|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
THE DEATH OF LOGIC
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
THE DEATH OF LOGIC
Author: anon
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 11:49 pm |        | | But you obviously do you snake. |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:01 am | | Ah well; Once more unto the breach, dear friends.
As a non-subscriber to Ripperologist since 1997, and one who last wasted serious consideration on ‘diary’ humbug some three years ago, I must confess to having been quite surprised to find, in Melvin’s introductory piece to this topic, that I was a continual and obsessive haranguer of Shirley Harrison.
On inquiry, Paul Daniel was kind enough to forward me a copy of his editorial, and, in response, I appropriately refuted his evidently misinformed claims. Then, on reading the seasonal ‘greeting’ from Merry Christmas, I found myself asking the selfsame questions that were raised, with customary erudition, in Melvin’s subsequent post. Nevertheless, in observance of Merry’s pleadings, in this season of Goodwill, I was prepared to adopt the age-old adage and, without undue further concern, let sleeping dogs lie.
However, one phrase in a subsequent post from Mr. Christmas seems to me to perhaps pinpoint the very source of ‘diary’ animus: "But criticism of the diary is inevitably criticism of Harrison." If such is the view prevalent among ‘diary’ proponents then I fear they gravely misunderstand the nature of accredited historiographical disputation.
In considering the perpetuation of fallacies in any dubious document it is frequently necessary to address the historiographical deficiencies of the works that promote it. This is not personal attack, it is essential methodology for any serious evaluation of an alleged historical document. Serious evaluation which, I seem to recall, ‘diary’ proponents have consistently called for.
And with that I'll leave somnolent canines to enjoy their prostration,
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Merry Christmas
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 03:21 am | | To answer the question posed by Karoline, the sentiment behind Daniel's piece in Ripperologist and expressed even more clearly by Lay in her letter was, as you put it, that its okay to criticise the diary or anything else providing it is done politely. Daniel was certainly factually inaccurate in some of what he wrote, most notably and reprehensibly in the inclusion of Chisholm, but to find this sentiment dismissed and ridiculed under the heading "The Death of Logic" seemed to me unjust and demanding of comment.
If, as you say, most people would entirely agree with this underlaying sentiment expressed by Daniel and Lay, then perhaps Harris and Birchwood will take the spirit of that message on board. And, hopefully, so too will everyone else and we can enjoy what is for most of us a hobby free from bickering and ill-feeling.
Having mentioned Chisholm above, I had hoped that my meaning was clear. In case it wasn't, Harris stated that he had not directly criticised Harrison very often. In writing "But criticism of the diary is inevitably
criticism of Harrison" I was simply trying to make a distinction between direct and indirect criticism. To make this distinction clearer, if one were to write that nobody but a fool could take the diary seriously, then by implication one would be calling Harrison a fool because she did take it seriously. And I imagine that Harrison would be as hurt by that remark as she would have been if somebody had said directly that Harrison was a fool for taking the diary seriously.
As for the amusingly and wildly off the beam anon, the diary is not the object of discussion here. Neither are the A to Z authors nor Colin Wilson. It is simply a question of how criticism should be delivered. Daniel felt that Harris's criticism of the diary amounted to an obsessive harrangue. Harris doesn't think so. Fair enough. But over several years Harris's comments on the Ripper have been almost exclusively diary related, which could be interpreted as obsessive, and many people have observed that his style is often hectoring and sometimes abusive, which could justify the word harrangue. Daniel's words were therefore reasonably justified and did not deserve to be dismissed under the personally belittling title "The Death of Logic". This has nothing to do with the diary. If you can remember that then perhaps your observations would be worth reading.
Finally, Karoline, a thought for you to consider: creating an atmosphere in which people may be frightened to express an opinion, theory or belief for fear of being made to look foolish, as seems to happen repeatedly here - I sadly note some of anon's comments - is also a censorship of opinion. And it seems to me that freedom of expression is what Daniel and Lay are appealing for. Perhaps you should lend your weight to them. |
Author: karoline
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 08:12 am | | This is the most unusual approach to historical research I have ever come across.
I entirely accept that there is no room in any civilised debate for personal attack, though I think there is relatively little of that here (of course there are exceptions).
But, Mr. Christmas, can you really argue from this that since A. puts forward a point of view, then any suggestion that this point of view is wrong is a personal attack on A?
If a person who claims to be an authority fails to answer very important questions to which they really ought to respond, it isn't good enough to argue that they are just too upset to do so.
I think Ms. Harrison and others really should decide whether they are professionals who want their views to be taken seriously, or just some guys having a bit of fun.
If the latter then, sure, no one should criticise them or waste any time on considering their ideas.
But if they publish their ideas in book form and argue for their general acceptance, then they have to accept that these ideas will be rigorously analysed, even entirely deconstructed, by their peers. They have to be able to support their ideas with good data, or accept that these ideas will be rejected as insufficient.
This is normal historical methodology. It is neither vindictive nor obsessive to expect historical theorists to comply with it.
Of course, no one likes to have a precious theory shredded. But this is no argument for allowing specious ideas to remain unquestioned. If it were we'd still be in the Dark Ages, wouldn't we, believing the sun went round the earth, because Galileo thought it was too impolite to suggest otherwise.
This might be gratifying for a few who want to believe certain falsehoods, but I doubt it would do much for the advancement of human knowledge
Karoline |
Author: Dimetrius
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 11:17 am | | | Be careful anon, this snake's bit is lethal. |
Author: John
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:10 pm | | Surely the fact that 'Merry Christmas' is Paul Begg must be obvious to everyone by now.
His own curious form of logic is all too obvious. |
Author: John
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:11 pm | | | How's your 'bit' Dimetrius? |
Author: An Observer
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:22 pm | | | I do not wish to become embroiled in the current controversy, but I felt it worthwhile to question Steven Ryder as to the validity of John's previous claim that Paul Begg and 'Merry Christmas' are one and the same. His findings were that the two were submitting from completely different addresses. Furthermore, a similar comparison found that Melvin Harris, anon and John were all three submitting from suspiciously SIMILAR addresses. Funny, that. |
Author: Merry Christmas
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:29 pm | | Nobody has said that a theory can't be criticised and nobody has said that criticism of a theory is a personal attack on the theorist. Such a suggestion would indeed be 'the most unusual approach to historical research'. But since nobody has suggested this, Karoline's post ranks as extraordinary and pointless and it might help things along a little if she tried to confine her arguments to what is being said rather than her own interpretation of it.
The point is simple and it is one with which she apparently agrees, namely, in her own words, 'there is no room in any civilised debate for personal attack'. That is the essence of what Daniel wrote and was infinitely more clearly expressed by Lay and neither of their opinions deserve to be belittled as 'the death of logic'. Point made. Civilised debate for the future? I hope so, but from what I witness here, I don't hold my breath. Merry Christmas to you all. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:56 pm | | Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas.
And here's to plenty more polite criticisms of everyone's theories in 2000. I have asked Santa for an extra large tin of bandaids for all anon's unhealed wounds, and a nice all-over body massage might help him too. Ready to oblige Santa?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 01:03 pm | | | I see, An Observer is Merry Christmas is Paul Begg. Funny that. |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 01:31 pm | | Looking at some of the above it's impossible to deny that MC has a point. I'm not sure what the purpose of all these one-liners is supposed to be, but it doesn't really promote any point of view.
And personally I love all-over body massages, but I'm not sure what they have to do with the subject under discussion.
Mr. Christmas, shall we just ignore all the intervening stuff and continue our chat, because I think we are getting to something potentially constructive.
Okay, we agree that personal attack has no place in academic exchange.
But the question seems to be - what do we regard as personal attack?
For example, if someone found evidence that Person A's research was completely and abysmally flawed - SO bad that it was either wildly incompetent or deliberately deceptive - it would be very difficult to say this, without implying criticism of Person A. But would it be a personal attack to do so?
If you have spent your life working on a theory that Cleopatra was a transvestite, and I discover her mummified remains, which show beyond doubt that she was all woman, this discovery of mine is bound to make you look a bit of a fool. But does this mean I am personally attacking you if I publicise my find?
In other words, is it okay to present evidence that completely wipes out someone's theories, or does the fact that this undoubtedly discredits that person and his/her work mean that one should keep it quiet?
Karoline |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 02:21 pm | | FROTH AND FOLLY
So our ultra-sensitive 'Merry Christmas/Stooge/Scrooge' finds my heading THE DEATH OF LOGIC "somewhat offensive": really? When Paul Daniel tried to escape from the consequences of his folly, he used excuses that were illogical and dishonest; hence my title. But perhaps Merry C thinks it's proper for his friend to use such face-saving tactics? Or perhaps he lacks the decency and courage to take Daniel to task?
Since Mr C, himself, has problems with logic let me simplify things for him and pose one question at a time. If Daniel states that I have refused to name the two books; if I then prove that this is not true, how would he then describe Daniel's conduct? Is Daniel confused? Is he lying? Is he vindictive to the point of blindness? Or does he have a very short or selective memory?
And it is Mr C's problems with logic which lead him to make such a foolish statement as "...criticism of the diary is inevitably criticism of Harrison." Does he, therefore, want to argue that Harrison's work has to be granted an unique position and made immune from correction, simply in order to spare her feelings? The lady took the commission; she took the money; she took the misguided praise; but she must now be protected against the cruel world of analytical scholarship!
And it is laughable to read Mr C's plea that Daniel "...objects to the manner (not the substance) of Harris's criticisms." Paul Daniel has now shown that he doesn't even know what THE SUBSTANCE of my criticisms consist of.
But take Mr C's irrational position to its logical conclusion. (And I make the point very simple for him.) If I spot that Feldman's hardback text uses a doctored version of a letter. If I draw attention to the fact that a word HAS BEEN ADDED. If Feldman then REPEATS this bogus version in his following paperback, then how does my exposure of his duplicity reflect badly on Mrs Harrison? It could only reflect badly if AFTER my exposure Mrs Harrison failed to distance herself from Feldman's actions. Her failure could then be taken as acquiescence and, as such, rightly condemned.
In short, an exposure of any examples of Diary duplicity does not automatically involve Mrs Harrison. QED.
As for my interest in the Diary, this is simply because I specialise in investigating frauds, cons and hoaxes. I do so on a professional basis and I am extremely well experienced. If I can use that experience to help others, then I am happy to do so. My reluctant appearance on the Internet was due to the fact that very few publishers would provide the space needed to display the detailed analyses that this fraud warranted. Most publishers are only interested in bunk, but not debunk.
Finally, for those interested in facts, Harrison's latest book is 467 pages long, while Feldman's is 372 pages. My writings on the Diary are just a tiny fraction of that total. Considering that it always takes more space to expose the core of a fraud, than to launch one, then the idea that my small output of words indicates obsession, is shown to be just a sneer from Ignoramus-Land. Yes, the sneer and smear-mongers are invariably people who lacked the knowledge and ability to spot all the clearly identifiable signs of this hoax. Perhaps one day these people will give up all their froth and folly. Perhaps we will have some confessions from people who failed. Those who failed to read the right documents. Those who failed to understand the texts of the documents that they did read. Those who vacillated and failed to give credit to people wiser than themselves. It should be great fun! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 03:53 am | | Dear Everyone,
Sometimes I regret that duelling was ever made illegal!
Here are a few thoughts.
I do find requests for discussion to be carried out in a non offensive polite manner to be a bit tedious. The terms are entirely subjective, what is offensive to one person is a totally trivial matter to another. What is polite? Would you describe Uriah Heep as being the epitome of good manners or the all time champion slime ball?
You must remember that entries here are made by people, and all people are different, they have different mannerisms, different characters and diferent lives entirely.
Mr Harris's life is one of scholarly research and in depth investigation, and consequently his frustration with those who do not share those characteristics sometimes boils over in language and mannerisms which some may find offensive, but others may believe to be merely robust.
Providing he is not deliberately trying to be offensive, and I'm sure he isn't, we must make up our own minds whether to accept his sometimes grating manner in return for all the extremely valuable and insightful information he has to offer.
If you try and force everyone to conform to a mythical standard of behaviour you risk losing that indefineable spark that makes us all different and interesting.
As for people being forced off these boards - well I think we must question the validity of such comments. Certainly none of us like unpleasant things being said about us, but in the grand scheme of things does it really matter.
Far more irritating are those who keep threatening to 'leave the boards' because they don't like people having opposing views. If you wish to leave - leave - don't keep trying to stifle all opposition to your views by such threats. Its gets to be rather like Sinatras 'final' appearance again and again.
Certainly some people, usually those who can't manage more than one line, or those who wish to style themselves 'anon' do try to be offensive, but they only succeed if you let them. Ignore them completely - after all a toilet flushes many times during the day, you don't have to stay and listen do you?
A final thought passed on to me many years ago by an old and bold CPO 'Son if the earth doesn't open up and swallow you it isn't important'
Vive la difference!
all the best for Christmas and the New Year
Bob Hinton |
Author: Merry Christmas
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 10:49 am | | To offer a quick and simple answer to your question, Karoline, I could direct you to my reply to Bob Hinton and allow you to draw your own conclusions. However, to give your question proper and due attention, the extent to which personal criticism is justified is surely dependent on the known intent of the author/theorist. To use your example, if the Cleopatra/transvestite argument was sincerely advanced and based on arguments which the author/theorist sincerely believed to be true, then I think it is sufficient to state the new evidence you have uncovered and let the facts speak for themselves. There would be no need to question the integrity of the author/theorist, to hold him/her up to ridicule, to make him/her feel more foolish than he/she does already, or to pursue that person into admitting his/her folly. The situation is inevitably different if the author/theorist wasn't sincere, if he/she had knowingly and wittingly presented material which they knew and accepted to be untrue. In such a case it would probably be impossible to avoid being personal. Nevertheless, your facts should still be able to speak for themselves and the level of personal comment be restricted to a minimum. And of course one shouldn't keep quiet if evidence is produced that completely wipes out someone's theories, but you are not compelled to diminish and ridicule that person. I hope this answers your question.
To answer Harris's question, Daniel would simply be wrong. And it makes me wonder why he is interested in doing more than simply revealing Daniel's error. Is it malicious vindictiveness? Nobody has suggested that Harrison should 'be protected against the cruel world of analytical scholarship!', but her work should be subjected to analytical scholarship, not her character or personality (unless Harris thinks she is knowingly and wittingly peddling froth for coffee - and he has already stated that he does not think that). It is therefore highly questionable that calling her 'a practiced evader'was fair criticism. It looks like a personally offensive statement.
Daniel's ignorance of the substance of Harris's criticisms does not make it 'laughable' that Daniel should object to the manner in which those criticisms are made. There are no parallels. He doesn't have to understand the content of criticism to recognize that it is delivered in an offensive way. I won't bother to reply to the specific about Feldman reflecting on Harrison as I have already explained how I meant that statement to be interpreted.
Finally, Harris's point about the diary reflecting his area of specialist interest is a fair one and very well made. However, while fully accepting what Harris has said, it is nevertheless only fair to Daniel to point out that Harris has written three books about Jack the Ripper and advanced his own suspect. One might reasonably expect his contributions on the subject to therefore cover a wider spectrum of the case. Since it has almost exclusively concerned the diary, Daniel it not without justification for interpreting that as an obsession.
Finally, Mr Hinton, I imagine that every contributor feels they have a fair and reasonable point to make. I certainly do, yet Harris has called me 'ultra-sensitive', said that I have 'problems with logic', has felt moved to simplify things for me by posing one question at a time, reiterated that I have problems with logic, credited me with making a foolish statement, has said that I have adopted an 'irrational position' and feels compelled to make a point 'very simple' for me so that I can understand it. In short, he has insulted my intelligence and my reasoning capacities. I don't doubt that Harris is a frustrated but scholarly researcher, but this really isn't the robust language of the scholarly arena. It is belittling and snide language that would be out of place in the playground. It typifies the sort of thing Daniel, Lay and others have complained about and I am not at all sure that you should find those complaints tedious. I think your time wouldn't be wasted if instead you expected and demanded that scholarly researchers in the academic arena treat the opinions of others with professional respect.
A final Merry Christmas to you all and may I wish everyone a safe and happy Millennium. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 11:14 am | | Part of this is addressed to Stephen Ryder:
Stephen: some time ago when Karoline and I were getting posts on these boards that were pretty vile I e-mailed you to ask about the true identity of one particular poster. I heard nothing from you. I now see that someone using the pseudonym "An Observer" is able to get from you very quickly information on peoples addresses. How come?
A number of people in the UK have two or more ISP's: with the advent of free internet providers, the country is knee-deep in disks. So what happens if a person who customarily files here as (for example) a customer of virginnet loads a new disk and files messages through freeserveuk under a different identity? Does your equipment see through his disguise and understand that it's the same person or does it, as I suspect treat both identities as separate individuals? And if this can be done using two identities, a particularly computer-literate person might add a third identity. So it might possibly be that "merry christmas" and "an observer" are the same individual who is, shall we say, someone whose name is fairly well-known here.
Freedom of Expression is very nice but what Miss L and her friend seem to mean by that is that it's ok if you agree with them. If you don't then you're negative and destructive. Perhaps they wish that proper research was a fairyland where all is sweetness and light. Sadly it's not like that. The provenance of the Diary for example rests almost entirely on the word of one person. If you believe her as our two friends obviously do, then all is well, If you don't, no matter how delicately you put it you are going to hurt someone. If I say something that I believe is Positive and Constructive insofar as it adds to the case for the Diary being fraudulent then someone else is going to see it as Negative etc.Regretfully Miss L and her friend seem to inhabit a world in which belief in what someone says is more important than proof.
"But criticism of the diary is inevitably criticism of Harrison"
Which is arrant nonsense. Melvin can of course defend himself adequately against such stupidity but I shall say that my criticism of the diary has been on points where I have a great deal of expertise: genealogy and knowledge of evidence. My criticisms therefore have been on the "research" done. Skinner has taken responsibilty for this research, not Mrs. Harrison. It should be Skinner defending his work not his friends. I am sure that he is honourable and has integrity. I also believe as you will see if you re-read those June posts and the many preceeding them, that he has made mistakes and misjudgements.
And lastly: Miss Lay's letter was foolish and contained nothing of any moment apart from her defense of her friend. I would suggest that if she wishes only to see bright, happy people and listen to positive and life-enhancing conversation she should change her book speciality to the works of Enid Blyton. Even there though, she might have some problems as to the racist attitude of Noddy and Big Ears.
Peter. |
Author: spryder
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 11:55 am | | Peter asked,
Quote:Stephen: some time ago when Karoline and I were getting posts on these boards that were pretty vile I e-mailed you to ask about the true identity of one particular poster. I heard nothing from you. I now see that someone using the pseudonym "An Observer" is able to get from you very quickly information on peoples addresses. How come?
Nothing I do on these boards, it seems, can escape controversy these days. :)
First, I suppose I should clarify "Observer's" statement, which slightly skews the background information I provided upon her request. She had asked me to compare the IP address of Merry Christmas against that of previous posts made by Paul Begg. I complied for the sole reason that I happened to be working on recovering the old Victim's board at the time and found it convenient to do so. Peter is correct, ordinarily I do not go out of my way to do such checks, since its a bit of an involved process tracking down everyone's ip's, and, frankly, I don't think its of much importance to begin with.
Regardless, I complied with the request, and stated that the ips were different in that one was numerical and the other alphanumerical. This does not mean that the ip's are different (ip's can be reported in either form, for example, www.casebook.org and www.casebook.org are the same address) -- its the equivalent of the same word being reported in two different languages. I explained that I could not tell one way or the other with the limited information I had. Observer, however, obviously heard only what she wanted to hear (that the two ip's reported were different) and ran with it, completely out of context.
(I was also asked to compare the posts of certain others on this board, which I did, finding that three ips were similar enough to warrant suspicion that they originated from the same computer. Again, this is not conclusive data, just an observation of similarity.)
I regret that Observer misrepresented the information I provided, and I regret that certain posters feel slighted that I did not provide the same courtesy to them in the past. My doing so was motivated by convenience, not favoritism. |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 01:30 pm | | Hi Stephen,
I know you have to respect Observer's identity, but as you have told us all her gender, could you at least confirm to the assembled multitudes that I am not Observer. The last thing I want is for anyone to harbour false suspicions about me again.
I know you have far better things to do than this but I would be eternally grateful for this one small favour.
Love,
Caz |
Author: spryder
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 01:40 pm | | | Of course, Caz, I didn't mean to throw suspicion your way. I hereby confirm to the assembled multitudes that Caz is not Observer. |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 01:46 pm | | Cheers mate.
Merry Christmas!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scriblerius
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 04:38 pm | | | I believe I read that Melvin Harris doesn't have internet access and gives his items to a friend to post. This would explain why he shares an address. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 07:02 pm | | CAST OFF FOOLING
'Merry C' now feels that I have insulted his intelligence and his reasoning capacity. Not at all. I have only his postings to guide me and I found them lacking in logic, and short on both facts and wisdom. He endorsed Daniel's illogical attempt to justify the refusal to date the offensive items that I am supposed to have penned. Anyone who approves of an illogical position demonstrates that he must be short on logic. If I mention this, then I am simply recording an observed fact.
And if 'Merry C' really knows the subject he would have corrected Daniel's nonsense about the two books at once. But he did not even mention it until pressed. This is not rational conduct. And C's reply that Daniel "...would simply be wrong." is not a reasonable answer. Why is he wrong? Why is he using this false information to evade responsibility? I am not the only one to conclude that he too is short on facts. But this does not stop him from issuing wild statements. Daniel's great crime, of course, is that he is polluting the wells of knowledge and wasting other people's time.
For the enlightenment of Mr C and others, I term Mrs Harrison "a practiced evader" because I have attempted more than once to get straight answers from her about several of her published statements and several of her glaring omissions. She has never answered any of those questions. I will enlarge on her conduct, WITH PROOFS, when I have time to review her latest paperback. |
Author: Merry Christmas
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 07:53 am | | Lay's letter was prompted by 'Peter Birchwood's slurs on Keith Skinner's integrity' and exclusively condemned that kind of derogatory personal comment, which Lay considered negative and destructive. She appealed for positive and constructive criticism and within the context of her letter she clearly did not mean anything as ridiculous as 'let's only say nice things about theories, not point out how specious they may be.' Birchwood took Lay's words out of context, reinterpreted them to give them his own meaning, then criticised her over something which she'd never said. Perhaps Birchwood would like to reply to what Lay actually wrote.
As Harris seems utterly unable to understand what it means to treat the opinions of others with professional respect there seems little point in pursuing this topic or hoping for changes from him in the New Year. But others will understand and hopefully act accordingly.
To simply say that Daniel was wrong is a totally reasonable answer. He has said something which has been easily refuted. People now have the facts and they are able to form their own conclusions. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, Daniel was simply mistaken and that's the end of it. Pursuing it further and putting a different spin on his words is unneccessary and unwarranted. As for Harrison, perhaps her silence is sufficiently revealing in itself without any further enlargements on her conduct. As said, there comes a point where rubbing someone's face in the dirt is simply malicious. But, alas, I guess it's going to happen. |
Author: anon
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 08:12 am | | And that's as near to a climbdown as you'll get from Paul Begg - and he did it under a pseudonym!
Note that there are still no apologies forthcoming. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 11:55 am | | I've just taken a couple of hours to go through the "Cloak and Dagger Board" wherein appeared most of the stuff involving Skinner and me and I am happy to say that at no point did I obsessively harangue Shirley Harrison. In fact virtually my only reference to her was: "And of course Shirley Harrison who despite getting a number of unpleasant asides from the guest speaker kept her ladylike cool and was a fountain of information. (12/4/99PB)"
Now I have been asked to reply directly to the points raised in Misslays letter which I now do.
What the good lady actually SAID was: "I would like to see an end to the negative and destructive attacks - let's have positive and constructive for a change..." If I were to take this literally, which is of course what her friend wants me to do, then I would have to ask what sort of form "positive and constructive" ATTACKS might take. By assuming that she actually means criticism then I'm already bending her words (she does after all pride herself on her forthrightness.) She obviously doesn't understand the limits of p/c criticism: is it all "iron fist in velvet glove?" Can you actually tell someone that their heartfelt beliefs are completely wrong even in the nicest way without hurting them?
But when she finds my "slurs on...Skinners integrity totally unacceptable and intolerable."
Even Skinner said: "Finally Peter - just so I have it absolutely clear in my mind - is your criticism (which I appreciate is offered constructively) to do with my introducing into the interview, documentary evidence which, prima facie, conflicts with Mike's claims, or your perception of the way I did it, or both?
(Keith Skinner 3/6/99)"
In fact the first mention of Skinners honesty was by Paul Begg: "In saying 'It doesn't make sense that Keith gave these papers to Don and Stewart' you were questioning what Keith had said. That was questioning his honesty or his sincerity or whatever you want to call it. (Paul Begg 4/6/99)" to which I replied: "I'm glad that you "have no reason whatever to doubt" Keith's honesty and I'm sure that we all agree with you but it's only you who is suggesting that any of my messages directly attack Keith's honesty(PB 5/6/99)" The reply included these words: " let me quickly re-state that I do not mean to suggest that you are questioning Keith's honesty in any malicious sense or even in any intentional sense. Only that as the result of some confusion Keith's stated reasons for doing what he did were questioned. (Paul Begg 7/6/99)"
So, slurs? Later on there were substantial exchanges between myself and Skinner which should have taken place privately but which Skinner insisted be on the boards. They were about factual interpretations of various events and documents and for those with forensic tastes, I suggest you look directly at them: they're too involved to summarise here.They culminated with some rather unpleasant words involving a possible book on Maybrick by myself. If anyone is interested, please check this out. Would I call these words "slurs" against me? No, just silliness, and I submit that it's just as silly to accuse me of doing this to Skinner. I will close with a last clip from the past; part of a message from me to Paul Begg: "what I have actually done is to suggest that the theatricality of his announcement etc. gave a misleading impression and that his friendship with Ann means that he can no longer be objective about her. If you think that that is questioning his honesty rather than his judgement then I submit that that is your impression, not mine. (PB 11/6/99)
Exeunt omnes singing "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice." |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 04:01 am | | I guess it's impossible to discuss such matters here, because immediately one does the board becomes swamped with those bizarre one-liners from pseudonymous people venting spleen, and CAPITALISED attacks that seem designed to do nothing but undermine the case they try to present.
I think Melvin is one of the most able, disciplined and rigorous researchers you have here. I think he's been unfairly maligned, and I think that A-Z entry about him is as near libellous as makes no difference. If it was me, I'd sue.
But I think he in part permits such nastiness by his own demeanour. He does pepper his otherwise impeccable work with unnecessary personal comments, which he seems to believe help to strengthen his case, but which in truth undermine it.
Let me give an example -
If someone has done bad research and probably falsified documents, and I say 'A. has done very bad research and the documents he quotes differ from the originals' then A. is really put on the spot. What can he say in answer?
But if I say 'A. is a fantasist who has done typically sloppy research, and the documents he produces are obviously tampered with' then I give A. the chance to avoid answering my very good points by complaining of being 'unfairly attacked'. I have not only been unethically personal, I have undercut my own position, weakened my own argument. And it becomes increasingly difficult for those who supprt my work, to actually say so in public.
Melvin, with real good will, I wish you could bring yourself to see this, because, in common with most thinking people here, I actually agree with almost every point you make.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 07:41 pm | | THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM
Karoline's points are pertinent and in essence I agree with her, but we are not dealing with an exchange of views governed by the rules of civilised debate. The abuse of documentation; the manufacture of 'evidence'; the avoidance of apologies, are all realities. But I fail to find a single word of stricture or dissent from those who have been too closely involved with the Diary advocates. Paul Begg, for example has even written a foreword to Feldman's book, but has never, of his own volition, pointed out any of the absurdities found in that book. And the same goes for Mrs Harrison's writings. Begg never warns their readers about their shortcomings. This type of conduct I find reprehensible. You cannot pose as an objective historian or commentator while permitting the truth to be abused. And the honest observer recognises that, once in print, any distorted history gains its own momentum. Publishers rarely make amends. Even when they do, it can take years to get corrections made.
And this is the crux of the matter in this recent outburst from Paul Daniel. There we had a dishonest attack, with sweeping slurs, backed by an illogical refusal to even DATE the pieces that Daniel claims to have read. This was done by a man who knew perfectly well that his words would circulate for many months before Birchwood, Chisholm and myself could gain any redress. To make matters worse, since publication, it now appears that Daniel has exonerated Chisholm; that Birchwood has shown that his single reference to Mrs Harrison was polite and unexceptional; and in my case, even 'Merry Christmas' concedes that Daniel's sneer about the famous 'two books' was wrong and indefensible. 'Merry C' further agrees that the inclusion of Chisholm was reprehensible. Despite this Daniel remains silent. No public withdrawal. No apologies. No explanation for his unwarranted behaviour. No offer to redress the matter. A grossly irresponsible stance by all civilised standards.
My emphasis on redress has nothing to do with pride or ego but everything to do with keeping the records straight. Uncorrected errors, inventions, and distortions can well be taken as truth and repeated by the unwary. There are countless examples of this from a vast range of studies. And the problem is particularly rife in Ripperology. Take Paul Harrison, as just ONE example. In 1959 McCormick used the bogus Klosowski material found in Adam's introduction to the Chapman trial. He then enlarged on it. In 1991 Mr Harrison then used this misleading stuff in his book and treated it as authentic. (He was not the only one). So for over thirty years one suspect was landed with a fake history. A history that began with the creation of the fake 'Dutton' claims.
Then to this nonsense Mr Harrison added his own share. In dealing with D'Onston he included six completely invented claims on just one page! And those claims were later repeated by one contributor to the Internet. These are just a few of his distortions, but they demonstrate beyond dispute that fast and complete redress is always of prime importance. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 08:41 pm | | THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM cont'd...
Next, it should be noted that the people who claim to take offence at my strictures are hardly angels, or even examples of fine conduct. 'Merry C' has invoked the names of Begg and Wilson as if they are upright truth-seekers. What a choice! Wilson is known as an incredibly gullible chap whose writings are riddled with inaccuracies. And inexcusable inaccuracies at that, because they are dressed up as fully-researched history. His "Enigmas and Mysteries", for example, is stuffed with accounts of events that never happened. But these accounts are accompanied by statements like: "The 'Vanishing Army' ceased to be a matter of importance to the Chinese generals...Today they are regarded as mysterious casualties of the war." and "The Lang mystery caused a local sensation, and was widely reported in the newspapers." and "The disappearance of the regiment was duly reported to the British Government by the Commander-In-Chief of the Allied Expeditionary force in Gallipoli.", etc., etc. But never once does he produce ANY newspaper or documentary confirmation of these outlandish yarns.
This practice of using invented yarns is carried over into his Ripper writings. In 1961 he was telling us, of Chapman that: - "...two brass rings and some coppers were laid at her feet." And the leather apron near her was possibly intended to mislead the police! Ten years later in his "Casebook of Murder" he was still yarning away about the brass rings and coins. While of Kelly he said, the Ripper "...discovered the three-month-old foetus of a child in her womb." By 1992 he had reached the point where, in addition to citing the rings and coins, he revived the idea about the leather apron being a possible attempt to mislead the police! And this time he asserted that Kelly's heart "...had been placed on the pillow." While "the post mortem report" was now invoked thus: "What was noted in the report is that Mary Kelly was three months pregnant." Now these are the words of a charlatan. He is pretending to be drawing on the post-mortem documents of 1888. But he hasn't even read those crucial documents. Their texts refute the rubbish he has put in print. As for that leather apron, it was Richardson's and fully accounted for in September 1888.
Then consider his attitude towards fellow-writers. I am still waiting for his retraction of the false statements he made about me in the 'Mammoth Book'; his inaction reflects badly on his principles. Then I note that he avoids mention of other writers' works when they threaten his illusions. While his preface to his 1971 book says: "It will be observed that my references to certain other writers on murder- particularly Edmund Pearson, William Roughead and William Bolitho- are hardly complimentary." Just so. Thus he can hardly complain if the truth about his work is spelled out in a forthright and ACCURATE manner.
In Begg's case it is no secret that I deplore his time-wasting actions. But I have never saddled him with views or actions that were concocted, or were based on mere hearsay. By contrast, I find evidence that he is partisan, where he should be objective; inaccurate, where he should be spot-on; and not above the occasional invention. It is not worth detailing all his many transgressions in full, but you can find samples of them all, in handy form, in the part-magazine "Who Was Jack the Ripper?" (Murder Casebook).
On page 37 of that magazine you will find a misleading and inaccurate dismissal of the sodomy claims, with his assertion that this "...was not supported by the medical evidence." What medical evidence? What we have is very limited, but on the question of sodomy the written reports that survive are NEUTRAL. Indeed the reports on Kelly make no mention of ANY type of sexual activity, while Dr Brown's report on Eddowes, while speaking of no traces of recent connection, makes no mention of an anal probe. In any case, any competent investigator should recognise that sexual rituals will vary in degrees, even if they are staged along similar patterns with predetermined sequences. An act of penetration alone, without orgasm, can count as a symbolic exercise of power. Withdrawal; delayed gratification; Onanism proper; all these things can be present at one time and absent at another. So there is no excuse for Begg's brash, dogmatic dismissal.
On the same page is the claim that D'Onston "...became a devout Christian, and, after writing many religious tracts, vanished from the pages of history." Now that claim of 1991 was in direct conflict with the D'Onston bibliography published by me, and as such would be a reflection on my thoroughness, if it were true. But it is untrue and counts as sheer invention. Why the need for invention? If Begg is reckless enough to challenge this, then all he has to do is list the "many religious tracts" known to him, when he wrote those words.
On page 6 he claims "One common belief can be refuted however: the Ripper did not kill his victims from behind whilst standing up." Now this is a completely partisan statement, out of place in an historical survey. What Begg then presents is simply HIS way of interpreting some of the scanty data that exists. Others take the opposite view and a non-partisan approach would have taken account of this; stated both views neutrally, and left it at that. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 09:08 pm | | THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM cont'd...
If Mr Daniel and 'Merry C' wish to rethink and adopt an impartial and analytical approach to the Diary Internet postings, I suggest they start by adding up the number of times I have posted, then compare that with the number of postings made by Begg. Next, let them look at the nature and QUALITY of those postings. Because, in the end, it is the quality that counts. I am primarily a writer of technical reports. As such I have always been concerned with the presentation of facts. And my postings are jam-packed with facts. In them you will find material that was presented nowhere else. By contrast you will not find a single fact in the whole of Begg's postings that throws any light on any aspect of the Diary hoax. But you will find many time-wasting diversions and false claims.
One brief example will show this well. On Aug 2 1998 Begg replied to G.R. Slade. Slade had challenged Begg's claim that 'Maybrick liked to be called Sir Jim', when Begg wrote that he was simply echoing the nonsense voiced often by Feldman. But did Begg admit that his claim was wrong? Not a bit of it! His reply reads "On the contrary there is evidence that Maybrick was called Sir James". This was not an honest reply. His answer evades the challenge; it misstates the facts, and looks more like an attempt to save face than anything else. An honest answer from Begg should have read along these lines: "I accept that the sole piece of evidence we have does no more than show that the nickname 'Sir James' was used once only by an irate Nurse Yapp when castigating a child. I accept that there is no known support for the idea that Maybrick ever heard that nickname used and certainly no support whatsoever for the idea that he liked to be called 'Sir James'. And I accept that such mock titles were often used by servants and had been so used for centuries."
On August 8 1998 Begg admitted this: - "I guess I do come across as an apologist for the 'Diary', but I have been very close to it for several years, either directly or second-hand."
And that is the problem we are facing. Objectivity has been sacrificed in order not to offend. Personal loyalties or sympathies have counted for more than forthright, independent stands. And perhaps there is even an element of guilt involved, because if you ever want to see examples of bungled research, of the mangling of truths, and of the sleep of reason, then just look at the works justifying the Diary hoax. |
|
|
|
|
