology.
Jon |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 09:15 am | | Hear hear! Information at this point is finite. There are only so many articles pertaining to this case... mortuary photos, reports, newspaper articles, etc. All else is mere conjecture until more evidence comes to light. I agree, there are no experts, only those who have grasped the facts and can make some sense out of them. Publishing a book does not make one an expert. I do totally respect anyone who has enough get together to publish. So let's just continue on. I was under the impression that these boards were open to all and sundry....because who knows what gems may fall from uninformed lips?
Edana |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 09:16 am | | I must thank Sir Hadenough for clarifying a point which - were I less quick on the "reply" button - I might have picked up and understood before posting.
What DO we do with the novice? I must admit that even I, whose enthusiasm for this mystery borders on the obsessive, might have found it difficult to return to a site such as this were I to first come across a long thread about whether real or artificial light was used to illuminate the in situ photograph of MJK. Granted, some newcomers have freely admitted that they watched by the sides while discussions were going on and only joined in when they felt "up to speed," but what of the poster who never feels that way?
What of the person who knows only what TV and a true-crime book might have told them? They will find out a great deal from the Casebook pages itself, but the Message Board may be too trackless a wilderness.
I wish I knew where to draw the line between research and esoterica, or among "expert," "conversant" and "novice" (to throw out 3 arbitrary labels). Perhaps, Stephen, the threads of discussion might have some sort of ratings system such as movies, so you know what you'll get going in? God knows. In any event, Sir H's posting reveals them to be someone familiar with the boards and concerned enough to post a bit of a wake-up to the occasionally delusional rabbiter such as myself. It was more of a gentle nudge than anonymous rant, and I apologise for not realising that straight off.
CMD |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 09:50 am | | Hello Everybody,
If I may be so bold, and presumptious, I feel that the issue raised by the good knight is not one of infalsarianism but of open-mindedness.
As an occasional contributor, I simply throw what little notions I have into the cauldron and await the opinions and insights of others. Sometimes my nuggets turn out be mere iron oxide easily brushed aside by the fact that a demonstrable point is wrong, i.e. I posted rubbish. Other times my thoughts are given consideration but are ultimately inconclusive because the discussion peters out.
In an open forum like this, it is acceptable. After all, we are working to our own agenda. Where the system falls down is when the "discussion" degenerates into personal abuse. This is the most obvious and odious form of intimidation. However, I have also noted that some first time posters are treated with an almost imperious manner. Is it a crime to believe in the mechanics of the Royal Conspiracy when the only book that one has on the subject is by Steven Knight? Surely a meeting place like this should be above contempt and open to all the pet theories of the contributors.
Perhaps the only improvement to the present system would be if more people took time to defend the rights of contribution. That is, if we all show some scepticism. If we proudly stand by an idea which has been loudly ridiculed until intellectual persuasion shows that the idea is ridiculous.
Let's face it, all the facets of the case have been distorted over time. Some documents are spurious, some are flawed. Why not open a discussion, a form of referendum perchance?, where the documents are classified into acceptable order. Running from true bill at the top end, i.e. genuine, to heap of malignant prose, i.e. four letter word beginning with c and ending on a p, at the base. In this way thoughts could constantly evolve within a given framework which, in itself, may expand and contract as more issues are raised over time.
Thanking you for your consideration.
Rabbi Leen
P.S. - On a topical note, "oh the gift that others gie us..." |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 12:14 pm | | With reference to Stephen's questions:-
The idea of blocking certain people from posting implies that somebody has to be the arbiter of knowledge. By what criteria would the decision on somebody's fitness to poste be made? In the case of newcomers, how would the monitor know anyway?
The idea of having an 'experts' board reared its ugly head last summer. Stephen himself recognises the problems of deciding who is and who is not an 'expert'. If implemented the policy would be divisive, inevitably leading to accusations about unfairness, favouritism and cronyism. As sure as night follows day there would be pressure on the moderator by some contributors to include their friends and exclude those with whom they disagree. Additionally, there are those who complain that insufficient research is posted to these boards. So if the experts board were for those who "wish to post more serious-minded, purely research-oriented findings" there wouldn’t be much on it! The whole split board thing is a daft idea.
Two suggestions that might improve the boards, if they are feasible, are:-
1). To limit posters to one handle per IP.
2). To make all handles unique.
This would give the following advantages:-
a). It should prevent a lot of the personal attacks here, many of which appear to be made by regular contributors using pseudonyms. For instance, my guess is that Sir Hadenough falls into the category of a board regular.
b). People could continue to contribute anonymously if they wish, but the rest of us would have a chance of following their arguments because they’d all be numbered uniquely, (anon1, anon2 etc). There are few things more frustrating than trying to follow a topic where several people are using the same handle.
There are disadvantages to these suggestions too of course. It all depends on whether such changes are deemed to be for the greater good.
Regards, V. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Greetings, all:
I wish to thank Rabbi Leen for his sage ponderings on the nature of the message boards. I agree with him that the worst aspects of the boards are the occasional personal abuse that takes place and the instant stamping by those "who know better" on newcomers who come here with theories such as the Royal conspiracy theory. The plain fact is that such neophytes genuinely believe what they have read. They just, most probably, have not read enough on the case beyond what is in works by Stephen Knight and his cronies.
I would greatly urge that newcomers to these boards be treated with respect and that we point them to texts that would change their point of view, rather than instantly turn them off with brusque ripostes, as has happened here all too often.
In regard to CMD's remark that these message boards are apt to be a snowy wilderness when it comes to discussion of some of the esoteric points, with due respect, CM, I think that such a view underestimates the adaptability of the human animal. In most of the topics there is interest even if we are debating fine points. Eyeball photography anyone? :-)
I certainly don't think the discussions should be rated by "difficulty" or that there should be a forum of "experts." As Jon remarked, who is really an expert in this field anyway, particularly given the limited amount of evidence available? There are only those who know more, persons such as Stewart Evans, Don Rumbelow, Paul Begg, and Melvin Harris. I would suggest that even relative newcomers have a contribution to make and can make us think of aspects of the case that have so far not received attention. So to get back to Sir Hadenough's point about the boards being filled with fruitless ramblings, I would resist his view. I think the boards DO help us discuss new aspects, and that the boards can be educational for newcomers and old hands as well. I will accept CMD's view that Sir Had's message should be viewed as a wake-up call, but I would also say that if the knight does not want to party no one is making him party, or to mix another clichéed metaphor, you can lead a knight to water but he doesn't have to drink. ha ha
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 01:48 pm | | Gosh! I didn't realise that my reply or Sir H's initial post would have such a reaction. I realise that my reply did look a touch sensitive but was not mean't to. I was thinking of the leasons that I learnt from another site I used to contribute to. I will tell you how we resolved them quite successfully.
There is a well known site called OBGYN.NET. This was initially set up by an american gynaecologist and gynaecologists all over the world contributed discussing the academic literature. Quite clearly this was an experts site. However, after a while lay people with an interest of other kinds started posting. They had genuine questions and interests and like on this board, they had theories based on some but not all the information available. We professionals did not want these people on 'our' site especially as we used language that we would not use in front of patients. However, we recognised the need for women to get free, expert information and discussion with professionals. So we did the following;
We set up one site for professionals only. We didn't check the contributers qualifications but we insisted on an e-mail address (codes for access were posted to these e-mail addresses to ensure that the site could not be used by someone using a false one). Although the odd person did try and muscle in, we then felt free to use whatever language we wanted. Furthermore, by labelling something an experts site, few people feel comfortable contributing unless they were real experts.
For the amateur enthusiast (such as I would be in the JTR case) we set up another site. We invited some professionals (experts) to sit on our advisory panel and answer questions. Most of the experts (of which I was one) were happy to give their opinions to lay people in such a way and many lay people also contributed. However, we did have a statement refusing liability.
So in reply to Sir H, I genuinely did not take offence even though that might have been perceived by my reply. However, I am acutely aware of the annoyance of an amateur hogging the posts of an experts message board and was keen to ensure that I wasn't doing that. If I was/am I would be grateful if someone could send me a polite e-mail (I use my real name and have registered my real e-mail address). |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 01:51 pm | | | PS Stephen. 110 hours is no exageration and Mike will support me here. That is only an average. Some weeks it is more. My last post was made between cases. I am still in the hospital and have been for over 36 hours now. I'm not after sympathy but just an understanding of my poor spelling and refusal to check my posts before sending them. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 04:16 pm | | JtR research often seems, maybe is, fundamentally different than many other types of knowledge. All Jon's characterizations are valid. I would add another characteristic and that is some "expert" research is marketable...you can sell an article or a book that contains a hard-earned piece of unique research work. I wonder how many "serious" researchers need or want this kind of shared environment when the marketplace pushes a kind of competitiveness between researchers. The "experts' or published authors cast their votes on this issue via what they choose to print here and, more importantly (if invisibly), what they decide NOT to print.
There are always exceptions to this characteristic: many "serious" or published authors do share information that could be, has been, or will be published. I just don't see a parallel between sharing other types of knowledge (like Thomas' OB/GYN site) where a market factor has little or no part, and so-called scholarly research, which can be much more market-oriented.
I'm sure if the "experts" (or anybody else with shared interests) wanted a private cyberspace, they'd create one on their own...probably already have using even a simple mechanism like an email distribution list.
As for novices, Stephen's other material on the Casebook -- and maybe we too often forget this site is more than the Discussions Boards -- offers the novice plenty of information and suggestions to increase their knowledge and perspectives. We now also have Casebook Productions' web site. The treatment of any poster is irrelevant to that posters level of knowledge or even -- heresy to some! -- the opinion expressed. Which leads to...
The issues of courtesy, tolerance, and understanding different perspectives and knowledge-levels applies across the boards...from a first-time poster to mellifluous dispellers of condemnation of bad research, hokum, bunk, etc. Some people abide by the Golden Rule; some don't and never will.
We should fight those battles about the Golden Rule case by case; time after time; and never stop fighting.
Yaz |
Author: Richard
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 05:31 pm | | Dear Stephen,
Personally I think these boards are excellent. They should remain open for everyone to post messages to and offers an unique opportunity for novices, amateurs and professionals to interact with each other. The main setup of these boards should not be changed I feel. However, some restrictions could be applied if everyone feels happy about them.
Posting a message should only be possible if first a free account has been setup. This would require an username and a valid e-mail adress. An unique password or code could then be sent to the specified e-mail adress for verification. Next, when the new user posts a message his username and e-mail adress should be visible for everyone to see. As suggested above, namely one handle per IP, is not recommended since some ISP's assign random IP's when their users login and connect to the internet. Signup's like anonymous and such should be rejected.
The mainpage of these message boards could look like this, for example.
1. Read this first
2. Guidelines to posting messages
3. The Casebook F.A.Q.
4. Jack the Ripper F.A.Q.
5. Newbies quick Q & A section
6. Discussions
The newbie Q & A section should be setup for newcomers who have some short and simple questions about the Casebook or Jack the Ripper. The more experienced users on these boards could then answer these questions if they want to and in this way help new users to get onto the right track. This particular section is not intended for discussions to take place and each question should have a maximum of one or two correct answers.
Cheers, Richard |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 06:27 pm | | Keep the board as it is, Stephen......
We can brush-off the occational condecending remark from would-be know-it-all's. They are always few & far between, and always either anonamous or pseudonames.
We can also cater to the novice, in fact it can be almost humorous at times, answering those off-the-cuff questions.
By far the majority of us 'inbetweenies' get along realy well, with the odd sarcasm, the oddball posting, the out on a limb remark, who'd have it any other way !!
Just lets not drift off onto recipes & rock songs again :-)
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that shares his poste with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
and hold their manhoods cheap whiles we poste here on the Casebook message boards !!!!
:-) |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 08:58 pm | | | That great detective of fiction, Sherlock Holmes said time and again that the inane uninformed comments of Dr. Watson were more often than not what jogged his thinking and enable him to solve the crime. |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 07:56 am | | Hi All,
The case of Jack the Ripper is basically a human story, all about human failings in an imperfect world. It can become the hobby of an armchair detective or a quest for some understanding of the nature of good and evil. It can be the basis for a short-term money-making venture or a lifetime spent in historical research. Any effect Jack has on us today is self-induced, those directly affected by his deeds are long gone.
But whatever this subject delivers to us as individuals, it is hardly as serious and immediate as the gynaecological website discussions referred to by Tom, concerned with prolonging and saving the lives of our mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. The importance of keeping such sites strictly for the most serious-minded professionals or at least lay people with genuine health concerns is obvious.
I'd like the JtR message boards to continue to be designed for consumption and participation by the general public, whatever it is about the subject which attracts us here in the first place. And therefore I see any way of keeping as many people as possible interested and entertained by the site, while they are being informed and educated by the experts here, has got to be a positive thing.
And now for my perfect recipe, and how about Jumping Jack Flash playing in the background? (sorry Jon :-)):
Mix together a handful of each of the following ingredients in equal measures:
ripperphiles old and young,
the expert and the novice
the published authors and their readers and critics
the sensitive and the elephant-skinned
the temperamental and the laid back
the wordy and the abrupt
the serious, the sarcastic and the funny
the good, the bad and the ugly…..
Sprinkle liberally with the ability to make friends and enemies in equal numbers with every single post.
Don’t worry about the lumps who deliberately misinterpret your posts, concentrate on the lumps of your own making, remixing the words until they become workable and acceptably smooth to the majority of readers.
Add some sauce if things get too heavy.
Put the mixture onto the message boards, knead lightly (most enjoy that bit) then thrust all into the melting pot.
Dip your toes in occasionally to feel the temperature.
(Warning: Some of the above ingredients may spoil if the pot is too hot, others may thicken up, some may even disappear in a puff of smoke.)
Finally, taste the mixture. Add your own ingredients to balance the flavour or make it to your liking. If it still makes you heave, maybe this human soup is not for you.
Otherwise enjoy!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 02:15 pm | | | I'm delighted no-one wants to go the way of my OBGYN site. That means I can still participate. |
Author: JacksBack
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 06:59 pm | | JacAuthur's Farewell Address:
"I am closing my fifty-two days of Ripperology service. When I joined the Boards, even before the turn of the Millenium, it was the fulfillment of all my boyish hopes and dreams.
The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at Whitechapel, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular pub ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that old Ripperologists never die; they just fade away.
And like the old Ripperologist of that ballad, I now close my posting career and just fade away, an old Ripperologist who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good-by. |
Author: Mark Dubno
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 07:56 pm | | Does this mean you're now going to run for President?
Nick |
Author: Pete kemp
Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 07:42 am | | Dear All,
When is an expert an expert ? Is it experience that is the salient factor or insight ?From my perspective I feel the interaction of experience with " youthful enthusiasm" is the only way to approach the JTR subject. Nobody is omniscient.
Pete kemp. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 10:37 pm | | Kemp -
To be honest, I should say that the title of "expert" is one that can never be self-conferred. There are greater and lesser degrees of familiarity with the case, and perhaps that should be the guide - though, in fairness, one can be very familiar with the details of the case and still wrong (pace Stephen Knight).
Youthful enthusiasm is a good thing. Willful ignorance (or willful blindness) is not.
Anyone can be a Ripper "expert" if they will take the time to read, observe, learn and digest. Just because it's in a book or just because it fits into a pattern doesn't mean it's so. |
Author: Carl Dodd
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 02:26 pm | | | For some reason, Hadenough doesn't impress me. He sounds alot like that Harris yo-yo. Too inflated for his own good. I tend to believe that all opinions and information are important. I would never deny Harris or Hadenough their ability or right to say what's on their minds. I will challenge what they say in a heartbeat if I find there is a need from where I stand. My challenge, in their cases, will be direct and frontal. With others, I will want to ask questions to further my information. So, Hadenough, have you got a problem with honest, interested people putting up information or asking questions? Who died and left you in charge? |
|
|
|
|
