|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 04 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert:
Archive through 04 December 2002
Author: David Radka
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 02:00 pm |        | For those who wish to know this, the origin of "up goes the sponge" is the crucifiction of Christ. At a late point in Christ's suffering, when death was at hand, a witness put a sponge dipped in vinegar at the end of a stick and raised it up to his lips.
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 02:49 pm | | Hi, Brenda:
According to the latest chart for nonfiction bestsellers in Publishers' Weekly for the week of December 2, Cornwell's book is no. 2 on the list, having been no. 1 the week before and only two weeks on the chart. It was only displaced because of the book by Bob Woodward, Bush's at War, fresh out this week went straight to no. 1, but is outselling former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani's autobiography book on leadership as well as late rocker Kurt Cobain's journals and a book on Middle America by newsman Tom Brokaw:
1 Bush at War. Bob Woodward. Simon & Schuster, $28.
2 Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper—-Case Closed. Patricia Cornwell. Putnam, $27.95.
3 Leadership. Rudolph W. Giuliani. Miramax, $25.95.
4 Journals. Kurt Cobain. Riverhead: Putnam, $29.95.
5 A Long Way from Home: Growing Up in the American Heartland. Tom Brokaw. Random House, $24.95.
Publishers Weekly's bestseller lists are compiled from data received from independent and chain bookstores.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 04:22 pm | | Dan
Play with the stats any way you like, but the mtDNA "matched" (I know you don't like that word) with mtDNA taken from the cuffs and collar of one of Sickert's overalls.
Now that's a pretty good feat, isn't it?
The cartoons in themselves are 'proof' that Sickert took an interest in the case.
I'm not really that bothered about it, but already we see the cynics coming back with phrases such as " ...the hoaxer who wrote the letter".
Sorry to pick on you Chris, I only do it because I know you're man enough to take it, but no one has proven the letter was a hoax. As it happens it may well be, but your comment precludes the possibility, ney probability that Sickert wrote the letter.
I agree with PC that Sickert wrote some of the letters. I don't think he was Jack the Ripper.
As for 'Up goes the sponge', if you have PC's book she makes mention of it there.
Regards etc
Peter |
Author: Vicki
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 05:50 pm | | Chris and David,
Thank you for the "up goes the sponge" background.
Brenda,
I do have another hypothesis about the meaning of the letter as related to the photo of Sickert.
The picture of Sickert shows his head shaved, and he is sitting on a chair.
The sponge in the Ripper letter could be a reference to the electric chair, which was first used on August 6, 1890 on Robert Kemmler. The head is shaved and a wet sponge is put into the helmet for the execution.
Other things happen, like the eyes pop out. See the reference below. The man in the November 12, 1888, Ripper letter has bulging eyes. The use of the electric chair was proposed in New York in January, 1888. By July of that year, Harold Brown was experimenting electrocuting animals. It's possible that the Ripper may have been up on the newest forms of execution.
The eyes and what can happened when electrocuted.
"...the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methodsdescript.html#electrocution
On P. 251 of Jack the Ripper Letters from Hell, there is another correspondence also received on November 12, 1888, London N., saying Jack the Ripper will be leaving for New York from Liverpool, signed " "^^" Yours truly M. Baynard."
Other links:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics4/electric/6.htm
http://www.albany.edu/~brandon/sparky.html |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 06:15 pm | | Peter,
"Now that's a pretty good feat, isn't it?"
No, it's nothing. No matter how many times it's explained to you, you just don't get it.
Testing mDNA cannot "match" anything, it can only rule out or not rule out, and only so far as you can be sure that the mDNA came from specific individuals.
Not ruling out Sickert (while at the same time not ruling out tens of thousands of other people of similar ethnic backgrounds) to one of five sets of mDNA on a ripper letter that didn't show up until the late 20th century is abso-freaking-lutely nothing. One of tens of thousands of people times 5 sets of DNA means there are at a bare minimum 50,000 "matches" to one of the five mDNA types detected on the letter out there. That's not even including the mDNA of other people who touched the letter that had disappeared over the years.
You might as well be saying that someone who touched the letter was a non-asian, non-black, non-Native American male who had type A blood. Big deal. You can't pick a European man who happens to have type A blood and say that he wrote that letter.
But then I'm sure Cornwell is doing well selling her theory to people who have no understanding of basic concepts in biology or math.
Dan |
Author: Ky
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 11:54 pm | | Is there any possibility that Sickert himself handled the letters while doing 'research' for his art?
Ky |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 02:10 am | | Ky,
No.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 09:54 am | | For those in the states, NPR's show "The Connection" will feature an interview with Patricia Cornwell tomorrow at 11am Eastern (but check your local listings to be sure, various NPR stations switch their shows around). The producer tells me it will provide both sides of the story in an equitable manner, which would certainly be refreshing if true.
Several Ripper folk will be a part of the show, so it should be worth a listen.
- Stephen |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 10:17 am | | Thanks for the heads up, Stephen. Did the producers tell you who will be appearing with Pat Cornwell?
The Connection I'm not familiar with the show, but I believe this is their website.
I look forward to listening tomorrow. Although I deplore her methods, I've come to agree with those who welcome the interest/publicity Ms. Cornwell has brought to the subject.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 11:07 am | | Thank you for the information, Stephen. I am planning to tape the show tomorrow for a later listen and report in Ripper Notes, but if any Casebook posters happen to tape it as well, I'd appreciate it if you could contact me through my e-mail so I could get a copy from you, should my own plans fall through.
On a lighter note, check out the Daily Bleat at www.lileks.com today for a cute JtR reference.
CMD |
Author: spaceyram
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 11:28 am | | David Radka,
What a great idea, another movie. I can see it
now.Back in 1888, Mr McCormick could play James
Maybrick, Mr. Knight could play Doctor Gull,
and of course you could play the ripper. Of course
you would be a natural, as you have displayed quite a dislike of women.
How about we have Howie (Brown) as director and
our Stewart Evans as Producer. Now all we need is
a sponser.
No problem, Ms.Patricia Cornwell, fits the bill,
so to speak. Only one problem, you have to take
direction from P.C., a woman. But after all ,since
her money will fund the project, then It must be
expected that this would be her QUEENLY privilege.
I would even throw in a special actress to play
Mary Jane Kelly, me!! That way you can really get
into the role and do a number on me,payback time.
Of course we WILL only be actingt, won't we??spaceyram. |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 12:50 pm | | Hi David -
Well, I'll be participating in the show. The producer is also approaching other UK based authors, but I've not been told which, if any, have agreed to attend. |
Author: Garen Ewing
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:59 pm | | I've just finished Patricia Cornwell's book. Overall I did enjoy the ride, and kept expecting - after all the claims she's made - *the* chapter that nailed Sickert for good.
Where was it!?
The book ended with a bit of a whimper. I looked through the last few pages to find this missing chapter, but to no avail, alas.
The book was entertaining, as I said, but was nowhere near convincing, for me. Very threadbare on 'evidence'. I'm glad I read it though.
Cheers all,
Garen. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 02:30 pm | | Thank you Peter Wood for the best compliment that I have had all year, apart from those from my family! I enjoyed meeting you too! Best wishes in the festive season.
Maria Birchwood. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 06:37 pm | | | Hi Peter,While on the subject it was a pleasure meeting with you and your wife.That was a great piece of research on your part locating D'Onston on the 1901 census.Suffice to state that it was a very important find for various reasons. |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 06:41 pm | | | Just received word that the NPR show has been cancelled... |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 06:54 pm | | Stephen,
I'm sorry to hear that. Did they tell you why?
Dave |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 06:58 pm | | | I'm told they left several messages explaining why it was cancelled on my hotel message machine, but I won't be back to check it until late tonight. Will let you know. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 07:25 pm | | From Stephen:
Apparently Cornwell called NPR and refused to be on the show if there were to be other guests who actually knew something about the case. Rather than bowing to her majesty's demands, NPR cancelled the show.
Hats off to NPR for their stance and jeers to Cornball who is apparently too insecure in her theory to debate it with knowledgeable guests. Apparently she hasn't liked it very much when she has had to. Always better to stick with the ignorant unlearned puff pieces. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 07:26 pm | | Cancelled, eh? I'd be interested in knowing why, myself. A pity, since a calm, reasoned broadcast on this subject is desperately needed.
On another matter - in connection with several articles scheduled for the January issue of Ripper Notes, I am collecting a few of Ms Cornwell's more outre comments concerning Ripperology and its adherents. If you remember or have archived such, I would be grateful if you would send them along. Please, no "she said," or "I heard that. . ." - anything you have to send must be fully sourced with location and context (and date of utterance, if possible). All contributors will be appropriately thanked in the magazine.
I am hoping to get the issue in the mails before Christmas, so please send along what you have post-haste.
Many thanks,
CMD |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 07:39 pm | | Thanks for that, Ally. I wondered if that was the reason. I'm glad the producers of "The Connection" didn't give her an open platform. It's too bad they didn't carry on, though, with the other guests they had lined up. I know Pat Cornwall would be the main draw for many listeners, but I think an hour long roundtable discussion with some of the others would have been much better, and there are other books out there which need promoting.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 07:56 pm | | | Just in case any of you folks are interested,-----Patricia Cornwell is guest on "Desert Island Discs", B.B.C.radio 4 this coming Sunday 11:15am. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 12:48 am | | | If Patricia Cornwell has indeed cancelled a show because of the reason given then she has sealed her own fate in this matter. |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:07 am | | Hi all,
I saw, earlier this evening, that Cornwell will be doing a Learning Channel thingie on Monday next at 10 PM US Eastern Time....it's advertised as "Ripper Murders: Case Closed".
And, Ivor, she sealed her fate when she said she KNEW, she was POSITIVE, she was 100% CERTAIN...all pretty stupid things to say in ANY instance, but most assuredly in this one! ALSO, in the 9 December PEOPLE magazine piece on her, she says she doesn't like being among the "bad guys" and is ready to return to Scarpetta, so she can be with the "good guys" again. May it be ever so!!!
I STILL think it's a damned fast circumstance that she met Mr Greve in May 2001, and a year and a half later she has a BIG book on the shelf....a book that was supposedly well researched, about a subject she has claimed she knew nothing of before the meeting at the Yard. Lessee now, that means if I want to accuse Hogarth of....say..the Green River killings.....all I have to do is see some of his works, spend six million dollars, double space a short thesis to get a long book out of it, get it to a publisher, and schedule a lot of book signings...all within 18 months... RIGHT!!
Consider me cynical!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 08:06 am | | Hi, All:
I had an e-mail from my friend Geoff Andrews in England who heard a radio broadcast with Patricia Cornwell along with someone (he didn't get the name) who seemed to know about the subject.
The following are his impressions of her:
"The woman, to me, was far too protective of her ideas and defensive by trying to domineer the conversation for my liking and I tended to feel that there was not so much substance in the case as there was interest in selling the book."
Geoff has not read Ms. Cornwell's book but I find it interesting that a disinterested observer would get this impression of her.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:12 am | | Ally and Stephen -
Thanks for the info on Cornwell in regard to 'The Connection," a piece of news which I shall file away in my notes.
Of course this is ridiculous. If she cancels an appearance because she doesn't want to argue with other Ripperologists, then there simply is no reason to take her seriously any longer. Rather than a serious researcher such as Evans, Skinner, Begg, Fido, et al, she has placed herself squarely in the Wallace camp. She has, in effect, folded her arms and, like a spoilt child, said I don't need to say anything more. I'm right and you cannot change my mind. And yes, kudos to NPR for writing off the show rather than go ahead with a lopsided programme.
Thanks for the Learning Channel heads-up, Judy; I'll be taping that on Monday to see what will be said, and will report on it for RN.
CMD |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:50 am | | All:
Apparently Ms. Cornwell was on The Don Imus Show this morning. I missed her segment, but they were glowing about her book afterwards. A former Reagan court appointee who was on the show had read the Vanity Fair excerpt and thought it "well-written." Regarding her research, he said, "I give her an A++." Everyone in the studio agreed with his point of view. In light of this, I feel stronger than ever that NPR should have continued their show without Pat Cornwell. As far as I know, all the criticism of her book comes from print and electronic media; in radio and television (where I think the majority of people get their information), she is unchallenged.
I believe Ms. Cornwell will be speaking at Chicago Public Library at 400 South State Street this afternoon (I've forgotten what time). There will be a question and answer period after her talk.
Dave |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:00 am | | Hi all,
This is quite hilarious. Cornwell allegedly cancels an appearance on a radio talk show to avoid confrontation with "Ripperologists" and then others chime in that this is her doom or that she no longer should be taken seriously.
My impression is that the people who have made such remarks never took Cornwell seriously to start with - and make no mistake her cancellation of an appearance on NPR will have no effect on her reputation or sales of her book.
I think there are serious failings in Cornwell's work. But I don't fault her for not appearing on NPR with people who post on a message board that ridicules her name, her personal life, and the repeated allegation posted on these boards that she is a man-hating, lying, sociopath.
Unfortunately and unfairly public perception rules the day and there is an element of guilt by association at work here - she has made allegations that Ripperologists are weird, neurotic people who associate with unsavory elements.
Unfortunately, a few nitwits on these boards have given her ammunition to support her charges with their highly emotional, erratic, ad hominem attacks against her.
Some of the more esteemed and popular authorities on the case choose not to contribute to these boards for those precise reasons. We are lucky to have the few experts on the case that continue to post and overlook that outrageous and immature conduct that offends so many serious students of the case.
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:11 am | | Rich,
Or she may not have wanted to appear because her research won't hold up under questioning.
You wrote: "Unfortunately, a few nitwits on these boards. . ." Isn't this exactly the kind of language you disdain?
I believe you are over-emphasizing the negative personal comments Pat Cornwall has received on this board. I do agree with you that they are unnecessary.
Dave |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:44 am | | All,
It's sad, but hardly suprising that PC doesn't want to defend her work against a knowledgeable expert. It's pretty clear that she's more interested in book sales than truth. It's not new in the world of Ripperology, but it's sad that the book that seems to be recieving the most widespread attention is one of the worst yet to be published on the subject. Ah well.
Rich,
"Unfortunately, a few nitwits on these boards have given her ammunition to support her charges with their highly emotional, erratic, ad hominem attacks against her."
As always, it's an ironic joy to watch you complain about the behavior of others.
The only one going on about it is you Rich. There is nothing to support her either her theory or her petty accusations re: Ripperologists.
Ya see Rich, simply because some people are unwilling to toady up to PC, doesn't provide any "ammunition" to claim that Ripperologists are "wierd" or "neurotic" as you allege. The public will think we're wierd in any case. Cope or leave. :-)
Most of the negative comments I have seen on this board of late have been from you either repeating things that you claim others are saying, or abuse you are throwing their way.
But... that having been said, don't be too hard on yourself Rich. I don't think your "outrageous and immature conduct" offends too many students of the case, but if it bothers you, you could try growing up and holding yourself to the standard of behavior you want to hold others to.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Graham Jay
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 11:46 am | | | On the positive side, at least her book is only number 35 on the Waterstones chart. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 12:34 pm | | Hi David & John,
Perhaps my use of the word "nitwits" was unfortunate. I do make an important distinction in that I did not directly call anyone a nitwit - I was ridiculing behavior indicating that those who engage personal ad hominem attacks and name calling are themselves "nitwits." The difference on the boards is people directly calling Ms. Cornwell a "cornball."
So, John, yes, I think someone who calls an author they don't like a "cornball" is acting like a nitwit.
As to the suggestion that I am inventing or exaggerating the personal attacks upon Ms. Cornwell, I invite anyone to scroll up and read the Ms. Cornwell referred as "Cornball" or to look over on another thread at Mr. Radka's long psychological profiling of Ms. Cornwell's motivation - a quite, scurrilous, ad hominem, and mysoginistic attack.
These have all been posted in the last week.
So John, I think if you read the boards more thoroughly than you would not dispute what obviously is true. The instances I mention support her case against Ripperologists. . .your remark that there is "nothing" to support her allegations against Ripperologists is patently false.
That her book is commercially successful shouldn't really bother anyone - I don't particularly know why it makes you "sad."
The general public doesn't take this case too seriously (and why should they?). Books with far-fetched "solutions" have always been more popular than scholarly text.
Some of us are afficianados of the case, interested in the facts. However, most of the public sees it as something akin to an Agatha Christie mystery - they want a clever explanation and resolution. Cornwell has provided that.
John, your opening paragraph sums up the emotionalism attached to those upset with Ms. Cornwell. Why is she singled out for such anger and resentment? Why does her success make you sad?
Apparently so sad you don't see the unfair and caustic attacks against her. Indeed, so sad that you attack anyone who simply says the debate should be raised above school yard insults.
There are plenty of authors who have engaged in shoddy work and come up with outrageous theories. Yet because Ms. Cornwell is commercially more successful there seems to be a hysterical reaction to her.
Ms. Cornwell wrote a book. In my opinion, not a very good book. Those of us old enough will remember the Stephen Knight fiasco. It is the same situation repeating itself. History will sort out all the distortions in the end.
There was no need to call Mr. Knight names and then make sinister allegations about his motivations. The same courtesy should be accorded to Ms. Cornwell.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Oh Richard,
Put a sock in it, why don't you? I am tired of hearing you whine.
Considering you hate the behavior of the people here so much why don't you just step off? You have abused the hospitality of these boards long enought. You have posted nothing here in weeks except bitching complaints about the boards and if you bash the boards or the people on it one more time, I'm going to consider you nothing more than a board troll and treat you accordingly. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 12:44 pm | | Oh and one more thing, Rich,
Weren't you the one just a week ago arguing that there is no difference between calling someone a slag and saying they act like a slag? And yet here you are defending yourself when you call me a nitwit. A hypocritcal board troll at that. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Rich,
"Perhaps my use of the word "nitwits" was unfortunate."
There's no perhaps. It was a nice illustration of your hypocricy though.
"I do make an important distinction in that I did not directly call anyone a nitwit - I was ridiculing behavior indicating that those who engage personal ad hominem attacks and name calling are themselves "nitwits.""
That's a pretty weak rationalization for your poor behavior. I've been following this board for quite some time, and I haven't seen any behavior that would classify anyone as a "nitwit" with the possible exception of one clueless individual that thinks they are the standard setter for conversation on the boards.
"As to the suggestion that I am inventing or exaggerating the personal attacks upon Ms. Cornwell, I invite anyone to scroll up and read the Ms. Cornwell referred as "Cornball" or to look over on another thread at Mr. Radka's long psychological profiling of Ms. Cornwell's motivation - a quite, scurrilous, ad hominem, and mysoginistic attack. "
You actually read Radka's posts and take his antics seriously? Wow. I have seen the other posts you refer to, and yes, you're exagerating.
"So John, I think if you read the boards more thoroughly than you would not dispute what obviously is true. The instances I mention support her case against Ripperologists. . .your remark that there is "nothing" to support her allegations against Ripperologists is patently false."
Uh huh. The (cough) incidents don't support anything. Unless of course you are of the frame of mind where:
1) A ripperologist is rude.
2) Rudeness makes one wierd and nuerotic. (This even remotely reasonable, but let's pretend.)
Therefore... All Ripperologists are wierd and nerotic.
It simply doesn't work that way Rich. If it did we could determine that all Ripperologists have no capacitity for logical thought simply by reading your post.
"John, your opening paragraph sums up the emotionalism attached to those upset with Ms. Cornwell. Why is she singled out for such anger and resentment? Why does her success make you sad?"
If you're reading emotion into that paragraph you need to re-read it. I don't have emotion to spare for PC. If you can't understand why it's unfortunate that her book is receiving the attention it is, it's pretty clear that you haven't read it.
IMO, Her book reflects more poorly on Ripperology in general than any number of "Cornball" cracks. Her book is poorly researched, poorly argued, arrogant, and extremely mean spirited. That's not emotion, it's my considered opinion.
"Apparently so sad you don't see the unfair and caustic attacks against her."
I haven't seen any unfair attacks on her. She siezed the moral low ground from the start and she remains there.
"Indeed, so sad that you attack anyone who simply says the debate should be raised above school yard insults."
It's not your place to set standards Rich. If you feel you must set standards, set standards for yourself to uphold. (It would be refreshing. Think about it please.) If that's too much for you, put up your own site and run it to your hearts content. You see, this isn't "Rich's Dignified World o'Jack", it's "Casebook: Jack the Ripper".
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Come on Dan
I didn't claim there was a "match" - that was a word that you chose to highlight.
What Patricia Cornwell has managed to do is show that there is a link between the letters, thus:
"The five samples that have this same 16294-73-263 single donor Openshaw sequence are the front stamp from the Openshaw envelope, an Ellen Sickert envelope, an envelope from a Walter Sickert letter; a stamp from a Walter Sickert envelope; and a Ripper envelope ..."
I also believe PC says she has found the same sequence on a pair of Sickert's overalls.
Without knowing Sickert's DNA, Patricia Cornwell has proven that someone with the sequence mentioned above "handled" Sickert items; and someone with the sequence mentioned above "handled" Ripper items.
It's a one in a hundred bet, Dan. The more items she can produce with that sequence on, the better the odds get for her.
Yes it is a possibility that two entirely different people carrying the same sequence handled all those items, but I just happen to be of the opinion that PC has made a good case in that respect - especially taking into account the Guest House signing in book and the doodles on letters.
The truth is out there for all to see, but maybe you don't want to see it?
Regards
One who has "no understanding of basic concepts in biology or math (sic - 'maths'). |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 01:37 pm | | One more small point to make.
I was impressed with the telegram that Patricia Cornwell reproduces in her book that begins "Mr Nobody" and is then crossed out, replaced with Jack the Ripper, taking into account that Sickert's stage name was "Nemo" or "Mr Nobody".
Then I started to read one of her Scarpetta novels last night, the first one - 'Post Mortem' - in fact and the psychopathic killer is referred to several times as ...'Mr Nobody'.
Just thought you'd like to know.
One who has 'no understanding of basic concepts in novel writing and literature'. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 01:59 pm | | Ally,
Let me get this straight: acceptable conduct is to whine constantly about Ms. Cornwell, including personal insults. . .unacceptable conduct is opposing such remarks?
You are quite wrong to suggest the only thing I have written on these boards in recent weeks is about Cornwell and these incidents. Check the facts - I have posted on numerous different threads many times on different issues. This apparently, though, is your main focus.
Secondly, I have never called you a nitwit. This seems to be a point both you and John do not get. I would never call you a nitwit, nor would I insult you or anyone else on these boards with the same personal attacks vented toward Ms. Cornwell.
To be specific, I said that some nitwits on these boards engage in personal attacks. That is quite different from my saying, "Ally is a nitwit."
My comment was intended as a general commentary against those who engage in insults - not a specific insult against anyone. I recognize that is a distinction some do not appreciate.
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:09 pm | | "...look over on another thread at Mr. Radka's long psychological profiling of Ms. Cornwell's motivation - a quite, scurrilous, ad hominem, and mysoginistic attack."
Mr. Dewar,
Please explain specifically the senses in which I am:
1. a misogynist (please learn how to spell this word if you wish to use it effectively).
2. a psychological profiler of Ms Cornwell.
3. a person basing his evaluation of her work on the case on an ad hominem argument, rather than on what she says about the evidence.
The notion that I speak scurrilously of her is purely your own personal opinion, and a jaundiced one at that. She is a public figure, I spoke of her openly.
Basically, all I did was make a few fairly straightforward statements about her book as a piece of rhetoric. I posted this in a public context of many others discussing how she doesn't have an evidentiary basis for her statements and conclusions about Sickert, hence the rhetorical status of her writing and its attendent social meanings and implications. What could be simpler and more equitable than that?
It would seem to have been a rather mundane set of posts of mine. And thus I think we can all see that you are a man who needs to be told exactly where the bear went, in the buckwheat...
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Hi John,
If posters on these boards criticize Ms. Cornwell for her scholarship, her personal life, and her name, why is it not appropriate to critique or comment upon the quality of such criticism?
How can you properly claim that I have no right to comment on appropriate standards while you proceed to comment upon mine?
If you find Ms. Cornwell's conduct rude and arrogant, as you have suggested, and feel it appropriate to cite such conduct as evidence of her lack of quality or depth - why is such a critique limited to her?
Many on these boards have chosen to attack Ms. Cornwell's personal life and name. That, of course, is their right. But such characters should not feel immune from criticism themselves.
What you seem to be suggesting, John, is that anyone here should say anything they want about Ms. Cornwell because she is disliked - and they should not be criticized for whatever they say.
To harken back to the schoolyard, it reminds me of that old phrase about folks being able to dish it out and unable to take it.
You will note that I have never quarreled with anyone on the boards who has criticised her work. I have simply quarreled with those who choose to criticise her personally.
So, it seems to me, what is being stated by you and Ally, is that anyone has the right to say anything about Cornwell they wish - but those same people should not be criticized for what they say.
My position is very clear and different from the two of you. I think criticism of Ms. Cornwell's work is entirely justified. I think criticism of her personal life, lifestyle, personality are childish and inappropriate.
John, by criticizing Cornwell you are setting standards - and that is wholly appropriate. If she says or writes stupid things, it is entirely acceptable that she be called to account for it. The same is true of those who say or write stupid things about Ms. Cornwell.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
