|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 31 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Pub Talk: Whine and Cheese Party:
Archive through 31 January 2003
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 02:38 pm |        | Hi Scotty (Nelson),
Thank you a thousand times my dear. It’s great to know I have one brave and observant supporter out there. 
Hi Ally,
You misunderstood. By 'demanding' I meant I thought you might want to try writing something a bit more demanding yourself - not start vetting everyone else's efforts!
You said people like to argue and accused me of preaching. To me, the former is putting a point of view across and inviting others to debate its merits, pro or con. That was what I was doing when I asked if it might be a good idea for us all to try harder (including myself) not to engage in any personal insults or attacks. That's hardly preaching. Everyone was free to consider the suggestion and agree or disagree with it.
You also said 'sometimes people need to be told...' To me, telling people what they need to be told is preaching, which makes me wonder if you even know the meaning of the word 'hypocritical'.
If you don't even know the meaning of the insults you use in your offensive posts, I suggest your sesame street days have left you ill-equipped for the cut and thrust of reasoned debate. (Feel free to discuss, agree or disagree.) But if you do know what you are saying when you repeatedly refer to me as a 'slag', you are truly the undisputed queen of personal attacks and hypocrisy on these boards - congratulations.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 04:02 pm | | Hi Caz,
I appreciate you passing the sceptre unworthy though I am of filling your shoes.
And by the by, the rule is: attack the behavior of the person, not the person --which you did in your above post. Guess I am not the only one whose posting methods are (to paraphrase the former Queen) nasty and possibly responsible for driving down the tone and driving away the posters, though at least I manage to abide by the letter of the law. And there you were preaching reasoned, insult free debate not two posts above...but that probably doesn't apply when you are the one steamed, does it?
Hugs and kisses,
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 08:16 pm | | Hi all,
What behavior constitutes being a "slag". . .I am not even sure what the word means (I am 37, does that make me too old to know?) and I would certainly like to avoid being one.
: )
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 08:47 pm | | Rich,
From dictionary.com
slag Pronunciation Key (slg)
n.
1. The vitreous mass left as a residue by the smelting of metallic ore.
Personally, I really wouldn't like to be considered to be the vitreous mass left as a residue by the smelting of metallic ore. It sounds really unpleasant.
B |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:03 pm | | Richard,
In England the word "slag" has two meanings firstly if a female sleeps around she can be termed a slag.The word is also used in criminal terminology to mean a person who is no good. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:45 pm | | Hi Brian and Ivor,
Yikes! Thanks for the definitions!
Rich |
Author: Eric Cannon
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 11:43 pm | | Say everyone----
I'm afraid I came into this thread a bit late. What is the current score in this Alegria vs. Caz match? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 09:51 am | | Hi Ally,
Your argument appears to be that if Caz, the bored housewife, can act like a slag on the Casebook Message Boards, there is absolutely no reason why Ally shouldn’t behave badly here too.
Well, if you want to use your perception of my posting behaviour as an excuse or, heaven forbid, as some kind of model for your own, and if you truly don’t care if it results in ‘driving down the tone and driving away the posters’ as long as they see you sticking to the letter of the law, there’s not a whole lot left to say, is there?
Except have fun, and let’s hope the visitors to the boards appreciate your reasoning on this one.
Hi All,
In my Chambers, I rather like these two 'slag' definitions: 'solid scum' (on melted metal) and 'a slovenly or dissolute woman'.
Where I come from, a slag is a slang term for a woman who will sleep with anything with a pulse. If I really act like that on the boards, I'll ask everyone to form an orderly queue please.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 11:08 am | | Actually, Caz, I think you have that reversed. You are the one modeling your behaviour on my argument and acting contrary to your own stated opinion of how a poster ought to behave so I can only assume that you are conceding that your position is unsupportable..i.e. if even you can't hold to it, why should anyone else?
So therefore..
Eric, to answer your question, it appears as I've won this round as Caz can't follow the basic rules of behavior of the boards while arguing that we should all set ourselves to even higher standards.
 |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 01:07 pm | | Ivor:
I can't help but picture the late great John Thaw as DI Jack Regan:
"So tell me, where did you stash the tom, you slag?"
Not to mention:
"You, darlin', put some clothes on. And you, Tinkerbell, you're nicked."
Regards
Timstabell |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Hi Timsta,
You triggered old memorys which came rushing back from the days of "The Sweeney" and as you so correctly stated John Thaw was indeed a great actor. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 04:28 pm | | Whatho Timsta,
You will probably remember "tom" had two meanings in The Sweeny.
There was the tom the peterman had blagged and stashed in his drum and Jack would get some tastey faces tooled up to turn it over.
And the toms who hung around in the back streets asking men if they wanted some company. In fact this tom is a professional slag. Ah! Full circle.
I'm scarpering before I'm told to SHUT IT!
Chears, Mark in the white Jag that's about to go over the cliff |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 05:59 pm | | Ivor:
And lest we forget:
"Got any tea in that thermos, George?"
"Coffee, guv."
"Coffee? I hate coffee."
and
"If you don't get your @rse in there double-quick, Haskins is gonna have my plums on a skewer."
and not least:
"Oh no, he's not the boss, he's the guvnor."
Mark:
Actually, I *own* a white Jag. Hopefully it is not going off any cliffs in the near future.
So, Regan and his faces would be going around the peterman's gaff team-handed, then?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 08:30 pm | | Timsta,
CAR GOING OVER A CLIFF. Some young kid of 19 was being chased by police near to where I live 2 weeks ago. After he was seen to jump a red light they decided to stop him but alas he refused to stop. They then gave chase and decided to place a stinger on the road to stop him due to his bad driving. The stinger only hit one tyre and the kid kept on going along a cliff road. Then the car left the road and went over a 200ft high cliff at the Needles.The amazing thing was that when the car hit the soft sandy beach slightly covered by the incoming tide 200ft down the youth was badly injured but not killed!!!! The police could not reach him and due to the fact that he was injured he could not get out of the car and he was drowned by the incoming tide. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 08:57 pm | | Eric,
Ally is the moderator and enforces the rules on this website. She has ruled that Caz is not allowed to make personal attacks on people on this website. After making that ruling, Ally posted on this website that Caz is a slag.
So, I would have to say Ally has won.
: )
Rich |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 09:07 pm | | Dear Richard,
Please find and post the day, time and thread where I said "caz is a slag". If you can't find it then of course, I demand an apology for slandering me. And I would say that slandering falls even higher up on the no-no list than just being nasty, don't you think? Maybe your next crusade could focus on that? Thanks ever so.
And while you're at it maybe you could ask Scott Nelson where I called her that twice? I just caught that one...thanks for the giggle Scott, you brave he-man you!
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 10:47 pm | | Hi Ally,
After, you told Caz she could not make make personal attacks on the Cornwell/Sickert thread 15 November 2002 10:02am you wrote:
Caz,
Apparently simple words aren't enough, I'll try to lower it one more step:
Posters get protection, non-posters don't.
And no, we aren't going to outlaw all insults because this isn't sesame street, we're all adults and sometimes adults like to argue and sometimes people need to be told that they are acting like a great big ole hypocritical slag. As you are so game to give it a go, why don't you just do it instead of constantly preaching about why we ought to do it? Lead by your actions and not your mouth for a change.
I'm sure we'll all follow.
Ally
So, I do apologize. You are correct. You didn't accuse her of being a slag, only acting like one.
I would have one question though, where did you get the notion that kids don't make insults like that and adults do? I find that usually people of limited intellectual capacities resort to name-calling when they cannot make a decent argument - a trait more common among children than adults.
Do your friends still talk like that? Mine gave up that kind of language back in the school yard.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:11 am | | To quote Tony Soprano:
"I feel like just saying that line from the Reverend Rodney King Junior - Can't we all just get along?"
Not to take sides here, but let's let Ally and Caz settle their dispute their own way - we all don't need to get in on the fracas.
B |
Author: Eric Cannon
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:49 am | | Yes, I agree Brian. I was joking when I made my earlier post, but I should have kept silent and just enjoyed my seat in the peanut gallery.
LOL about your sopranos reference... that was one of the funniest lines of the season.
Eric |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 04:08 am | | Hi Ally,
Regarding your question:
‘if even you can't hold to it, why should anyone else?’
Well, whether you are right about my position being ‘unsupportable’; whether you are right about my inability to reach standards of posting behaviour I would set for myself; whether you are right about my talent for ‘hypocritical slag’ impressions; whether it is reasonable to say that calling me a slag is an unacceptable personal attack, while saying I only act like one is a totally acceptable personal attack; none of these issues matter to the Casebook readers.
You know why? Because none come even close to addressing the issue that you, Ally, think it’s ok to swear and be rude and confrontational even though you know it drives down the tone and could drive away readers, who would otherwise benefit from the Casebook, and posters who could contribute to its greatness.
Depending on which of the above issues you choose to address, and which you choose to avoid, readers will judge where your own priorities lie.
See ya later.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:07 am | | Richard,
So I say people act like hypocritical slags and you and everyone else automatically assume I am talking about Caz? Well that is ..telling.
Considering that *you* were the person who I was addressing in previous posts as being the one who once again telling other people how they were so naughty and nasty, why didn't you assume that I was referring to you?
As it happens, I wasn't speaking about either of you. Sometimes a generality is just a generality. If I had been speaking of one of you, trust me it would have been clear which one as I don't need to hide behind generalities when I do.
Caz,
Poor girl. Slag is not a curse word. While I understand that you might be most familiar with the term as it relates to indecent women, in my corner of the woods it means nothing more than a person who is a useless waste product. If I ever do call you slag, you may be assured that it is not about acting like a wanton tease on the boards, I'll use wholly different words for that conversation.
As for the whole driving away the posters, you and Richard are the ones who complain the most about this topic and yet ...here you are. Still.
See you later.
Hugs and Kisses,
Ally |
Author: Ally
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:26 am | | And I've decided to expand on my priorities. I have posted at dozens and dozens of forums. And as newbie Brian and Eric have pointed out, posters don't care if you and I bash at each other, they don't really care whether Mel and Martin bash at each other, they don't even care if the entire boards gangs up on Patricia Cornball..except as it relates to their voyeuristic enjoyment ..all they care about is what happens if someone attacks them if they are not the piss and vinegar sort. Rules and protections are in place, there is a personal attack policy and there are harassment policies for when the personal attack policy cannot be used. Even you and I can access them, so Caz, if you feel attacked or harassed, send an email to JtRCasebook@aol.com. I would be happy to put the harassment policy into effect for you.
Ta-ta,
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 10:32 am | | Ally,
"Posters don't care. . ." How interesting that among your innumerable capacities is the prescience to speak on behalf of ALL those on a message board, whether they have ever communicated with you or not. On that score, I salute you. I wish we all had your ability for telepathy.
It reminds of my habit in the third grade of saying, "People think. . ." or "Everyone says. . ." until a firm but helpful teacher said, "When people use phrases like that what it means is "I think. . ." or "I say". . .but they haven't the confidence to stand alone for their opinion."
I know for a fact, because they have told me, that some respected authors and researchers choose not to post on these boards because the level of discourse drops to the level of calling people "hypocritical slags." That doesn't mean they are prudes, just that they prefer a more informed, interesting, thoughtful debate.
Does one have the right to behave rudely? Certainly. Am I suggesting anyone be banned for expressing their opinions? Obviously not.
All I have said, and I think it makes perfect sense, is that when we choose to lower the level of discourse to school yard insults, that people whose knowledge and information is valuable may choose not to log onto this site - and for that, in my humble opinion, we are all losers.
I make no pretensions to belonging in such company - I am by no means an intellect but that doesn't mean I cannot enjoy their company.
Ally, its kind of like this - in my own house do I have the right to slobber all over myself, insult people like some drunken fool, and leave the place a stinking mess? Of course I do. But what should I expect of the quality of people who want to visit me?
Do I enjoy this website? Very much so. I find many of the posters very intriguing with interesting and provocative ideas. Would I prefer that someone like Patricia Cornwell visit the site so we could benefit from her knowledge and challenge her theories? You bet.
That's not likely to happen as long as people with less talent and ability than her resort, out of either envy or frustration with their own capacity to engage in intellectual debate, in childish name-calling.
Rich
PS - and I disagree with almost everthing Cornwell has written in the case - I just don't condone ad hominem attacks launched by posters on this website. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 10:47 am | | Rich,
"I know for a fact, because they have told me, that some respected authors and researchers choose not to post on these boards because the level of discourse drops to the level of calling people "hypocritical slags." That doesn't mean they are prudes, just that they prefer a more informed, interesting, thoughtful debate."
Buddy, you're not helping.
Let it go.
B |
Author: Ally
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:36 am | | Richard,
I remember very well from my elementary school days when people would say "Well he told me he doesn't like you so there!" Yeah, I am always persuaded by the "he told me" argument.
So let's go back to you drunk and running around your own house you and your guests behaving as you wish. How would you respond to someone showing up and telling your guests how they ought to be conducting themselves?
I look forward to your guidance.
Ally |
Author: Monty
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:39 am | | There is a lot of point missing here.
Is this done on purpose ??
Monty |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:57 am | | Richard,
I am not one of your "repected authors", but I have refrained from posting for a long time, for the reasons you give.
I have enjoyed posting here, but in the last months all I have done is read and wondered "Where have the good threads gone?"
Yours, sadly
Philip |
Author: Ally
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:08 pm | | Tis better to curse the darkness than to light a single candle.
Welcome to the basement,
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 01:23 pm | | Hi Philip,
There is a line from an old movie named "Arthur" which I shall never forget. Sir John Geilgud played a distinguished, refined man who encounters a vulgar, obnoxious New Yorker played by Liza Minelli.
Geilgud says to her, "One would you usually have to be in a bowling alley to meet someone of your stature."
It's a matter of differences in taste and what kind of audience different people enjoy on the boards.
Some enjoy researchers, authors, and historians exchanging opinions and information with we novices.
Others prefer to vent and release their frustrations through personal attacks.
Neither side cares if the other disappears from these boards.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:30 pm | | Rich,
"Some enjoy researchers, authors, and historians exchanging opinions and information with we novices.
Others prefer to vent and release their frustrations through personal attacks.
Neither side cares if the other disappears from these boards. "
I don't really think that's totally fair - I don't think anyone on the boards wants to see the veteran researchers, authors and historians disappear from the boards. In fact, I think that's what draws most of us to them. To think that I can bounce ideas off of Stewart, Paul or Martin is a really bonus - besides the other interesting and friendly folks like Ally, Chris, you, Vila and others that I've met.
I think the goal of both sides here is to build a community of thinkers around this topic - and every community that is filled with strong willed, and strong opiniated people is going to have friction. So why don't we (you, me and anyone who is not Caz or Ally) remove ourselves from this fray, and start arguing something actually useful. Isn't that why we're here?
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 07:03 pm | | Hi Brian,
I don't agree with the first sentence of your first paragraph, but I certainly support everything thereafter.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 08:50 pm | | | Dear Rich.......Who are you or we kiddimg? Some of the longest and protracted 'fights" done on these boards involve the following: Mr. Ivor Edwards,Mr.Fido,Mr.Evans,and Mr.Harris. They,according to you,are the type of folks Casebook should be trying to attract......Apparently,Casebook did. Yeah,I go after Radka,but only because I don't live next door to him. Whats to say that any newcomer researchers would not "stoop" as the aforementioned gentlemen and do battle over similar points as they have...Really,whats the big deal?....Christ,there's enough political correctness "out there" already,lets not bring that sort of thing into here ! Your friend,Howard |
Author: Neale Carter
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 09:15 pm | | As a relative newcomer here I think it is quite easy to make our choices. If badinage of the type between Ally and Caz is distressing then keep scrolling and ignore it. As long as threads are appropriately titled, posters generally stick to the point and the "attack" rules are adhered to, boards such as these are the ultimate in democracy - "yer pays yer money 'n yer takes yer chances".
Personally I enjoy a hearty scholarly discourse spiced with the odd verbal punchup. |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 09:47 pm | | I read with a good deal of amusement the high-minded imprecations of Mr. Dewar above. He is one who has repeatedly kicked me in the crotch on these boards, now he is behaving himself like a hypocritical slag.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:31 pm | | Hi Howard,
I don't have a problem with people having hearty and strong disagreements. I don't even mind so much when there are personal differences expressed over the topic of the case on these boards.
However, with the writers you mentioned, you do not get the childish immature name-calling that is more prevalent today. I cannot imagine any of the writers you mentioned being so intellectually challenged they need to resort to calling each other "slags."
Hi David,
I really don't know what you are talking about - I have seen many posters say quite vicious remarks about you and I have never endorsed them. I disagree with your positions, but I would never resort to calling you some name like you have me.
I may question your logic and command of facts, but I would not call you a "slag" or anything of the like. Civility does not demand agreement.
To all,
I will now drop my participation in this thread. I apologize for taking up so much time and space. I also realize that while many of us wish we could treat each other more politely and respectfully, that a significant portion of this website's population has a lot of frustration they need to let go through ranting.
So I will give up my lonely campaign for civility!
Peace to you all!
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:24 am | | Hi all,
Brian,
a definite yes to your posting!
Richard,
yours is not a lonely campaign for civilty,
To all,
Attacking a theory is something different than attacking a person. David Radka may be arrogant in his attitude, but he has started a discussion. Peter Wood may be a pain in the backside, but he has kept a discussion going on the diary. But that is no reason for attacking them. The list can go on for lines and lines (Ivor Edwards, Thomas Neagle to name but two). BUT they have contributed to this forum AND people like Paul Begg (to name just one) have been drawn here and been free with their thoughts.
When I started posting here I was attacked by a poster named Ed (banned in the mean time). Not knowing how to deal with it, Ally came to my rescue (nice move there).
In the last six months I have seen good threads come to an end, because posters have given up (I include myself). Some time ago the forum was reorganized due to space problems. How come there is space for threads that have nothing to do with our macabre hobby?
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 04:20 am | | Hi Ally,
No, I don't regard 'slag' as a curse word. When I said you think it's ok to swear, I was referring to another of your posts entirely, where you swore at another poster.
I don't know if I should be relieved to hear that you never meant either of your 'hypocritical slag' barbs for me personally, and that you were aiming them vaguely into the ether at no one in particular - I'm too busy choking on my cuppa. Though I can't speak for how everyone else reacted on reading that.
Sure, I act like a wanton tease sometimes, and if that's what you are accusing me of, I can see there are no flies on you. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious though.
What is interesting is your opinion on what every poster here, past and present, cares about or doesn't care about. Have they all posted their opinions on the subject? If not, is it because they don't have an opinion? Or because they don't care enough to express it? Or might there be other reasons why they don't choose to get involved? Are you speaking for them too? Or only for the handful whose views we have already read and understood?
Or would you argue that all those who haven't expressed an opinion either agree with you or don't matter?
Hi All,
'To think that I can bounce ideas off of Stewart, Paul or Martin...'
Ah yes, those were the days, weren't they?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 05:31 am | | Caz,
Yawn.
Sometimes you have to throw a bone so here goes....
Caz, sometimes you act like a hypocritical slag.
There ya go, honey and don't say I never did nothing for ya. You can now be as self-righteous as you want without us having to get into the whole "was I speaking in generalities or was I speaking to you directly".
I'm done now.
Ta-ta |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 10:11 am | | Dear Riiochard Dewar,
Regarding your post waaaaay above, NO WAY will Cornwell ever post on these Boards!! She has called all of us the nastiest names, and refuses to engage in any sort of debate...be it civilised or not. She has made it obvious that she has no intention of speaking with ANY Ripper authority regarding her "solution". While I cannot remember exactly, and in which order, the slurs were, the general point is that she considers ALL of us idiots and she will not debate idiots....or so she says. Never mind that she states unequivocally that Sickert MUST be the Ripper because the Kelly and Eddowes photos were NEVER seen by the public until 1972......that doesn't count the LaCassagne book which came out in 1899, and which contained the very photos that Cornwell contends were never seen (by the way, Stephen is auctioning that very book on eBay right now; proceeds to keep the Casebook running and healthy) ....but that's OK...she is all-knowing, all-seeing and we are all eejits. Glad someone cleared that up for me........
SEE, I'm returning to the thread......sort of.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:00 am | | Hi Judith,
Since you addressed me personally, and it was not in the spirit of this rather contentious thread, I'd like to respond to you directly.
I am very much aware of Cornwell's protestations. I have no idea if she is sincere or simply trying to avoid having her theory confronted by those knowledgeable to the case.
But the people of these boards have certainly given her ammunition.
I don't dispute your critique of Ms. Cornwell's work - in my view it is entirely appropriate. Yet, I would ask that you put yourself in her place for a moment.
Imagine yourself as researching and writing a book on a genre you are not all familiar with - say the Kennedy assassination. You have a belief, you do research, come to a conclusion, and write your opinion.
Now, consider that there is a Kennedy assassination website with all sorts of posters. Some of these posters not only critique your work, but publically proclaim rather vicious, cruel attacks upon your appearance, your personal life. Are you really likely to want to visit such a website and defend yourself?
I think just about any sensible person might come to the conclusion, as you state, that such people are "idiots." The people who insist on using this website to vent their neurotic frustrations have given Cornwell her out.
There is two ways to look at Cornwell's statement of her view of "Ripperologists." She may be sincere and some of the posts on these boards have confirmed her suspicions. Or, perhaps she simply wanted to avoid debate with knowledgeable afficianados of the case and some mentally challenged people fell for her trap and engaged in loutish behavior. (If the latter is the case, then definitely her "idiot" assessment has been confirmed, at least for those who fell for her trap).
Either way, I don't think we can expect someone who is routinely slandered and attacked on these boards, before she has ever posted a word, to want to join the discussion.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:07 am | | Rich,
She slandered and insulted us and all people interested in the case long before we posted a word about her. So no, I can quite imagine she wouldn't want to join the discussion.
Ally |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:15 pm | | Ally,
"slandered and insulted us and all people interested in the case"
Sounds like a certain Mr Radka...notice you never see him and Ms Cornwell together !!!
To give David credit, at least he turns up.
Idiot Monty
 |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:19 pm | | Rich,
But its ok to launch a 'personal' and 'cruel' attack on Sickert ?
I mean, just look at his eyes.
At least she has the opportunity to defend herself.
From what Ive read today from Scott, I think she cannot and she realises it.
But let me just refer you to my opening sentence.....
Monty |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:27 pm | | Hi Ally,
I saw attacks against Cornwell on these boards before her book was published - indeed, while it was in the works.
I don't believe she ever insulted "all people interested in the case."
If your construction is true - that Cornwell dismissed those interested the case as neurotic, angry, idiots - then I would say that those who launched personal attacks and name-calling against her have helped to solidify her position.
As I have suggested before, if someone wanted to confront Cornwell publically about her unwillingness to debate those interested in the case, she could use some of the posts on this website in her defense.
"How can anyone take them seriously?" she might ask, "when their idea of debate is to make fun of my name and question my personal relationships with men? How can we expect to take seriously someone who posts on such a board?"
Those who follow this board, which is a distinct minority, might see through such a charade. But to the majority unfamiliar, the misguided silly insulting posts have degraded the overall level of discussion.
This renders her assessment of "Ripperologists," as uncouth, vulgar lunatics, plausible.
In essence, Ally, it comes down to this: put yourself in the position of being unfamiliar with the case and you see as follows:
Cornwell: I don't take them seriously because they are obnoxious idiots more interested in personal insults than advancing knowledge.
Casebook poster: Ms Cornball is a man-hater, arrogant, sociopath.
Now, who do you think the public is more likely to find compelling?
Of course, there have been more scholarly and credible criticism of Ms. Cornwell on this board - and I applaud them. However, my position, and I can see it is a point upon which we disagree, is that the childish, immature name-calling dilutes the power of the legitimate criticisms against her in the eyes of the general public.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:32 pm | | Yeah I understand, she has money therefore she can be an arrogant lying brat, but we give her the goods and naughty naughty. Oh well. Reasoned debate wouldn't work with her either..if you've actually have seen her interviewed or listened, any time someone disagrees with her she cuts them off and runs right over them. So I'll stick to being nasty cause she isn't going to listen either way..and then again, she started it. Nyah nyah.
Ally |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Richard and Everyone Else,
To respond directly, I agree for the most part, but consider this point too.... Cornwell tells us in her "epoch" that Mr Grieve (one hell of a nice man, actually....met him in Bournemouth last year) MENTIONS Sickert to her in 2001. THAT WAS ONLY LAST YEAR. To research and publish fiction takes longer, and to research and publish NON-fiction should take TWICE as long, just to be sure the research is entirely accurate, ESPECIALLY when she does not use footnotes. From that, I assume ALL evidence presented and ideas put forward are hers and hers ONLY.
A second point, and then I quit. She is wearing me out....NOT down...out. Had she presented this book as "I STRONGLY believe" or "I am ALMOST certain", we ALL could have lived with that, cussed, discussed and gotten on with it. But NOPE, she did the same thing Mark Fuhrman did in that little dustup in California several years ago: she is presenting an absolute which can be PROVEN false. Let's not forget she is also the "legal expert" who says WE have to prove Sickert innocent; she doesn't have to prove he is guilty. It's an interesting concept, though....she would have been right at home with the Cheka, the KGB, or the Gestapo, for that matter.
That's it, and that's all.....fun from now on..no more of this for me.
Cheers,
J |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 03:28 pm | | I've noticed more people taking my name in vain, and otherwise accusing me of bad things I don't do lately. May I please ask what's wrong? From what is written above it seems I libel Ripperologists and act arrogantly. That's not what I see myself as doing. I LOVE Ripperology and Ripperologists! I think Stewart Evans is a GREAT guy. Begg, Fido, Whittington-Egan, and Rumbelow are heroes of mine. And I even think Mel Harris is a bright and worthy fellow, if occasionally prone to sullying himself a bit. So what's the problem?
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 04:02 pm | | | Dave..So now you're a God ? Taking your name in vain ? Ha ha ha !! Love that Radka !!!!!!!!! |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:31 am | | Hi Ally,
If people choose to judge the way other people act from your perceptions of the way they act, rather than by reading what those people have actually written, more fool them. They will only be reading 'Ally's' perceptions and nothing else - right or wrong, friendly or hostile, insightful or superficial, funny or witless.
So you can write whatever you like about me and I won't care a bit because, surprise surprise, I place less value on your perceptions than I would on almost anyone else's here on these boards.
Writing 'Cornball is a nutter', or 'Caz sometimes acts like a hypocritical slag' tells people absolutely nothing about the thinking and writing of those you have chosen in your infinite wisdom to shower so much of your attention on - people can get all they want or need to know direct from the primary sources. But it does tell them plenty about 'Ally's' thinking and writing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 06:10 am | | Hi all,
David,
as I was one of the people to mention your name - let me explain. I said your attitude is arrogant. I can remember posts from you saying that you have solved the mystery by looking at it using Ovid (?) and that anybody else could do if they knew were to look. That is arrogant, but not meant in a nasty sense. You have (sofar ?) not named your suspect, which is arrogant, but not nasty. You wanted to make people think! You have been under fire for your attitude, but you never deserved it.
all,
I just finished Mrs. Cornwells book last night and had opionion beforehand. It is just as fascinating as Mr. Knights. I cannot subscribe to her theory, but have loads of questions I would like to ask her. I read all the posts when her theory came out and can understand her attitude concerning this forum. There were lots of nasty words used then and I can understand why she does not want to discuss her theory here.
Philip |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 06:25 am | | Caz,
You might want to apply a little beeswax, that pulpit is getting mighty worn.
Ally |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Rich,
Have you read the book ??
Did you watch the documentary ??
Yes ? then you tell me how Sickert is potrayed.
I'll just wait for your silence.....again.
David,
"From what is written above it seems I libel Ripperologists and act arrogantly."
Perhaps but, and this is where you hold my admiration, you are here on the boards, taking and dishing, sometimes whinging BUT never shying.
Respect to the Radka.
Monty
|
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 01:01 pm | | Hi, Phillip:
Read the Cornwell and Sickert thread. As Ms. Cornwell stated last night, her work on Sickert is NOT A THEORY. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT. And never forget it.
Ally and Caz:
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Whine and Cheesy"???  |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 01:34 pm | | Hi Monty,
I really cannot fathom your point - are you suggesting because Ms Cornwell portrays Sickert in a vile way means that anyone else should personally attack her?
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 01:37 pm | | I believe I may have mistaken Mr. Dewar for Mr. Dowe in the above, due to a similarity of names. if I did, my apologies.
David |
Author: Monty
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 08:13 am | | Rich,
By jove I think you've got it.
By portraying Walter in "such a vile way" is surely attacking the man personally, is it not ? ....whether he be alive or dead.
Condeming him as 'evil' and 'wicked' is no different from calling her an 'arrogant man hating sociopath'.
The two are one in the same.
You are shocked and appalled at this attack on Ms Cornwell, an attack similar to the one she has launched on Mr Sickert, a personal attack, yes its ok to dis a dead man in such a way but the great Cornwell....oh no, not cricket is it ??
What I am suggesting is if she cannot take it she shouldnt dish it.
Base, yes, but I didnt set the standards by calling those that have worked hard in this field as 'sick' and a man which she has no proof of being a murderer as an 'evil wicked b....man'.
Is that an attack of a personal kind ??
Regards Monty
PS...of course, I still love you man  |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 09:07 am | | Monty
: )
Rich |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 11:36 am | | Hi Monty,
It's quite funny when you think about it. It's not the fact that a man is accused of being one of the most savage predators ever known that seems to worry people - it's going on to describe him as an old wotsit with evil eyes that is so vile and personal that it sends the critics into a feeding frenzy. Isn't it a bit like saying, "The man's a murderer - oh and another thing, he's ugly and he's got smelly feet too!"
Instead of taking such exception to the emotive bits, I suppose we could take a step back and see them as rather silly and meaningless qualifications that point to an argument that needs all the help it can get, but is not actually getting any.
Does Cornwell need to be kicked on that basis? Or do you think it's an indication that she is doing a pretty good job of kicking herself?
Here is Caz using her best Monty Python falsetto:
"Personal? Personal? 'Ow much more personal can you get, accusing 'im of being Jack the bloomin' Ripper??"
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 11:29 am | | Caz,
Point seen, taken in, understood and agreed.
It does indeed worry me that Walter has been portrayed as a murderer on no evidence at all. But, sadly, it seems to be all the rage in the cheap, sensation grabbing authorship of the mass produced tripe.
Does Stewart and Paul state that Dr T is, without doubt Jack the Ripper ?? No, They never have. They say that, in their opinion, Dr T is the most likely to have committed the act.
But thats not my gripe,
Richs view is that Patsy aint playing with us because we're mean to her. Whose fault is that ??
She cannot come out with all guns blazing, such as firing cheap shots a Don, and not expect to be shot at back.....rightly or wrongly.
Put up or shut up ?
Monty
|
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:15 pm | | Richard,
From your post Nov 17, Whine and Cheese thread:
Eric,
"Ally is the moderator and enforces the rules on this website. She has ruled that Caz is not allowed to make personal attacks on people on this website. After making that ruling, Ally posted on this website that Caz is a slag.
So, I would have to say Ally has won. "
After which we determined that I hadn't called Caz a slag. Basically saying that I take advantage of my moderating position wouldn't you say? Which is a laugh because if I was inclined to abuse my so called authority, well..we know two people who would have long ago gotten the boot, don't we?
Bitch at me all you want, call me all the names you want, but don't drag the boards or the job I do into it. Don't criticize your host. With that shot, everything you say on this topic from here on out will be viewed as a criticism of how these boards are run.
And I put up with a hell of a lot from but the one thing I absolutely will not tolerate is someone abusing the hospitality of the boards and then whining about them.
Ally |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:01 pm | | Rich,
Alright, let's try it one more time.
"If it is appropriate to critique Ms Cornwell's scholarship, her personal life, and her name, why is it inappropriate for me to comment upon the quality of such criticism?"
If you were simply commenting on the quality of the criticism of Ms. Cornwell, that wouldn't be a problem. That is not what you are doing.
1) You're exaggerating the scope of the “problem” to a ridiculous level.
I did a search on "Cornball" on the casebook. Here's the breakdown:
Ally - 7
Richard Dewar - 6!!!!!
Me - 2 (Once was quoting an excerpt from your post)
Molly - 1
Esther - 1
CMD - 1
Caz - 2
Ivor - 1
Outside of Molly, Esther, and Ally everyone has used it in the sense of discussing that she had been called that. Only Ally was a repeat offender. We have 3 people who called her Cornball for a total of 9 times. Wow. Wallowing in the gutter, eh?
2) Compared to the treatment she has dished out to the entire community, the (cough) "attacks" have been fairly mild with one or two exceptions. Is calling her "Cornball" childish. Yes. So what? Ignore the childishness if it doesn't appeal to you. (You wanna know what's MUCH sadder than the "playground" behavior? It's the grownup that hangs around the playground trying to get kids to talk like adults rather than finding some adults that are interested in talking to him.)
3) You've repeatedly excused Cornwell's behavior by point the finger at the posters here. Ex. (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.) and (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.) What a sad and pathetic attempt to make your personal feelings about how the boards are managed somehow relevant. Cornwell has never gotten any "ammunition" for her claims. She's never bothered to support them at all.
4) You're consistently rude to Ally. It's her job to moderate the boards, not yours. Ally and Stephen contribute their time, and money to provide this service free of charge. Being rude to the host is a no-no. Or didn't they teach this where you grew up? Whether you approve of the way she treats Cornwell or not, referring to the host (even obliquely) as a nitwit is simply a no-no.
"I am only critical of remarks I see as foolish personal attacks - sure my critique might be redundant but that is only because the personal attacks upon Ms. Cornwell are repeated over and over again."
See the above statistics and rethink your position. I'm fairly sure at this point you're whining more than anyone is "attacking" Cornwell.
"I am not sure about your definition of my lowering standards - you mean my saying that those who launch personal attacks are lowering debate contributes to lowering debate?"
I am saying that anyone who would behave like you have towards our host doesn't have much in the way of standards IMO.
"My deepest condolences to the rude and obnoxious people offended by being called a nitwit."
And you wonder why you're considered a hypocrite? Ye gads.
"Quite frankly, John, your remark that 'she started it' is telling about your position on that matter. Most of us gave up that rationalization for poor behavior long ago."
ROTFLMAO! You think? Really? You must not keep up on world news much. We bomb the heck out of countries where the guy who started it was only VISITING! IMO, her behavior has simply rendered her beyond being worthy of defense. While I may not approve of people making fun of her name, I'm not going to leap to the defense of a person who has characterized this entire community as ghouls, etc.
Let’s try and look at this with a TINY bit of perspective, shall we? Making fun of her name is innocuous. Assuming she's been to school, it's safe to say that she's been called "Cornball" before. With her position and popularity, her characterization of the community is much less innocuous. The ONLY ONE AT ALL taking Ally's name calling seriously is you. Cornwell's comments are much more troubling. And yet you consistently excuse her behavior, and attack the name-calling?!? Uh huh.
"You seem to not understand that I am not challenging the moderator to banish certain criticisms of Cornwell. What I am challenging is the quality of such criticism."
No, you are not. You're whining. Calling her "Cornball" isn't criticism, it's name calling. You're not criticizing the criticism, because what you're complaining about isn't criticism. It's people venting their frustration with her behavior. Is your complaint with the quality of the name-calling or the name-calling in general?
"I understand your position as stated that if I do not like all of the commentary then I should leave - like the esteemed researchers and authors who used to post on this site and now refuse to do so simply because of the kind of behavior you endorse."
I do NOT endorse it. I've made that abundantly clear. I am not defending any particular behavior, merely their right to run their own boards as they see fit. You're out of line friend.
"So, let us agree to disagree. You can support and defend and enjoy the posts that suggest she is a "cornball" a "man-hating lesbian" and a liar. Just afford me the same opportunity to say that some of us think such insults are stupid.""
Er, I agree we disagree, but that's about it. I don't enjoy posts that mock Cornwell, but I am incredibly offended by your presumptuous and repeated attempts to coerce the conversation on the boards to adhere to your standards. (Which you cannot even be bothered to adhere to!!!!) I am not defending their behavior, I am condemning yours, which I see as MUCH more out of line. The behavior you continue to condemn as being “stupid”, is obviously (and explicitly) approved of by our host. So as long as you continue to make ridiculous claims, and hurl abuse towards our host I think I'll continue to take offense. Okay?
"I understand your position as stated that if I do not like all of the commentary then I should leave."
Yes, if your not enjoying the party leave. Go on. Shoo. G'way. Get lost. Scram. Hit the road. Sayonara. Aloha (The goodbye kind of course) Auf Wiedersein. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Buh-bye!
Or... You could simply mind your own business, ignore the commentary that you don't care for (like actual adults do), accept that everyone on the planet isn't going to behave like you want them (Why should they? You don't.), and actually contribute something positive to the boards. There's a thought. Nahhh...
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:11 pm | | David,
"This is pure cowardly baloney. Here you are saying that you don't need to explain specifically why my criticisms of Ms Cornwell are unjustified because of some poem I wrote years ago. That won't work on the level of discussion here. When you write cognitively dissonant garbage like that, you fully expose yourself as an unreliable and hypocritical poster."
You seen to be operating under some false assumptions here.
1) I was not saying that your criticisms of Ms. Cornwell are unjustified. I was merely expressing surprise that Mr. Dewar took you seriously.
2) As I thought my initial post made quite clear, I generally don't read your posts, and when I do I find it hard to believe that you expect people to take them seriously. (Hence my use of the of the word "antics".) I wouldn't have read your post at all had it not been directed specifically towards me, so I can't really comment on your criticisms of Ms. Cornwell.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:45 pm | | | YO !!!!!!! this is getting out of hand here !!!!! Its getting harder for me to jump on Radka,with gents like John Hacker composing far better posts than me. I want him removed !!!!Enough of this intellectual over-Dave's-head-at-2-feet stuff !!! Dave,please don't listen to John Hacker ! Keep posting ! I read 'em !!! Take a hike,Hacker, for Chrissakes !!! .....Howard |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:51 pm | | Hi John,
We disagree and I am sorry if my remarks got you agitated.
My critique of those who personally attack Ms. Cornwell is not intended or in fact a criticism of the message boards. My dislike for the "cornball" insult is the least of my concerns - while I consider that irresponsible too.
You wrote that because Ms. Cornwell has said nasty things about people then in essence she deserves what is coming to her. I don't agree with that. I think Ms. Cornwell's remarks are inappropriate and I think those who retaliate with personal insults are just as inappropriate.
I did, indeed, write that those who engage in personal attacks are nitwits. And, I agree with you, that was an unfortunate remark. I apologize to those who engage in personal attacks who felt slighted by my insult. My anger got the better of me. It was wrong. And I understand how those who might oppose my desire for more measured and intelligent debate have seized upon this remark to defend the attacks they enjoy launching. I therefore will disqualify myself from further comment on that topic.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:06 pm | | Rich,
"And I understand how those who might oppose my desire for more measured and intelligent debate have seized upon this remark to defend the attacks they enjoy launching."
Spare me the hysterical, self-serving BS. No one here opposes "measured and intelligent debate". That's a stupid assertion. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from debating as intellegently as you/they are capable of/willing to.
What you want is for your idea of "measured and intelligent debate" to be the only game in town. If you want to set the rules, set up the site friend.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:15 pm | | 'I generally don't read your posts, and when I do I find it hard to believe that you expect people to take them seriously. (Hence my use of the of the word "antics".) I wouldn't have read your post at all had it not been directed specifically towards me, so I can't really comment on your criticisms of Ms. Cornwell.'
Mr. Hacker,
You claim you don't read my posts, but you comment on them. You claim that I cannot expect people to take my posts seriously even though you don't read them, and you are unable to state why they will not or should not. This is the last time I'm going to trouble myself with your self-contradictory statements, if you are not able to state specifically what you see as wrong about my posts.
In closing, I would like to extend forgiveness to both Mr. Dewar and Mr. Hacker for their behavior toward me today. I will not further respond to it on this web site.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:17 pm | | Hi John,
You left the bait. . .but I am not biting.
Goodnight,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 11:58 pm | | | "I would like to extend forgiveness to both Mr. Dewar and Mr. Hacker,blah blah blah...".....For a Nietzschean wannabe,Dave,you sho' be Christlike !! What you is,homes? Christian or Nietzschean? One thing you is be is a great source of laughter for me. Whenever others criticize thee,Dave,I am there to spur you on...Keep posting..you a funny dude fo' an interleckshual..... |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:31 am | | Hi Ivor,
Over on the other thread you seemed to imply Ms. Cornwell was something of a coward for making her remarks then running in terror. You then stated you didn't know what country I come from, but that kind of behavior just doesn't cut it in Britain.
With Britain's surrender of soveriegnty to the E.U., and Tony Blair's ignoring the public will in favor of his slavish sycophantic support of the American President on the issue of Iraq, perhaps Cornwell was laboring on the American perception, popularly held but not publically stated, that the Brits simply do what they are told.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:39 am | | Hi John,
When I disagreed with your view that someone deserves criticism because "they started it," you replied in your 12/4 9:01pm post.
Leaving aside the Cornwell issue, which I think we all find tiresome by now, you made the incredible assertion that President Bush's decision to bomb Afghanistan somehow vindicates your remarks against an author!
First of all, I think it unwise to look to George W. Bush for guidance on the quality of literary criticism based on who he has decided to bomb.
Secondly, I personally don't find his decisions with regard to such matters all that effective. I think the people of Bali and Kenya would agree with me.
Richard |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:07 am | | Rich,
I'm glad you have managed to get past Cornwell. Good job.
But as for the rest, you really don't read very closely.
I haven't made any remarks against an author that I feel need vindicating. Would you care to cite an example of any remarks I have made you think I need to "vindicate"? (Oddly enough I've never felt the need to justify myself to you.)
If you hadn't noticed what I was actually doing there was lauging at your assertion that most people outgrew the "they started it" rationalization. It's one of most popular rationalizations out there and shapes world politics and interpersonal relationships. Most people when done to, will do unto. It just is. I was simply expressing my disbelief at how naive you appear to be.
I happen to agree with you RE: Bush's performance. But that is neither here nor there.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Graham Jay
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:10 am | | Richard,
Don't drag the British into your arguments when you so obviously don't understand them. One thing the British have never done is "what they are told" if they don't agree with it. Check your newspaper today if you want an example. You'll find there were demonstrations here yesterday in response to the government's idea of extra fees for university students.
So there! |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:14 am | | Graham,
It's not my view that all Brits do what they are told - I am simply reporting to you how many Americans feel about Britain - that they do what we tell them.
The remark is also intended as tongue-n-cheek.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:20 am | | Can I just ask why Richard gets to be the spokesperson for all Americans but chastizes me when I claim to speak for a group of people?
Oh the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy....
As an American, I love you Brits. You make very good scones.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:22 am | | John,
The people with whom I associate generally do not accept the proposition that if someone behaves badly, stupidly, or cruelly that the appropriate response is to emulate that behavior.
I recognize the human impulse is to anger and attack - I find more appealing those who are able to resist such primal impulses and remain thoughtful and considered. I regretfully fail in such ambitions. I recognize that to some its simply a matter of taste. Others may find the same conduct I see as brutish and coarse as amusing and entertaining.
I do agree with your assertion that many people (in my view far too many), are trapped in the construction that if some does evil to me, I shall do evil to them - the consequences of which I feel universally degrade both attacker and retaliator.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:26 am | | Hi all,
Does anyone have information on Cornwell's book sales in Britain? If the formulation has been asserted that the Brits are more thoughtful and critical on this matter than Americans, I would expect that her sales in Britain would be lagging in percentage terms versus U.S. sales.
Is this the truth? I honestly do not know.
Rich |
Author: spaceyram
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:45 am | | Hi Ally,
Re: I am a pain in the a** Richard
I agree with you totally.Put a sock in it, or better still, we'd probabley love to. He is like
the durasell battery goes on and on. He could
start his own site, "I am the defender of PC".
No doubt I will get a message back with some high
power words saying nothing but dribble.And if my spelling is wrong, tough.
Any good author, regardless of PC or otherwise,
if worth their recognition,would welcome opinions
from other authors or specialists etc, and take
great pride in proving his or her reputation.
Even if the responses were total BS, that author
could not have it said that they were avoiding
others of the same interest, for fear of embarassment. True or not. Frankly I don't give a
darn when it comes to race,sex,sexual preference
or otherwise. If the book is good I'll read it, I
don't have to agree with the theory,but can and
would admire the works if it warranted it.And if
I want to refer to her as Cornball I will. You,
Richard can kiss my grits. We should be discussing
the theory or her book, not whether or not someone
calls her a name. Whoopy s***. Don't bother to
answer this post or respond to it because you are
taking up valuable time on this site with you crap. Yes Crap. Don't bother to define the word,I
know what it means.
Oh one other thing Richard, who died and made you
the censor, or for that matter moderator. If the
brass doesn't approve than I will gladly adhere to
their rules, if you don't then you know what they
say "If you don't like the heat,than get out of the kitchen"
Sorry Ally, but I combined Sir Rich with your
message.
regards,
spaceyram |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:59 am | | Richard,
In the WorldBooks.co.uk top ten you'll find 'Portrait of a killer' at No.1 - I submitted a review of it, albeit changed from my original where I called it "A big pile of sh**e that will please the people who like fiction". I still don't think my longer review will be published on the site somehow.
The hype is winning - one person I know who read the book asked me why the Ripper used the victims blood in his paintings, I could only tell him to stop sniffing glue.
take care
Garry |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:12 am | | Hi Spaceyram,
I wrote earlier that I am no longer getting involved in the debate on whether personal attacks against Ms. Cornwell are or are not appropriate.
Yes, I did criticize the remarks of those who were making personal attacks on Ms. Cornwell. I subsequently apologized, in public, on this board, for those criticisms and, again, stated that I am not getting involved any longer in that debate.
What more do you want?
It is almost as if some of those who I criticized for their personal attacks on Ms Cornwell, just cannot accept my apology and my pledge to remain out of the fight. It seems as if your remarks against me are intended to provoke because it is somehow enjoyable to them to engage in ad hominem assaults.
Sorry, Spaceyram, I have made my apology and I am not being lured back into the debate about what is or is not appropriate in terms of personal attacks on Ms. Cornwell.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:16 am | | Garry,
I will look for your review - I hope it gets a good play. It appears most people, on both sides of the Atlantic, unsurprisingly, are more intrigued by fiction than fact.
Thanks for the data that her book may be even more popular in the UK than US.
Rich |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:22 am | | Richard,
It's selling very healthily over here, all the publicity is taking the stand that finally the Ripper identity is solved and this is the only book people will need to read...in my review I of course recommended other books that WorldBooks hasn't taken on yet
It's still a very short review as we're asked not to give the 'plot' away etc.
As a rough estimate I'd say that 1 in 5 who read the book believe Sickert was the Ripper. (the same number who believe in garden fairies)
take care
Garry |
Author: Graham Jay
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:29 am | | | We have a large chain of bookshops here in Britain called Waterstones - Cornwell's book was at number 35 in the chart earlier this week. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:52 am | | Hi All,
In W H Smiths in Croydon on Tuesday, the only ripper book I saw on the shelves was Feldy's Final Chapter. Not a sniff of Cornwell's Case Closed - unless my eyes are much worse than I thought.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi All,
In the U.S., we have various lists posted regularly which feature national sales totals for top selling books. I have been searching in vain on the internet for such U.K. totals - is anyone aware of such a site?
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:42 pm | | Spaceyram,
If I haven't said already...welcome to the Casebook. I do hope you stick around for a long time to come.
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 12:05 am | | Why Do Books Cost So Much?
This story makes me want to open a vein. . .
Dave |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 02:32 pm | | Hi All,
Moving swiftly across from the AP.Wolf thread.
AP.Wolf claimed on that thread that:
'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers'.
As that appears to imply that Cornwell has proof that Sickert has a cast-iron alibi, it's a very serious accusation, and a very serious problem for Cornwell if AP.Wolf can support it.
In essence, AP.Wolf only has to prove that Cornwell has proof that Sickert could not be guilty, as she has claimed him to be, and bang goes Cornwell and any credibility she will ever have again with her reading public.
I thought that would please everyone here on these boards, but apparently not. Does that mean no one believes AP.Wolf's claim? Or do they believe it but all of a sudden feel sorry for Cornwell and therefore don't think it should be substantiated to stop the rot?
What about intellectual honesty and the historical record?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 03:47 pm | | Caz--I tend to agree with you. I've seen both Cornwell's television presentations; if she's merely putting on a brave face, then she has me fooled. I think she really believes Sickert is the culprit. You know the old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately exlained by...er...let me say... 'wishful thinking.'"
The publishers, though, that's an entirely different question. History has become just another commodity, like dish soap or corn-flakes. Cheers. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 05:21 pm | | Caz,
I believe AP Wolf.
There is no way that any reasonable person with any knowledge of the case - not just that learned by reading Cornwell's book - could be convinced. And none of us have.
Even the Maybrick theory has faithful believers. Only Cornwell believes in the Sickert one.
So the answer is clear - Cornwell and her publishers aren't reasonable people with any knowledge of the case. Why? Well, 7 figure numbers can make the most level-headed person unreasonable.
Whoa. I think I've just been blinded by a searing flash of the obvious.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:46 am | | Hi Brian,
That claim again:
'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers'. [My emphasis]
I'm blinded by a searing flash of the obvious too - that this claim is a world away from just saying that Cornwell is not really 'convinced' that Sickert was the ripper, or believes he is, but only through dollar-patterned specs.
AP.Wolf is claiming that Cornwell knows Sickert wasn't the ripper, and is therefore lying through her teeth and keeping this knowledge and the source of it a secret from her public and from the historical record.
I agree with you that money can and does make people unreasonable - and not only the ones who are making it.
You can believe AP.Wolf's claim if you like, it's obviously a popular one. But do you believe the claim that was actually made, or just the one you thought was made?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:34 pm | | Caz,
I may be pulling a Bill Clinton here, but I feel that "had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes" is the same as "did not kill anyone."
If you feel that the fact that he may have hoaxed a letter or two is a "connection", then I would have to disagree with AP. But if "connection" means "disemboweling women" then, I have to agree with AP.
A question of semantics, perhaps. I just feel that no reasonable person with any outside knowledge of the case can take the arguments and the evidence Cornwell presented and make any connection at all.
Were Cornwell to bring this to court, I'd make a motion to dismiss because the prosecution hasn't made their prima facie case. And I'd win it.
So, I guess I believe the claim as I interpretted it. I think that answers the question.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 07:11 am | | Hi Brian,
So, if Cornwell knows that Sickert "did not kill anyone", and AP.Wolf knows that she knows, why don't we all stop getting mad, and get even instead - by asking AP.Wolf nicely to put the lid on Cornwell's lies and inform the public exactly how Cornwell knows that "Sickert did not kill anyone"?
Is it me, or are you just not grasping this? How can you 'agree' with AP.Wolf's claim, that Cornwell knows Sickert is innocent, unless you too know how Cornwell knows this? And if that's the case, why don't you tell us, instead of going to hit the wall everytime you hear the woman claim to have solved the case?
I agree with you entirely, when you write:
'I just feel that no reasonable person with any outside knowledge of the case can take the arguments and the evidence Cornwell presented and make any connection at all', if by connection you mean with the murders themselves. I'm also far from convinced that Sickert wrote a single ripper letter either. I also agree with you about the prosecution's failure.
But that is far removed from a claim that Cornwell knew Sickert had 'no connection whatever' to the ripper crimes even though she was, and is, pushing the opposite theory.
You didn't interpret the claim, Brian. You changed it completely, thereby diluting its potential into just another belief, one person's opinion about Cornwell's motives and honesty, getting us precisely nowhere.
Love,
Caz |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 08:11 am | | There is unfortunately in this peculiar genre of writing an entire platoon of authors who have done exactly the same as Cornwell and released books, under tight deadlines, hefty advance payments and meddlesome truths, which they and their publishers know to be now’t but a ‘sport’. I can think of twenty other similar volumes right now straight off the top of my head, and I’m convinced I could produce you a list of fifty if I had the time or inclination.
This being the very reason that I wrote my own book in 1993, to try and shut these crows up for once and for all, and hopefully allow some plain simple commonsense and truth to be added to the horrendous situation confronting anyone who wants to make a genuine contribution to the subject.
Mea culpa! It didn’t work, obviously. I failed. Maybe, just maybe it might work this time, but only, and I mean only if we hound these crows out of the tree. There can be no compromise, otherwise the myth will continue.
I have never said that Cornwell knew Sickert was innocent.
I have said Cornwell knows nothing about the Jack the Ripper case because she has written a book about a charming old randy painter who couldn’t paint let alone murder.
Personally I don’t even go along with the idea of Sickert writing letters supposedly from Jack, it just doesn’t fit his character, and he was a painter, not a writer. I just can’t see him halfway through one of his depressing paintings, laying down his brushes and saying to himself ‘Ho hum I’m bored, I’ll just take one of these carefully watermarked papers that I have here on my desk quite by chance and circumstance and pen a little missive from Jack.’
Nope, sorry, doesn’t work for me. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 08:40 am | | 'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers'.
'I have never said that Cornwell knew Sickert was innocent.'
Sorry, I just don't get it, AP. What did you mean by the first sentence then?
You could have used those words to hound this crow out of her tree if only you had meant them and if they had been supportable. Oh well. She lives to crow another day - c'est la vie.
I agree with you about the letters - I won't go along with the idea that Sickert wrote any ripper letters until there is far more convincing evidence. This 6,000 sheets stuff don't impress me much.
Incidentally, even if you haven't any proof that Cornwell is more deluder than deluded, I love your sense of humour.
All the best.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 09:15 am | | Caz,
Hold up a minute. Although AP seems to have cleared up the issue, I want you to understand my point.
I am not saying that there was some sort of elaborate conspiracy to defraud the public by framing Walter Sickert for the Ripper murders.
I'm not saying that Cornwell sat down with her editors at Penguin Putnam and said "I want to do a book about the Ripper - who should I say did it?"
What I am saying is that ANY reasonable person - including Cornwell - who looks at the evidence and facts presented in her book AND has any sort of knowledge of the case COULD NOT find the evidence compelling.
As I said before, I think that the enormous profits Cornwell and Penguin stood to make made them unreasonable people, so they ignored the flaws in the research and are shamelessly promoting the book, despite it's flaws.
So no conspiracy theory here. Just a bit of healthy cynicism.
Considering that I've not read a review from a single source that actually READ the book that says it is "the end of the argument", I tend to think that most people agree with that.
Whether or not you agree that this is what AP Wolf meant, it's what I meant.
B |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 09:50 am | | Thank you, Brian, for that is exactly what I did mean. I just tend to get to places by walking the long way rather than driving the short way.
A major fault of mine.
Caz, I didn't know I had a sense of humour?
Thanks, I will go off and embellish it forthwith. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 12:28 pm | | Hi Brian,
I understand and have already agreed with your point that ANY reasonable person who looks at the evidence and facts presented in Cornwell's book AND has any sort of knowledge of the case COULD NOT find the evidence compelling. (I don't necessarily agree with you that Cornwell can be included in your description of this reasonable person! )
What I fail to understand is what all that has to do with my original argument, that AP's claim, that Cornwell knows Sickert wasn't connected with the ripper crimes, is not in any way, shape or form the same as saying, as you and I and everyone else as far as I can tell are also saying, that Cornwell must surely be aware that her evidence that he was connected, and was in fact the killer, leaves everything to be desired.
I think I'll give up, as you clearly don't see the distinction here, and still won't come next Christmas, and therefore won't appreciate why AP's claim would have been a whole lot more interesting and worth taking seriously had it been supportable.
Have a cool Yule, y'all. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 03:04 pm | | Caz,
I got your point - you thought that AP was saying that he had some sort of proof that she knew Sickert couldn't have committed the crimes, and was withholding it, or whatever.
I'm just saying that I thought your interpretation was wrong. And AP agreed with me, so the whole thing is moot anyway.
Po-tate-o, Pa-ta-toe, let's call the whole thing off.
B |
Author: David Jetson
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 04:44 pm | | You know what would be really ironic and funny? If people from this forum came up with some definative proof that Walter Sickert could not have been JtR, and made it public. Those of you that feel personally insulted by Patsy could do some serious harm to her book sales with that.
I think I just figured out what I really want for Xmas :-) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 05:55 am | | Hi Brian,
Yeah, funny that.
AP.Wolf said:
'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes...'
I interpret this as meaning:
'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes...'
And you and AP think my interpretation is wrong.
Fair enough. I can't argue with that.
Hi David,
Talk about hitting the nail on the head - that was precisely the point I was trying, and failing lamentably, to drive home!
Of course, no one has to lift a finger to prove Sickert innocent - he is presumed so unless or until Cornwell can prove otherwise. But, if Cornwell already knows Sickert had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and if someone knows how she knows this......
Oh, what the heck? I'll let someone else explain it all to Brian and AP - I'm obviously not doing a very good job.
Love,
Caz |
Author: David Jetson
Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 07:19 am | | I'll try: I think Caz is saying that it should have been impossible for Patsy Cornwell to come to the conclusion that she did.
That's not an unreasonable comment.
Caz MAY also be saying that the fact that it's obvious to everyone that Sickert is an unlikely JtR proves that Patsy is not merely mistaken but actually flat-out lying.
I will say that it's possible, but I'd also say let's not convict Patsy on the same lack of actual evidence that she has used on Walter.
And the next thing Caz is saying - I think - is that while it would be fun to prove Patsy wrong definatively, it would be even more fun to prove that she deliberately lied. I agree, but I'd say that proving Patsy guilty would be a lot harder than proving Walter innocent. Either way, I do think that it would be a very worthwhile project to prove Walter innocent. Proving Patsy knew it would be the icing on the cake. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 11:50 am | | 'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers'.
Caz - For what it's worth, I see only one possible interpretation of this very simple, very forthright comment by AP. This says the book is a deliberate falsehood, and that both Cornwell and her publishers knew that they were putting forth deceptive arguments, a pack of lies.
Now, it appears that that is NOT what AP meant to say, but that's a different argument. The above statement, taken on its own, is quite clear and you are correct in your train of questioning.
Merry XMAS all!
And thanks again, AP, for allowing your updated work to be presented on the Casebook !!
Sir Robert
CID (retired) |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 03:04 pm | | Everybody,
There's a distinct difference between "know" and "can prove".
"Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes..." does not mean "Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, AND I CAN PROVE IT."
For example: I KNOW that gravity exists. But I can't PROVE that gravity exists.
Or: I KNOW the Pythagorean Theorum works. But I can't PROVE that it works.
Cornwell must have KNOWN that Sickert couldn't have done it. But we can't PROVE that she knew that.
Caz was hoping that when AP said that that AP had found the smoking gun, like a memo from Cornwell to her publisher saying "this is BS but it'll sell, go with it". All AP and I have been saying is what everyone else has been saying: Cornwell's theory is crap and even a 6 year old who's half blind can see it.
Does this make any sense? I think I've had too much eggnog.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 07:59 am | | God, why is this so hard??
Brian now writes:
'Cornwell must have KNOWN that Sickert couldn't have done it. But we can't PROVE that she knew that.'
Why must Cornwell have KNOWN that Sickert couldn't have been the ripper? Because AP.Wolf said so? This gets worse and worse!
But if that is what AP.Wolf said, and if that is what AP.Wolf meant, we are back to square one. Because it seems no one is grasping the fundamental difference between a) AP.Wolf's claim that Cornwell knew Sickert couldn't have been the ripper, and b) simply arguing that Cornwell hasn't proved Sickert was the ripper, and what's more, must surely know she hasn't proved it.
As Brian has said, it is now obvious that AP.Wolf can't PROVE the claim he made in a). More to the point, if Cornwell doesn't know that Sickert couldn't have been the ripper, this makes AP.Wolf's claim false, as opposed to unproven.
The worst one can say is that Cornwell knows her case is full of holes, doesn't care that others know it too, and won't admit it. At best, she is just another wishful thinker who may one day admit to herself that she proved nothing - and once she can do that, she may eventually be strong enough mentally to admit her failure to others.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 09:26 am | | Hi, all:
Let's be clear about this. We can't know that Patricia Cornwell knew that Walter Sickert was not the Ripper. Since no one knows who Jack the Ripper was, how could she know for certain he was not the murderer or that he was?
What she could have known is that Sickert was an unlikely suspect for the Ripper. Her book betrays the fact that she appears not to have studied all of the facts of the case, which the time available to study the case between becoming interested in the crimes and time for publication of her book clearly would not have allowed. The book indicates that she knows the main theories and knew Sickert was not among the major suspects that had been discussed so far. My belief is that she saw Walter Sickert as a tasty suspect for the type of book she wanted to write.
Whether Patricia Cornwell thought or still thinks he really was the Ripper, I can't say, but my own feeling is that she thought he could be the Ripper and still continues to believe it despite the knocks her theory has been receiving.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 01:05 pm | | Caz,
Let's put this to bed now: You misunderstood AP Wolf. I've pointed this out. He's pointed this out. And our argument is getting retarded. We've not said anything different in the last three go rounds. So let's drop the subject now. And don't get defensive - I'm not calling you an idiot...it's a mistake anyone could have made. AP himself said he should have been clearer.
And Chris George is right, none of what we are talking about can we know because we're not inside Cornwell's head.
Honestly, my New Year's Resolution is not to mention her name anymore, and I think I'm going to start a few days earlier. Let's all ignore Ms. Cornwell and hope she goes away.
B |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 01:12 pm | | Hi Brian:
I am not sure that ignoring Ms. Cornwell and her theory is wise, just as it is wise not to ignore the Maybrick Diary theory.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 01:18 pm | | Chris,
I see your point, but what is there to gain by continuing to bandy about her theories? It seems to me a waste of time, when there are so many other avenues that are left to be pursued. Granted, we'll never be able to completely ignore her, as we'll be "fixing" new interested people who stumble on the Casebook after reading her book for the next 10 years, but a boy can dream, can't he?
As for the diary, it's hard to ignore with Melvin and Robert posting fourteen page diatribes every month blasting each other that no one except them, maybe Caz and Peter Wood understand.
B |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 01:49 pm | | Hi Brian:
Both the Diary books and the Cornwell book will continue to bring new people to this site, so, yes, as you say, we have to debrief those poor souls. Interestingly I have yet to meet anyone who seems convinced by her theory. Maybe I have not yet met any hardcore Cornwell fans who are convinced that she is right. The reviews also seem to be lukewarm. I had seen somewhere in the last two weeks that a review of her book was due to appear in the Washington Post. I have not seen it in the paper and searches of their website appear not to disclose it. Do you know anything about it, Brian?
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 02:11 pm | | Chris,
The Washington Post review was back in November. Here's a link Washington Post Review
It's notable for being the only positive review I have yet seen. And indeed, the reviewer is the only person I have seen that accepts her claims.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 02:27 pm | | On what basis does The Washington Post match reviewers and books? Lottery?
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 03:21 pm | | Hi, John:
Thanks for the link to the Cornwell review in the Washington Post. Interestingly my searches under "Cornwell" failed to disclose it but maybe that's because the article is now archived rather than one of their active stories.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 08:56 am | | Hi Brian,
No, let's get this straight - I didn't misunderstand AP.Wolf at all. AP claimed something that, as Chris George has patiently explained, couldn't possibly be the case, ie that Cornwell knows Sickert couldn't possibly be the ripper. I challenged this and it turned out that AP had written one thing but actually meant quite another.
I'm not getting defensive. I just can't understand why it is so difficult for people to admit when they have written something that just doesn't add up. This is a public forum - everyone can read for themselves when someone writes something that doesn't add up. They can also read how people deal with being challenged, and how the challenger miraculously becomes the one who has made a mistake!
But don't worry about it. You and AP have only done what people are accusing Cornwell of doing - writing stuff that doesn't add up then blaming the readers for misunderstanding.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 05:46 pm | | Caz,
Here's what you wrote that started this line of BS:
"'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers'.
As that appears to imply that Cornwell has proof that Sickert has a cast-iron alibi, it's a very serious accusation, and a very serious problem for Cornwell if AP.Wolf can support it. "
AS THAT APPEARS TO IMPLY - that means "what I think he is saying". But he didn't mean this at all - he meant her theory was crap and she should've known it. I have said this to you umpty bazillion times, and yet you keep arguing.
AP himself said "Thank you, Brian, for that is exactly what I did mean. I just tend to get to places by walking the long way rather than driving the short way. A major fault of mine. "
What is the problem here? I don't understand? Do you think people will think less of you if you admit that you were wrong about what AP meant?
And don't compare me to that woman - you made a mistake - you misinterpreted what AP said, I tried to clear it up, you jumped on me, then AP confirms that I was right, and now you're desending into namecalling because for some unknown reason you can't just say "oops" and let it go.
It's not a big deal. Hell, you don't even have to admit it. Just quit posting on this damn topic.
The only reason I'm even responding is because of the barb you had to throw in at the end. This is so damn exasperating. I can understand now why Ally hates your guts.
B |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 12:35 am | | Thank you Brian.
That is exactly what I did mean, that her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along. No big deal. Happens all the time. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 02:56 am | | AP,
Anything to help, buddy. You're welcome.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 09:02 am | | Hi Brian,
Sorry if I descended into namecalling - could you show me where I did this?
But please don't tell me to quit posting on any topic where false accusations have been made, or where claims are being made without any evidence to support them. What is this? Other posters' freedom to write whatever they like, but no freedom for Caz to question or challenge them? Isn't that what we are all moaning at Cornwell about? The fact that she has the freedom to make unsupported accusations and the power to shut up anyone who questions her?
If anyone had simply said: 'her theory was crap and she should've known it', no one would have challenged it.
AP wrote that Cornwell had willingly spread untruths for commercial gain and fame and then wrote that she knew before her book was published that Sickert had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers.
AP has now altered that to:
'...her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along'.
As I pointed out a problem with what AP wrote, and as it has finally resulted in AP saying "oops", and changing it to what AP actually meant to write, we can at last move forward and look at this new claim.
What proof or evidence does AP have that Cornwell and her publisher 'knew all along' that her Sickert theory was crap? Being deluded by a theory to the extent that one is convinced by it even when it is rejected by practically everyone else is not such a rare phenomenon, especially in Ripperology. So why is AP able to say that Cornwell doesn't fall into this category but knew all along that her theory was crap?
AP is clearly accusing Cornwell and her publishers of presenting as fact something they know to be fiction. AP's latest words are not open to interpretation.
If AP only means that the theory is crap, and is only assuming that Cornwell is not convinced by it but is instead deliberately deceiving her readers, then AP should say so.
Cornwell probably hates our guts for pointing out that she has failed to support her accusations. If people hate my guts for doing the same thing when people make accusations here that they can't support, they will at least know how Cornwell feels.
Now, for goodness sake, Brian, stop getting so touchy.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 04:43 pm | | Caz,
Alright, alright, alright. Uncle.
AP - you're own you own now buddy.
Caz - I was mad cause I thought you were accusing me of doing something Cornwell did. To me, that's almost as bad as being called a Yankee. And for the record, I'm not touchy. I'm just passionate.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 09:32 pm | | For those who are unfamiliar with the continuing class conflict between the Northern vs. Southern United States, "Yankee" is a term that, as best as I can figure from seeing it in use, means something like "someone who didn't drop out of high school."
I somehow think Brian has a different definition though if he gets upset by it.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
---------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 01:22 am | | Dan,
Personally, I define Yankee as someone who belongs above the Mason Dixon line permanently.
And some of us have gradumated high scrool. They even lets some of us into that thar kolege.
B |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 01:59 am | | Properly defined, a Yankee is a resident of Ascutney, Vermont who eats apple pie for breakfast.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 05:20 am | | David,
That's enough for me to not like them, the whole invading my home state and all aside.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:14 am | | Hi Brian,
How about a New Year resolution for everyone on the boards?
Don't get mad, get passionate!
Have a good one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paula Wolff
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 09:30 am | | Well, to enter this business of being a Yankee and be shredded to boot, a Yankee is anyone north of the Red River, separating TX and OK. A DAMN Yankee is anyone above said Mason Dixon line, whether they eat apple pie for breakfast or not. The War Between the States isn't too dead yet! :>)
But Yankees are always welcome; I would love to be bilingual.
The South will rise again!
Paula |
Author: Billy Markland
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 11:51 am | | Just a quick comment on the "Yankee" subject (which is actually more interesting than watching Caz & Brian swat flies ).
To a mid-South person, and most other reasonable persons (which definitely excludes Mississippians and Texans ) a Yankee is a person whose domicile is above the Mason-Dixon line.
A DAMN Yankee is a person who moves from north of the Mason-Dixon line to reside in a Southern tier state, excluding TX & MS again. Those who go to MS and TX are considered only DAMN Fools
I shall run, not walk, to get back to my Christmas loot!! Santa Claus was extremely good to me on the book front:
Mr. Begg's newest
The Ultimate JtR (trade paperback copy but what the hey)
Waterloo Reassessed (published in '94, but extremely good)
The Phillippine War 1899-1902
Scalp Dance (about the American West, 1864-1890)
Indians, Infants, & Infantry (Letters between Lt. Burt & wife.) Lt. Burt was a member of the 18th Infantry regiment and was stationed at Ft. Phil Kearny.
Plus the DVD player and Fellowship of the Ring DVD and John Wayne's Red River (his best!!!). Now to start reading the Trilogy again.
Happy New Year,
Billy |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Hmm, so far all definitions of Yankee look like compliments... not being from the South and all. In a way it's almost the exact opposite of "Redneck."
But the antagonism toward the North never ceases to amaze me. I just talked to an ex-girlfriend from tennessee the other day and she wanted to go to some festival where there are horse races or something where one team is called the north and one is the south, and they stack the odds so the south team wins nearly ever year. Very strange.
In the North we don't keep trying to refight the Civil War, mainly because we won more than 100 years ago and there's nothing to prove. Some southerners seem to think that by flying the confederate flag or talking about those Yankees that they'll prove something somehow.
And then there's Texas, LOL.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
---------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Hi all,
Personally, I think President Lincoln should have sent in troops to liberate the slaves and then withdrawn - letting the South remain its Confederacy.
What a different world we would live in today - the United States would have President Al Gore, be a welcomed part of the world community, and the South under the leadership of President Bush and Trent Lott could wage their wars and praise segregation without fear of Yankee interference.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 02:20 pm | | Hi Caz,
Of course you are correct in your remarks about AP Wolf's comments. He wrote that Cornwell and her publishers knew that Sickert was not guilty of being Jack the Ripper.
Your request for some supportive documentation for the allegation is entirely appropriate. Brian and AP have responded by criticizing you for not understanding what he meant - that they "should" know that Sickert is not Jack the Ripper.
The whole strain could have been avoided had the author simply fessed up to wording his criticism clumsily (something we all have done) rather than suggesting fault lies with the person who is incapable of reading his mind.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 02:24 pm | | Hi Dan,
I may share your northern sympathies - but I don't think we "won" the war. Yes, definitely, on the field of battle, the Union prevailed. However, culturally and politically the South has been victorious - especially in the past few decades.
Since 1963, all but two of the American presidents hail from the Confederacy (save for Reagan and Nixon, Californians with southern sympathies).
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 02:29 pm | | President Al Gore is from Tennessee, so he'd be part of the Confederacy too... And, actually, since the body that eventually pushed Bush over the top during the vote scandal was based in D.C. (part of the North), Gore would be president of the Confederate States and Bush would be in charge of Texas still (where he can only do so much damage).
I'm not sure who that would have given us as President of the U.S. proper.... although maybe in this alternate timeline Gore wouldn't have been in Tennessee.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
---------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 02:32 pm | | Dan,
Good points - I consider Al Gore more a native of Washington DC than Tennessee. And, based on the results of the 2000 election, I think the people of Tennessee felt that way too.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 04:46 pm | | Rich,
I'm not getting this whole thing started again, but if I figured out what AP meant, and everyone else who read here figured out what AP meant, why did it require mind reading?
Caz and I both jumped to conclusions based upon what AP said, and it simply turned out that my conclusion was right.
And AP did apologize - twice. Which is more than anyone else who argued here has done, including me. So let's let this die a quiet, painless death and get back to something constructive.
B
PS Yes, yes, yes, I know I'm a bloody hypocrite. |
Author: Bob Dulaney
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 07:26 pm | | Hi Brian,
I know that you were wrong and Caz was right.
Actually, I KNOW that you were wrong but I can't PROVE that you were wrong.
Therefore, I didn't really mean that you were wrong, so I must have misunderstood what I originally said, if what I just said adds up.
Hope this doesn't mean I'm no longer invited to your DC gathering next month!
Bob |
Author: Ally
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 07:35 pm | | Brian,
You will find that there are certain people on these boards that will use the slightest bit of imperfect speech or hyperbole as an excuse to jump all over a poster in nitpicking detail and carp on preciseness in language and blah blah. Oddly enough, they also seem to be the same people who bemoan the nastiness and the driving away of other posters...hmmm...
Ally
I'm back! Y'all missed me terrible didn't ya? |
Author: Paula Wolff
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:35 pm | | Richard,
I can think of nothing better than to have the North with an Al Gore presidency. That'll teach them (Yankees) to mess with us. Geo. Bush doesn't bother me too much; we got used to him. But Gore?????!!!!
True, Dan, Tennessee, a beautiful and wonderful state, didn't want their guy either. Oh, the irony! Love it. Now, Billy, you just go ahead and leave us here in TX be; we didn't define the term Yankee. Just elaborated. I do think it was a case where the North didn't win as the South just couldn't continue.
Oh well, we musn't get snippy so, as I said, Welcom to Texas. If the summer's don't kill you poor Yanks, you'll be great additions. I hope ya'll take this as it's meant, just messing. We are one.
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 10:11 pm | | Challenging someone who writes something slanderous or defamatory about someone else is not being "nasty" or seeking to drive away anyone.
A a poster charged that Cornwell knowingly published false information. Caz and I challenged that person to prove their allegation. Subsequently, the person withdrew their remark and said what they intended to say was that Cornwell should have known what she printed was false. This is an important distinction when discussing someone's integrity and character.
We all make mistakes and sometimes are given to hyperbole. But I don't think it diminishes debate if we simply ask that those who make charges against someone think through what they write before they launch their attack.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:50 am | | Bob,
Very funny.
I guess I should stop trying to please the crowd here. Point well taken.
And making fun of me won't get you disinvited - which reminds me, I've got to talk to Chris George and figure out if my little soiree is still going on. Spryder asked me to make sure it was informal, so no one flew up here expecting a big deal convention with speakers and important people besides me and Chris George - that's in 2004. I just wanted to get dinner and talk up Jacky, but it kinda spitballed. So we've gotta figure out what we're doing.
Getting back to the point - I didn't think AP was levelling serious charges at Cornwell. And the whole reason I even got involved in the whole mess was that Caz asked if anyone believed what AP said, and I said that I did - and I qualified it to mean what I thought he meant - that Cornwell's theory was BS. And thus the crapfest began.
I think some of us need to chill out when it comes to board posting. This is supposed to be a collegial expression of opinion and ideas about the case. This isn't the forum to level charges of conspiracy and fraud. That's why God invented the media.
So instead of jumping to a conclusion and assuming that AP was levelling some serious criminal allegations against Cornwell, I inferred (correctly) that he was just railing against Cornwell's theory - like EVERYONE ELSE HERE.
Now can someone who read it the same way here back me up? Or am I the only person who reads these boards without a pole up my ass?
And yes...we missed you a buttload, Ally.
B |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 07:48 am | | Hiya Brian,
You are quite right that most people upon reading Wolf's comments that Cornwell knew her theory was bunk would have taken it as railing and not as a serious accusation. I know I did. Then there are those nitpicking carpers...
Oh well... Anyway, Cornwell and her publishers know her theory is weak and knew it before they published. They are just out to make a truckload of $$$. So there.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:22 am | | Hi All,
From AP:
'That is exactly what I did mean, that her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along.'
From Brian:
'Caz and I both jumped to conclusions based upon what AP said, and it simply turned out that my conclusion was right.'
And then:
'Cornwell must have KNOWN that Sickert couldn't have done it.' (So Brian agreed with AP's initial accusation, despite concluding that AP didn't actually mean it!)
And finally:
'This isn't the forum to level charges of conspiracy and fraud.'
Tell that to AP and Ally - I've tried my best. And let's hope that Cornwell and her publishers are among Ally's majority (I wish I knew how 'most people' think!) who don't take the Casebook, and therefore accusations of conspiracy and fraud made here, seriously.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:58 am | | Heya Caz,
Yeah I got you. Accusations are bad..unless you are the one making them against Melvin. Yep, yep, got you.
Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 12:21 pm | | Hi, all:
AP Wolf wrote:
"That is exactly what I did mean, that her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along."
Cornwell might have known before she published her book, having studied the case, that her case was weak. However, my thought is that her publishers did NOT know it.
What do publishers do? They buy a title, they put it between two covers, and they market it.
Penguin-Putnam in agreeing to publish Cornwell's Case Closed probably went more on Cornwell's reputation for selling books than any knowledge they had on the merits or demerits of her case.
By this date, having received the reviews of Cornwell's book they might be wising up to the fact that her case is not what she made it out to be. Unless, that is, the author's campaign of saying her critics have ulterior motives (those "ghoulish" Ripperologists, etc.) is swaying them to still "believe" in her book. However, I bet before the book appeared they didn't have the slightest notion that her case was weak or nonexistent.
Brian, I am e-mailing you about the proposed Baltimore-D.C. get together.
Happy New Year to all my friends on the Casebook!!!
All the best
Chris
 |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:13 pm | | I just love it when someone presumes to have the spiritual powers to speak for "most people." Or, perhaps we have a budding Georgette Gallop in our midst - who has yet to release her data.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Rich,
And here I hoped you had learned something last time. Sigh.
"A a poster charged that Cornwell knowingly published false information."
No, a poster did not charge that. Although he may have spoken badly, such that a determined mind could take it out of context and pretend it was an accusation, he cleared up that misunderstanding 8 days ago. EIGHT!!!!
And let's be honest, Mr. Butinski-come-lately, you've never "challenged that person to prove their allegation". Your first post on the subject was yesterday, and it's clear from your post that you were aware at the time that no accusation had been made as evidenced below. (Please feel free to provide evidence if I'm incorrect here.)
"Your request for some supportive documentation for the allegation is entirely appropriate. Brian and AP have responded by criticizing you for not understanding what he meant - that they "should" know that Sickert is not Jack the Ripper.
The whole strain could have been avoided had the author simply fessed up to wording his criticism clumsily (something we all have done) rather than suggesting fault lies with the person who is incapable of reading his mind"
Indeed Rich, he did fess up to wording it poorly 8 days ago. But of course you know that.
So what exactly is your major malfunction Rich? Not only do you leap in on a non-issue, you can't even bother to get your facts straight, or keep your posts consistant from day to day. Ugh. You depress me. Isn't it time for you to take another vacation?
Brian,
Don't let the post police get you down. They're not worth it.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:28 pm | | Rich,
I'm not sure if you know this, but there is this thing on the internet called "e-mail". What happens is people get your email address, say from your profile, and then put it in a little message thingie and they send you messages, like a letter. And then you get the messages and you read them.
And since I've been in this argument, I've had a lot of people email me and tell me that they agree. They just are afraid of getting embroiled in the argument so they won't post. Obviously, they have better sense than me.
So that's where my "unofficial" polling technique came from. And hey, I'm a politican in training. Of course I like to claim I represent the "silent majority."
And Chris is right - I doubt the publishers even read the thing. All they had to read was Corny's name on the cover and know it would fly off the shelves.
And Caz, for the last time: "must have known" is not even close to "knew and lied". Okay? We're bitching about an author we don't like.
If AP or I had actual proof that Corny was a liar and a cheat I'd be calling a press conference. Not posting it on a message board for 647 people to read.
But I don't. We're just trying to give Cornwell the benefit of the doubt when it comes to common sense - that her book's theories are not logical.
Now go ahead and rehash the argument, because it seems that the only reason anyone keeps arguing this inane subject and not any of the other good subjects I've posted on in the last two days is because they are desperate to get the last word. (Which I'm sure will be them pointing out that it appears that I'm doing the same thing.)
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:56 pm | | John,
The only thing I have learned from your posts is that you will defend people who make reckless and false charges - and that is not surprising since you made them yourself.
From your above post, you stated that I alleged that a poster had claimed that Cornwell knowingly published false information. Your reply, the following paragraph, is that no poster charged that.
Well, let me quote AP Wolf's post of 12/20 directly:
"All I can tell you - taking my vast experience in the murky world of publishing, is that Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect had no connection to the Ripper crimes and so did her publishers."
John, let us not split hairs. Cornwell's book states that Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper. AP Wolf wrote, even qualifying his experience in publishing, that Cornwell "knew" that Sickert had nothing to do with the Ripper crimes.
Caz rightfully asked AP Wolf to clarify. Brian intervened and suggested that the correct interpretation of the remark is that Wolf intended to say that Cornwell and her publishers should have known that the theory was false. Wolf subsequently agreed with Brian's interpretation.
This did not satisfy Caz. I don't think what he wrote comes close to what he now says he meant - but I had not intervened at that point.
Your remark that AP Wolf attempted to correct his remark 8 days ago is true. However, I posted on 12/30 and was replying to AP Wolf's remarks of 12/29 that virtually repeated the allegation he had subsequently withdrawn:
"That is exactly what I did mean that her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew all along."
I then responded. AP has now twice written that Cornwell knew what she had written was untrue (unless AP means that her theory could be both true and crap).
John, AP Wolf is a writer. He claims vast knowledge of the publishing world. As such, he should understand words matter - especially when he is attacking the integrity of an author.
John, you might do well to consider the same. When you state my charge was false - that no one had posted false information and then I can quote verbatim a poster who stated that an author knew the thesis of her book was false.
Rich |
Author: Michael Raney
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 03:10 pm | | Welcome back Ally, I missed ya a lot! Caz has only had Brian to argue with and he just doesn't have your finesse. ;-) (No offense to anyone!)
Mikey |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 03:17 pm | | Brian,
My post regarding "most people" had nothing to do with what you had written.
As you know, AP Wolf wrote on 12/20:
"All I can tell you - taking my vast experience in the murky world of publishing, is that Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect had no connection to the Ripper crimes and so did her publishers."
To me, that looks like an accusation that Cornwell knowingly published something she knew to be untrue. Of course, you came to a different interpretation. I have no quarrel with that.
I was disagreeing with another poster's remarks that "most people" upon reading the quote know that AP did not mean that Cornwell had knowingly published a false theory. I don't know how she can possible claim to know what "most people" think.
Brian, one of the troubles with Cornwell's book is that she constantly claims to know what people think and feel - including Sickert himself. Interestingly, many of her detractors claim the same deductive powers for themselves - stating they know what Cornwell "knows" and even what most people think.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 03:19 pm | | Rich,
"The only thing I have learned from your posts is that you will defend people who make reckless and false charges - and that is not surprising since you made them yourself."
You've learned nothing, friend. I will defend anyone that you choose to harrass under false pretense. (Assumming that you choose to do it when I have the day off of course. It's much more convienient that way.)
You can dig up his original quote and trump it up as (cough) proof of your position, but he clarified his intent 8 days ago Rich. You turned up on the scene yesterday. You know that no charge was intended, so what exactly is your malfunction? You knew that before you posted.
"Caz rightfully asked AP Wolf to clarify. Brian intervened and suggested that the correct interpretation of the remark is that Wolf intended to say that Cornwell and her publishers should have known that the theory was false. Wolf subsequently agreed with Brian's interpretation."
Yes. More than a week ago. (None of these events were you involved in as you falsely claimed earlier.)
"unless AP means that her theory could be both true and crap"
While I cannot speak for AP... Of course it can be both crap and true at the same time. She clearly understands that her case doesn't merit the level of definitive proof that she keeps claiming, and yet she (apparently) believes in it all the same. It's quite possible to recognize that one's case is weak, but to still believe in it. Is this difficult for you to understand?
What is becomming abundantly clear is that you are willing to take any comment out of context in your pathetic attempt to seize the non-existant moral ground.
Why don't you just give it a rest? Or are you detmermined to continue to demonstrate just how low you're willing to sink to try and score a few weak points? Mind you, I have faith that you can sink as low as you want.
John |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 03:29 pm | | I know this is futile, but:
AP said something that she (or he, I don't think it's been determined what gender lies aunder the alias) later said was wrong.
Now we have people arguing over what was obviously meant by the statement, except they see it from two different sides, so it obviously wasn't obvious.
If people would just leave it at that instead of sniping at each other we can save this site some bandwidth instead of wasting time just getting pissed off over something nobody is going to agree on.
I'm sure everyone has more important things to do, like pull out the bubbly and make resolutions for the new year and such.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 03:47 pm | | Greetings all:
*sits on the Clueless Couch*
Well, gee, I'd like to get to a DC area get together! Unfortunately my email is not working right now. So, I'll have to let you know when it is up and running, cos I know you'd love me to be there!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 05:47 pm | | Hi Dan,
I could certainly agree with your remark regarding the initial statement - not to embroil you in the controversy - but my remark was addressed to one of AP's so-called corrections.
In his last post on the subject, AP Wolf wrote:
"she knew that her theory was crap as did her publishers all along"
I simply challenged that assertion and asked for some kind of supporting evidence - which has made some quite angry.
What troubles me is the consumate double-standard. It is important to remember that AP Wolf hails as an author on this subject who has, in his words, "vast experience" in the publishing industry.
I wonder if Ally, John or Brian would see criticisms of Patricia Cornwell unfair if she had written:
"Stewart Evans and his publishers knew all along Tumblety had nothing to do with the Ripper or crimes."
and then later, imagine if Patricia "corrected" her attack on Evans by stating:
"Evans always knew his theory was crap, as did his publishers all along."
I think if any author on the case, whether it be Cornwell or Wolf, should be questioned if they make such charges against a fellow author.
My sense is, and this is opinion, that if Cornwell had made such remarks against Evans or Rumbelow, or Harris, some of the same people defending AP Wolf's attacks would be savaging Ms. Cornwell. Indeed, some have attacked her ruthlessly for far less provocative remarks.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 06:06 pm | | Rich,
You may be right. Or maybe not. But everyone's minds are made up on this one way or another already so arguing seems kind of pointless.
I'm kind of in the middle. I think the statements go a little too far but have enough of a kernel of truth that I can agree in principle if not literally.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 06:07 pm | | John,
You consistently mislead and quote me out of context while accusing me of doing so - the quotation I post of Wolf could not be "out of context" since it was the ENTIRE post.
Remember Wolf's exact words on 12/29 which I disputed:
"she knew all along her theory was crap as did her publisher."
I stated that there is no evidence that Cornwell feels that way - that she thinks her theory is false. I reiterate, one cannot know their theory is both "crap" and "true." You disagree, fine.
Please disregard, for the moment, the initial quote by AP which he subsequently somewhat clarified. In AP's last post he suggested that Cornwell "knew" her theory was crap. What is the evidence for this?
All I am doing is asking AP how he comes to the conclusion that Cornwell and her publishers "knew" her theory was crap. It is a serious allegation and should be supported if possible.
Let AP, and those who defend his remarks, once and for all show the world how Cornwell "knew" she wrote a book that was "crap."
Rich |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 06:36 pm | | Richard,
I don't know. I think the fact that she cancels any appearance with experts or where her theory will be challenged a pretty good indication she knows it is total crap.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:29 pm | | Ally,
I can't quarrel with your post at all - her failure to confront her detractors does indicate a lack of confidence in her opinion.
But I also agree with the first three words of your message "I don't know."
Neither do I.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:23 am | | Happy New Year !!!!!!
All the above arguements are now terminated.
Have a great New Year everyone !
Jim |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 09:45 am | | Rich,
"You consistently mislead and quote me out of context while accusing me of doing so - the quotation I post of Wolf could not be "out of context" since it was the ENTIRE post."
Er. No. Nice try. If you'll notice his post was in reply to, and angreement with Brian's post, and it's clear from reading the thread that he is backing away from any "accusations", and is simpy expressing his opinion that she was aware of the weakness of her theory.
In any case, "she knew all along her theory was crap as did her publisher" is hardly a "serious accusation".
(Does anyone here other than Caz, or Rich of the Post Police think there is a "serious accusation" here? Anyone?)
As far as your call for support of the remark, frankly I'd like to see you try to refute it.
It's clear from her interviews that she is aware of the limitations of her case, she continually in her interviews and writing goes back to the possibility that she is wrong (It's preying on her mind IMO.), as Ally noted she refuses all meaningful debate, she conceals weak links in her case, tries to marginalize those who disagree with her, and most importantly she is in the "business" and she's not stupid.
She knows what makes a case, and she knows she hasn't got one. It's frankly not plausible to me that she could be unaware of just how weak her case is.
Now your questions have been answered. Now about that vacation? Don't let us keep you. There's some sidewalk debate in down in the bahamas that desperately needs you to sort out the dangerous and unsupported claims of the street preachers down there.
John |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 10:27 am | | Hi John,
'...her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along.' AP on 29th December.
Here, according to you, AP is backing away from any "accusations" and simply expressing an opinion that Cornwell was aware of the weakness of her theory.
Yeah, right, if you say so.
I'll do the same then, shall I?
You know you are talking a different language - one called bo**ocks - and you know you are descending to personal insults aimed at Richard simply because you dislike him - rather a lot.
Just for you, I'll clarify - what I actually mean by that is that I am simply expressing my opinion that you may have found yourself a little out of your depth.
Hi Brian,
'And Caz, for the last time: "must have known" is not even close to "knew and lied". Okay?'
Your statement, that Cornwell must have known Sickert couldn't have been the ripper, is not close to anything other than utter nonsense, which Chris George has already pointed out. But if you feel happier talking down to me rather than to Chris for some reason, feel free to carry on.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 11:04 am | | Caz,
What a beautiful display of hypocricy! Wonderful! Bravo! I'm going to print that one out and tack it to my wall.
Rest assured I will give your opinion the due consideration it deserves.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 11:11 am | | Greetings all:
Break clean and play nice. Oh, and Happy New Year.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 11:56 am | | "In any case, "she knew all along her theory was crap as did her publisher" is hardly a "serious accusation".
(Does anyone here other than Caz, or Rich of the Post Police think there is a "serious
accusation" here? Anyone?) "
Yes, I do.
Not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I do believe the original statement
that "Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers" is quite a serious accusation. The modified statement is not in the same league, but is still bold. This says the book is a deliberate falsehood, and that both Cornwell and her publishers knew that they were putting forth deceptive arguments, a pack of lies.
I think the book and the lines of "reasoning" it presents are awful, but I have no idea how one leaps from labelling something shoddy research to implying it's a deliberate campaign of lies.
Sir Robert |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:18 pm | | Sir Robert,
Many thanks for your reply.
I'm beginning to think that maybe the issue lies with how people read the word "crap".
When you said "This says the book is a deliberate falsehood, and that both Cornwell and her publishers knew that they were putting forth deceptive arguments, a pack of lies." I was fairly flabbergasted because I didn't see how you can get there from "crap".
When someone uses the word crap to describe a theory, I don't think that that implies lies. To me, it says that the theory is poor. (And as I've said, I certainly believe that she is aware as to exactly how weak her theory is.)
If I wanted to describe a poorly researched theory, "crap" is a word that seems appropriate to me. If I wanted to indicate that the author was deceptive, it seems there are much better words (lying, deceptive, untruthful, etc...), where crap is a fairly ambiguous word that is generally used in a non-specific negative context.
But again, thanks for your kind reply.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:47 pm | | Having tried to stay out of this tedious and seemingly endless bickering for as long as possible, I finally have to respond to the invitation “Does anyone here other than Caz, or Rich of the Post Police think there is a "serious accusation" here? Anyone?”.
I’m afraid the answer is ‘yes’. Obviously.
Case A. If somebody writes on the boards “I think X’s book is rubbish”, that’s fine. Not very helpful perhaps, but it’s a simple, subjective opinion.
Case B. If the critic writes “X’s book is rubbish because it contains a lot of errors”, that’s fine too provided the reviewer can justify the comment by quoting at least some errors of fact that the book contains. But if wrong facts can’t be produced then it is a serious failing on the part of the person commenting and deserves at least an apology to the injured party (the author).
Case C. If the critic writes “X’s book is rubbish because he/she knew all along that his/her underlying data was incorrect”, then that is a serious allegation against the author and the critic must be prepared to either back it with supporting facts or withdraw the comment unconditionally with an apology. If they are not prepared to do either then the critic must be prepared to face the consequences, which may include legal ones.
Writing, "she knew all along her theory was crap as did her publisher" is most definitely akin to Case C, and as such is a serious allegation.
The moral of this sorry saga is that people writing on the boards need to think about exactly what they want to say and then phrase it accordingly. Just my half a crown… and I'll not be coming back for the change.
Regards, V. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:47 pm | | Hi All,
John and I disagree about how to interpret the intention and importance of AP's post. There is nothing wrong with that.
I do not believe Cornwell has a strong "case" against Sickert. Nor, if anyone reads her or listens to her, does she. She repeatedly says she is accumulating more information and data - she heartily recognizes that she needs to do more to convince most people that Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
What I questioned from AP was the twice stated implication that Cornwell's "theory" is false. I do not mean to parse words between 'case' and 'theory', but the distinction is important.
A prosecutor may have a theory about a crime, but recognizes he has no case. AP accused Cornwell on two occassions of not believing her own theory. I simply asked upon what he based that contention.
John believes that AP withdrew those remarks and I am attacking him simply to provoke. I merely believe that AP's withdrawl of those remarks actually reinforces his previous post. The remark has been quoted often, but I shall do so once more:
"she knew all along her theory was crap as did her publisher"
John apparently does not interpret that to mean that Cornwell does not believe her own theory. I do. I leave it to make individual judgements themselves.
John has come back, repeatedly, making the claim that Cornwell has not made the "case" against Sickert. I would agree. But that is quite different from whether she believes her own theory.
I have no idea what Cornwell believes in the recesses of her mind about her theory.
John points to certain circumstances that lead him to draw inferences that she does not believe her theory. I don't agree with all of his remarks. And many accusations, if true, do not in it of themselves show that she "knows" her theory is false.
In closing, I think I will discard this debate with John. In his own words, he writes as support that Cornwell does not believe her theory the fact that she herself has said that she could be wrong.
I, for one, do not think admitting you could be wrong is a sign of weakness - though John apparently does. And I find that those who think admitting the possibility their position may be wrong renders their position false are forced into narrow-minded doctrinaire positions - unwilling to see the other person's point of view.
I believe in God. I admit that I could be wrong. I don't want to debate whether God exists. Under John's stated logic, that means I really don't believe in God. He is entitled to that position. In my view, that is nonsense.
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:53 pm | | John,
I think the important point here is that it is very gracious of A.P. Wolf to put her book up for free on this website, and come and discuss said book on the message boards. So having said what I think about the statement, I'm going to avoid further comment just because it might appear to
unappreciative of Wolf's good deeds!
Happy New Year all !
Sir Robert |
Author: Billy Markland
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:04 pm | | Viper & Sir Robert,
Sirs you have hit the nail on the head with your comments.
I, when reading A.P.'s original post, noted that it was written not as an opinion, i.e. "crap" but as a fact. I refrained from asking for supportive evidence for two reasons:
1) Not my job to monitor the boards for anyone (except in the case of Radka when he gets too left of center )
2) I did not want to antagonize a person who had contributed a valuable asset to this community.
Just my two cents worth.
Happy New Year to all,
Billy
P.S. Sir Robert, you mention A.P. as "her". Do you have inside knowledge? It goes along with my theory that we have never seen Divia & A.P. on the board at the same time ! |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:05 pm | | Hi John,
Because someone says they could be wrong, refuses to debate a subject, or marginalizes those they disagree with, does not prove or even suggest that the individual "knows that their theory is crap (poorly researched)."
The word I quibble with, and I think others have too, is the unsubstantiated allegation that Cornwell and her publishers "knew all along" that her book contains either false allegations or poor research. That indicates that from start to finish Cornwell knowingly put out a book that was either false or poorly researched.
John, making the accusation that Cornwell, as she was researching, writing, and publishing all along knew the work she did was bunk is a serious allegation.
I have seen no evidence that as Cornwell was having DNA tests done she was thinking to herself, as alleged, "I am really doing bad research here, but I will sell my book anyway."
That is the astonishing accusation - and one that I think should be supported by those espousing it.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:09 pm | | Rich,
Will you ever stop misrepresenting my posts? Somehow I doubt that.
"John points to certain circumstances that lead him to draw inferences that she does not believe her theory. I don't agree with all of his remarks. And many accusations, if true, do not in it of themselves show that she "knows" her theory is false."
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote.
I have been extremely specific in my postings to seperate her belief, from her case (the logical structure that supposedly supports the belief). She can certainly recognize that her case is weak and still believe that she has solved it. Your example of god is appropriate, the case for God is weak. No one can "prove" God exists, but that doesn't make the belief any less sincere.
Why is it so difficult for you make the distinction?
You are correct when you say that "John believes that AP withdrew those remarks and I am attacking him simply to provoke". I certainly do believe that.
But you're wrong when you say that I find "admitting you could be wrong is a sign of weakness", I have done so here publically many times. (More than I care to remember. Sigh.)
And indeed I would like to say that it appears that I could be wrong in this case. I personally can't draw the line between "crap" and "lies". It seems to me to be a stretch for the language, but if Viper and Sir Robert can, than perhaps there is more to it than I thought.
I do believe that AP has withdrawn the comments, and I certainly don't believe that he intended any accusations. But there appears to be room for disagreement so I will leave it at that.
(And yes, I still think you're just trolling.)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:30 pm | | She knows her theory is crap is not the same thing as she knows she is lying. She does know her theory is crap, hence her refusal to debate it with intelligent knowledgeable persons. It is not a serious allegation. What are the consequences of Wolf having said it? Other than spiteful little shats taking it as an opportunity to snipe at people who have contributed more to the boards and the case than they could ever hope to.
It's not a serious allegation. Get over it. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:39 pm | | John,
We are debating whether Cornwell "knew all along" that her theory was "crap" - indicating that as she was researching, writing, and publishing her work she "knew all along" that the work she was doing was bunk. I asked the author of that remark to defend it. For this, you say I am a troll, and offer your defense of the accusation.
You wrote about Cornwell:
"It's clear from her interviews that she is aware of the limitations of her case, she continually in her interviews and writing goes back to the possibility that she is wrong."
So I wrote:
"I, for one, do not think admitting you could be wrong is a sign of weakness - though John apparently does."
Then you reply:
"But you're wrong when you say that I find 'admitting you could be wrong is a sign of weakness', I have done so here publically many times."
Your personal animousity toward me is overwhelming but I think many are growing tired of it. I have no personal hostility toward AP or anyone (even you, I will not return your personal insults in kind) who holds the stated position - I am simply asking that they defend their position.
Rich
Rich |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:46 pm | | Dear Billy:
Ah, A.P. and I have never been on the boards at the same time? Interesting....
Thanks for the compliment, but I am not one and the same as the fabulous A.P. I'm just me. *evil laugh*
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:48 pm | | Wow!
No one who as discussed Cornwell's book with her is an "intelligent knowledgeable person."
Additionally, suggesting someone and their publisher "knew all along that their theory was crap" suggests at the very least from start to finish author and publisher set out to write a bad book. But, hey, I guess that isn't a serious allegation.
Rich |
Author: Billy Markland
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 02:15 pm | | Dear Divia,
In the immortal words of Pat, I don't have to prove you are A.P. but you have to prove you are not!
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 02:42 pm | | Dear Billy:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, gosh, wasn't that the worst?
All I can say is, if you can get A.P. in the chat room at the same time as me that should prove it. Or maybe we can just settle this at the conference in Baltimore, hm? Go ahead. I dare you.
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 03:54 pm | | Rich,
"We are debating whether Cornwell "knew all along" that her theory was "crap" - indicating that as she was researching, writing, and publishing her work she "knew all along" that the work she was doing was bunk. I asked the author of that remark to defend it. For this, you say I am a troll, and offer your defense of the accusation."
(You're trolling, not debating. Big difference.)
But in any case, what Cornwell knew or didn't know isn't the focus of my discussion with you. It's weather calling her theory "crap" constitued a "serious allegation".
I still don't buy into it, but I am willing to conceed that a few reasonable people might interpert it that way.
I must say that I really love the way that you continually try to assign false interpertations to my posts. It goes quite a long way toward proving your trollhood.
I said, "It's clear from her interviews that she is aware of the limitations of her case, she continually in her interviews and writing goes back to the possibility that she is wrong."
Then you tried to twist in into this:
"I, for one, do not think admitting you could be wrong is a sign of weakness - though John apparently does."
logical chain do you use to get from specific case A, to sweeping generalization B?
Common sense time Rich. I know you can't be bothered to watch her interviews or read her book. I expect it's against the troll code. But if her case was strong, she would hardly have reason to perpetually discuss her doubts, nor would she assign it the heavy emotional weight that she does.
Admitting that one can be wrong is not a sign of weakness, but when you've got someone who keeps going back to it and talking about how horrible they would feel if they were wrong, it's certainly an indicator that they might have reason to be concerned in that area.
I'm also cheered to note that although you think it's Ok to take cheap shots at Ally ("Or, perhaps we have a budding Georgette Gallop in our midst - who has yet to release her data.") for invoking the invisible support of others, you're not above it yourself.
John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:23 pm | | Hi John,
I have read her book and watched her interviews - you might look over on the Cornwell thread where I write in detail my opinions of her work. So, again, that charge is false as it relates to this discussion.
I suppose we do not even agree what this debate is about. Your last post says our discussion is about:
"It's weather calling her theory 'crap' constitued a "serious allegation"
That is not what I have debated. I am not arguing the merit of her case. What I am arguing is about the comment that another poster made that Cornwell "knew all along" that her theory was either false or "crap."
The poster alleges that from the very start, Cornwell knew her theory was bunk. I challenged that assertion as a serious allegation of knowingly misrepresenting their work product.
I did make the remark regarding Ally. She said that "most people" would not read AP's post as meaning that Cornwell knowingly wrote something false. I made the sarcastic remark that she must be a pollster to come to the conclusion what most people think regarding that quotation. Based on the posts subsequently, it would appear she had a sampling error. That is not, as you charge, a "cheap shot."
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:37 pm | | Rich,
I had not read your post at that time, but as you stated you received it for a gift I'm not particularly impressed by your achievement in finally bothering to find out what you'be been offering uninformed opnions on for months now. But good job anyhow I guess. It's a positive (if accidental) sign.
And while it's funny (on one level, sad on most of the rest of 'em) watching you embaress yourself, I'm afraid I will need to forgoe the pleasure for a few days. I'll be away on business and probably won't have internet access unfortunately. So your mythical legions of supporters can rest soundly.
I hope by the time I get back you'll have ceased your trolling ways, and that we won't need to take this up again, but it seems unlikely. (But I do LOVE surprises.)
John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:29 pm | | John,
I sincerely hope you enjoy your time off.
Much as you might want to bait me into descending to responding in kind to your ad hominem personal attacks, I am just not interested.
I prefer to discuss the merits of the case.
Have a terrific week.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:27 pm | | Guys,
I don't want to get involved in this again, but I want to clear something up:
AP didn't say her theory was crap, I did. And as far as I know, I wasn't making a "serious allegation" at the time. I was just defending what everyone else seems to have called a "serious allegation" that AP said.
So blame me for the "crap" (it's one of my favorite words) and blame the "serious allegation" (which it wasn't) on AP.
I'll state it plainly - I don't care for Cornwell. I don't care for her theory. I don't care for her attitude. I think her research was poor, and that she covered it up with money and flowery dialogue. I enjoy a good fiction book as much as anyone, but not when it comes to a subject in which so much fiction has already been passed off as fact to the public. I don't think there is anything wrong with her throwing her theory out for us to judge it. What I do take offense to is her thumbing her nose at the rest of us, bragging to any who will listen that she's solved the case. It's egotistical, it's rude and worse - it's not true.
And if some of you think that I've made a "serious allegation" when I say she's not telling the truth when she says she's solved the case, I'll call a press conference tomorrow to inform the media. I wonder if anyone would show up.
B |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 09:35 pm | | I love the "spiteful little shats" comment. Quite poetic.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 12:34 am | | Hi Brian,
I have not quoted your post as to your opinions of Cornwell's theory - you certainly are entitled to them. Indeed, I might even agree with them.
What I did quote, verbatim, is the allegation another poster made against Cornwell:
"she knew all along her theory was crap as did her publisher"
Cornwell maintains that her book is factual and exhaustively and extensively researched. The author of the post I quoted is representing that Cornwell and her publisher knew before and after the release date of her book that claim is false.
The question is not whether Cornwell's theory is or is not "crap." The question is did Cornwell and her publishers know what was published in advance was garbage and choose to publish it anyway. That is the allegation. I think the accusers should provide the evidence about what Cornwell "knew."
Respectfully, I think the distinctions I and others have made have been missed by those who have defended the remark. And after this tedious back and forth it seems apparent the two sides shall not agree. It is quite possible that AP did not intend to convey that literal interpretation some of us have come to with regard to that quote.
I respect your opinion, Brian. And I agree with you that Ms Cornwell's claim that she has solved the case is "untrue." But that doesn't mean she is lying. For it is quite possible she believes she has solved the case to her own satisfaction.
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:31 am | | Hi, Divia:
I registered in amongst the melée that has been occurring here that you wish to attend the D.C. get-together but that you have been having trouble with your e-mail. Brian and I will bear in mind that you wish to attend as we plan. Thanks for the notification.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 06:51 am | | Hi All,
John Hacker wrote:
'I personally can't draw the line between "crap" and "lies". It seems to me to be a stretch for the language, but if Viper and Sir Robert can, than perhaps there is more to it than I thought.
I do believe that AP has withdrawn the comments, and I certainly don't believe that he intended any accusations.'
As I see it, writing that Cornwell willingly spread untruths for commercial gain and fame; that Cornwell and her publishers knew before the book came out that Sickert had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes; and then finally agreeing with Brian's interpretation, on 29th December, and writing 'her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along', is just about as clear an intention to make accusations as you can get, and IMHO hardly counts as a couple of thoughtless slips of the typing digit followed by an unequivocal withdrawal and apology.
Therefore, when taken in their entirety, the statements and the modification of same certainly draw the line between "crap" and "lies" to my own satisfaction with no stretch of the language whatsoever.
It’s John's choice to defend unsupported accusations on the boards, but he doesn't do a very good job of it. My example to him in my last post illustrated this but he managed to miss both the irony and the whole point.
Why would John feel the need to water down the original words of AP’s 29th December accusation until it was a mere shadow of its former self, in order to defend it, if he found it perfectly defensible as it stood?
Just to remind everyone, John described AP’s position thus: ‘simply expressing his opinion that she was aware of the weakness of her theory’. Had AP ever written that and meant it, this discussion would never have taken place. But AP is not going to be the one blamed for nothing while personal dislikes can be aired instead.
John clearly condones the flinging around of any old accusation on the basis that it can always be toned down later, or changed out of all recognition, if and when it suits, either by the accuser or one of their support group – no harm done. As he sees it as such a harmless exercise I figured he would take my little example of how it feels to be the target in the same spirit and not take it seriously.
I do wonder, though, what some people would regard as a serious allegation. I suppose one day we will find out if and when someone rich enough and touchy enough feels like playing with their 'allegators'. 
Let’s hope everyone involved sees it as good harmless fun and nothing to lose sleep over.
Happy New Year to all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:02 pm | | Hi Caz,
You and I are literalists - we assess someone's writing based upon what was actually written.
There are others who believe they "know" the intentions of others and that, therefore what is written or spoken by the individual is irrelevant.
Take the following two examples:
1.Cornwell says that her book is exhaustively researched, accurate, and correct.
2. A critic says that Cornwell knew all along that her theory was crap.
The way we interpret those remarks is that Cornwell believes she did a great job and the critic is saying that Cornwell is lying.
The alternative approach, that we have seen here defended by a few partisans, is that Cornwell really did not mean what she said (afterall, she has admitted she could be wrong) and the critic was not impugning the character of Cornwell at all - merely disagreeing with her theory.
Rich |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:13 pm | | Why this is a duplicate, I'll never know. So, if any moderators are out there, this can be deleted, okay?
*wuf*
Divia |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:14 pm | | Dear Chris:
My email is back up and running, thanks so much for including me in the get-together!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:09 pm | | Hi, Div et al.
Fine Divia
Fine Divia
Is this deja vu or what? 
You will be also excited to hear that we may have a special guest. "Sir Robert Anderson" recent poster whose name is actually Bob Anderson has expressed interest in coming down from NYC to our gathering. Anyone interested in coming a distance should know that it may only be an evening's worth of chat and bonhommie so bear that in mind as you make your travel plans.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 06:53 pm | | Rich,
I bet you failed poetry in college.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't read anything literally. I always try and ask what the point of what the person is writing, and if something is unclear, I read it the way I believe the writer intended it to be read.
I mean, did you think that when Howard posted his Christmas wish to be getting Radka's address he really was going to go visit and punch him out? If you did, did you call the cops? C'mon. You can't read anything - especially what are essentially random thoughts and ideas posted on an internet message board - literally.
While AP's post wasn't Shakespeare, I got the meaning. Maybe many of you didn't. I don't know. But let's please GOD drop the issue and talk about something useful!
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 07:47 pm | | Hi Brian,
Leaving aside the AP/Cornwell controversy, I think you and I can agree that our differences on the topic are based upon the interpretation of the writer's words.
As you and I have agreed, I look at the specific wording of something written and from that conclude what the writer is trying to say. You try to determine what you believe the point the writer is trying to make and then interpret the wording as consistent with your view of what the writer is trying to say. That is, of course, two kinds of approaches.
You seem to have confidence in you ability to understand what a person means even if it contradicts what they say. That's terrific. But I don't have that skill and have seen far too frequently incorrect interpretations of phrases.
Take for example the graffiti on Goulston St:
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
I have countless times seen this remark called an anti-Semetic slur. Leaving aside whether Juwes refers to Jews, the remark could be interpret at least in two of the following ways:
1. Jews escape blame for the crimes they commit
2. Jews should not be blamed because they are innocent
I prefer to let words speak for themselves and try not to interject my personal opinion of what the author meant - I will leave that for the author to defend.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:44 pm | | Rich,
It's clear that this discussion is a waste of time. You seem to be immune to anything approaching reason, so I won't waste much more effort on you, but your last two posts really expose the hypocracy behind your and Caz's tirade.
You have the gall to claim to Caz that:
"You and I are literalists - we assess someone's writing based upon what was actually written.
There are others who believe they 'know' the intentions of others and that, therefore what is written or spoken by the individual is irrelevant."
and then you go on to assert that:
"A critic says that Cornwell knew all along that her theory was crap" actually means "the critic is saying that Cornwell is lying." (Of course that's only the "The way we interpret" the statement.)
That's hardly a literal interpertation Rich. If you were to interpert crap literally, then what we're talking about is excrement.
Let's be realistic here. Crap is used in a lot of ways. Here are a few I've heard just today:
"John, get this crap off the office floor!" (In this case crap is a few stacks of DVDs, some JtR books, and a giant Lego model of a Star destroyer.)
"He is so full of crap." (I asked the woman what she mean specifically by that and her answer was "He's just full of it!".)
"This monitor is such a piece of crap." (It doesn't work too well.)
So I did a quick bit o' reasearch and I looked up the definition of crap on dictionary.com and came up with the following meanings:
1) Excrement.
2) An act of defecating.
3) Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
4) Cheap or shoddy material.
5) Miscellaneous or disorganized items; clutter.
6) Insolent talk or behavior.
Well gosh, it seems that crap is a pretty generic word in a negative sort of way after all. Why, it could mean all sorts of things! What a surprise!
While meanings 1, 2, and 5 can pretty much be ruled out by the context, (There I go, INTERPERTING things again...) you can't really narrow it further than that without actually asking AP what he meant. (What an idea!)
Instead of course we get the post patrol picking their pet interpertation, and riding forth trumpting that "serious allegations" have been made... Puh-leaze. Without even bothering to ascertain what exactly he is supposedly alleging... Yep. Responsible reasearch in action.
And these folks are on the side of right and good? Defending the faith and all that? Er, nope. Just a couple of incredibly arrogrant people that feel that they get sit in judgement of others. No reason necessary, any old excuse will do.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know what AP meant by his post. I certainly do not interpert it in the way that you do. Taken in context of the conversation I think it's a stretch to get to where you are now.
But by all means, continue to pretend that you can read minds and determine what was meant in an incredibly vague statement. And by all means pretend that your interpertation is the only possibly correct one. And don't try to ask him what was acutally MEANT. Nope.
Whatever. If Ally is Gallop, you must be Kreskin.
But weather you have the honesty to admit it or not, it is only an interpertation, it is not a literal reading of the words that were written. You picked some words, put them in AP's mouth, and then proceeded to bash him for it. I'm sorry, I find that rather pathetic. I'm sure you'll come up with some reason to continue to justify your sad behavior but I think it's pretty apparent to all reasonable folks exactly what you're up to here.
The thing that really galls me Rich is that you seem like you could be an Ok guy if you could just get off your high horse and actually talk to the commoners, instead of staring haughtily down your nose at them, but I guess it's not in the cards. Do what you feel you gotta Rich. I'm sure your mother is very proud. I'm done with this topic.
AP, thanks for your allowing your work to be posted. Don't let Rich or Caz get to you. Rest assured that you have contributed far more than those two bozos ever will.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:44 pm | | Rich,
We have a wonderful luxury on the boards here - the author is readily available (most of the time) and can respond if what they say or have said is ambiguous.
We as readers don't always have that luxury. The Goulston Street graffito, as you have pointed out, is a beautiful example of this. The reader - be he a latter day Ripperologist, or a contemporary Policeman - is forced to determine what the author meant despite the ambiguous language. And we may never know for sure.
While in the case of the graffito, we will never know for sure, in many cases there can be a right and a wrong answer. And, as we did have the luxury to consult the author in this case, we have learned that my interpretation of the author's intent was the correct one, and the few of you who thought his comments were a serious accustation were wrong. So we can end the debate there.
This isn't poker - the cards (and the words) don't always speak for themselves. And if you come to the table with a deck so worn you can't tell clubs from spades, you're gonna cause a fight. And that's what happened here.
So I think we have all properly chastened AP for his poor choice of words.
Now let's move on.
B |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:53 pm | | File under "moving on"........
How about we take a look at this statement from
A.P. ? :
"It is almost as if Colin Wilson is putting his considerable influence towards excusing the
mass murderers he is writing about. The victims have invited murder, either by wearing
low-cut dresses, accepting lifts off strangers or being a pretty, unmarried woman or even
a child who seeks an explanation of the facts of life. Perhaps even more alarming is the
behaviour of some obviously disturbed people who appear to have read some of Wilson's
work."
Now THAT's a pretty strong statement, not very ambiguous at all. Of course it's got the "almost"
modifier in there so I suppose there is some wiggle room, but I read this as saying Colin Wilson is an apologist for serial killers, and
that in the wrong hands, his books encourage murder, if not jaywalking.
As my teenage daughter would say, that is some serious wack.
Sir Robert |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:00 pm | | Sir Robert,
Nope, that's not amibiguous at all. But it's clear that he is only stating his opinion. I don't agree with him on that one, but he's entitled to his opinion.
Where is that particular quote from? I'd be interested to see it in context.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:04 pm | | Hi John,
You keep ignoring the point I am making. When a poster says that Cornwell "knew all along her theory was crap" yet Cornwell maintains her work was methodically researched and exhaustively reviewed for accuracy, the only way I see that remark can be interpreted is that the allegation is being made that Cornwell is lying.
You seem to be concentrating on the word "crap" - as it relates to the assessment of the quality of her theory. That is not my point of disagreement.
The point of contention for me is the phrase "knew all along" - and so I ask, based on that remark, "What is the evidence that Cornwell KNEW ALL ALONG, ergo from when she started her research to the publish date, that what she was working on 'crap'?"
That seems like a straight-forward question.
My purpose is not to condemn AP for making the charge - I am simply asking what evidence exists to support it.
Please do not suggest that I and Caz are the only ones to think this is a serious charge made by AP - the last time you suggested that several other posters, as you recall, echoed our concerns. I am sure that they are weary of this discussion.
AP made this comment on a public board. AP could very easily clarify the intention of the remark that Cornwell "knew all along that her theory was crap" in the same venue the charge was made.
This entire issue would have died had you and I left it alone - but the board has been cluttered with our exchanges.
I am not going to respond to your questioning of my character and integrity. It's pointless. My question is to AP, not to you, and it stands:
"AP, when you allege on these boards that Cornwell 'knew all along that her theory was crap,' what evidence do you have to support that allegation?"
That is all I am asking.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:12 pm | | Hi John,
I mean this sincerely, I'd like you to review the following comments:
1. Cornwell has always maintained that her book is meticulously detailed, exhaustively researched, and names the real Jack the Ripper.
2. A poster states that Cornwell "knew all along her theory was crap."
Taking those two positions into account, please give me an alternative interpretation of the poster's remarks other than the charge that Cornwell is knowingly making false claims.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:15 pm | | On second thought, I'm not going to respond. I don't think I can make a better final post than my last one.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:31 pm | | Brian & John,
Brian attempted to clarify an earlier post by AP suggesting what AP meant to write was that Cornwell should have known her theory was crap - not that she intended to mislead anyone.
Verbatim, this was AP's reply:
"Thank you Brian.
That is exactly what I did mean, that her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along. No big deal. Happens all the time."
AP on the one hand agreed with what you said but in the very same sentence then contradicted it.
If you read in context AP's previous remarks which were more direct and severe, especially with AP's claims to have extensive publishing experience, to me it suggested that writers knowingly publish false material all the time. I acknowledge that this is my interpretation and could be wrong - that is why I ask AP to clarify - not you or John to tell me what you think AP meant.
Now, you may claim to know what AP meant - I do not. I read it to mean that Cornwell, from start to finish, knew that her theory was garbage and that her claims to the contrary, therefore, are false.
Both you and John claim I am misquoting or misleading AP's intentions. I have no idea what they are. That is why I have asked AP to either provide evidence for the charge or clarify. This is not attack - simply a request for evidence.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:35 pm | | Brian,
Amen to that.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:54 pm | | I am not accusing AP, as apparently others are, of a poor choice of words. I am not seeking to "chastize." AP may not have intended the implication I inferred - the fault in interpretation could be by those of us who shared my view of the remarks. I am simply asking for clarification.
I am not asking for the opinions of others about what AP actually meant. I, and others, have asked a question. AP is free to answer or to not - no hard feelings either way.
What won't let the issue rest are the self-appointed spokespeople for AP who attack those of us personally for asking AP for a clarification of the remark. And, of course, idiots like me who reply to those who substitute emotion for reason and name-calling for logic.
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:58 pm | | John,
That snippet is from Chapter 3 - Motives in the Dark - of Jack the Myth. Colin Wilson gets raked over pretty harshly.
Sir Robert |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:09 am | | Hi Sir Robert,
You have made an excellent point.
AP Wolf's book comes to the conclusion that Colin Wilson apparently believes the Ripper's victims deserved their fate - to which Mr. Hacker's only reply is that AP is stating an opinion - to which AP is entitled (how generous).
Yet, when AP writes that Cornwell "knew all along that her theory is crap" and I come to the conclusion that she is accusing Cornwell of saying things she doesn't believe in, the same Mr. Hacker accuses me of attacking AP unfairly.
You will note that I have expressed the same opinion that others have on this thread - but Mr. Hacker concentrates his attacks upon me. This is in keeping with a vow Mr. Hacker sent me via email almost a month ago - to, as he sees it, hold me accountable if he feels I am "harrassing" another poster.
I am willing to absorb his attacks and insults - so please to others do not take personally his vendetta against me as including anyone else who shares my position.
Sir Robert, as you have shown, his quarrel is not over the substance of the matter - it is about his personal dislike for Caz and I - hence his inability to debate the subject without personal insults.
Rich |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 04:22 am | | If this is how supposedly inteligent people correspond and debate among themselvs,then I am pleased to be an unintelligent,uninterested,know nothing.
You are all about as interesting as Cornwell,s book.
If you think this is an insulting post,then it is the only intelligent conclusion you have collectively made.
A.P.For goodness sake,tell them what you mean,or the morans will be going round in ever decreasing circles ,till they dissapear up each others rear. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:08 am | | Hi All,
John,
AP wrote that Cornwell willingly spread untruths for commercial gain and fame; that Cornwell and her publishers knew before the book came out that Sickert had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes; and finally wrote, on 29th December, '...her theory was crap and she and her publishers knew that all along', telling Brian that this is exactly what he meant by his previous words.
I am not interpreting these statements, taking them too literally or picking words and putting then in AP's mouth. Neither am I bashing him for writing them. It's entirely up to him whether he chooses to support any of his accusations, retract or apologise for them. Good for him if he returns with some evidence. If he doesn't, we are free to treat his words as opinion and agree or disagree accordingly. If my own thoughts differ from the majority, I couldn't be happier - who in their right mind regards it as a proud boast that they think the same way as 'most people' ?
AP is his own person and from what I've seen so far, I can't imagine anyone less likely to let Rich or Caz 'get' to him! As long as he is confident that his words are not open to the kind of interpretation that could get him into deep water, that’s all that should matter to him. He is as free as anyone else to ignore the bozos and shats (is that a noun or a past participle?) waving flags at him from the safety of the beach.
It’s a great pity that you let Rich and I get to you so much – and a bit of a mystery too, if you and the majority of posters put no value on anything we write.
Hi Rich,
I'd put it even simpler:
1. Cornwell and her publishers call it 'Case Closed'.
2. AP claims that Cornwell and her publishers knew all along that her theory was crap.
I'm sorry, but whatever interpretation John tries to put on the word 'crap' here, in his transparent efforts to kick the crap out of you, there is just no getting away from it - unless he wants to argue that to ‘know’ a theory is crap then announce that the same crap is being used to close the case is anything other than 'willingly spreading untruths', which is what AP wrote in the first place.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:23 am | | Sir Robert,
Thanks for the information, I'm afraid I haven't gotten to chapter 3 yet. It will give me something to read at lunch today.
Many thanks,
John Hacker |
Author: Ally
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:51 am | | Hi Caroline,
I am so glad that you have been able to infer AP's character and personality based on the few posts he has managed to write. Therefore the next time you feel tempted to snipe about how the haranguing threads on these boards are driving away the newbies, I shall just reply that from what I have seen of their personalities, they can take it.
Ally |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 07:06 am | | Sir Robert,
Wow. I just did a quick read through of chapter 3, and yeah that's pretty strong stuff. And pretty much ALL Colin Wilson related, too. A quick reread of the earlier chapters show Wilson also turning up quite a lot. That hadn't struck me at the time, but by Chapter 3 it's quite the running theme.
Quite a lot of the opinions AP seems to raking him over the coals for are ideas that are (or were) widely accepted. And indeed, Wilson is unlikely to be the orginator of most of them.
I'm afraid my familiarity with Colin's work is pretty much limited to his many JtR intros, (And of course I saw Lifeforce which I understand is based on a story by him.) so I haven't read all the books AP refers to, but it's apparent that he is treating Wilson rather shabbily. I wish I had read a copy of Wilson/Odell's book so I could get an idea what caused such strong feelings in AP.
While he does make a couple of good points in there, much of what he has written I flat out disagree with. Additionally it seems to be highly unfair that he singles out Wilson as whipping boy for ideas that are fairly common.
But of course he is entitled to his opinions.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 08:20 am | | Hi all.
Put simply: Caz was right.
Saying things like "I said y, but I meant x..." doesn't really cut the mustard, does it?
Especially when your statement is as bald and as potentially libellous as AP's was. Or his 'clarification' come to think of it.
I don't think that's a hard point to grasp, or a moral ideal of such lofty height that we can never hope to grasp it in the grubby world of the public forum. And I don't think there is anything like as much semantic subtlety in either of AP's statements. to justify all this rarefied quibbling.
But hey! As a long as 'most people' know what was really meant, I guess it's a moot point, isn't it? I suppose I must belong to some wierdly repressed minority who'll never know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin either.
TTFN
C |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:31 am | | Hi all:
Might I make a plea to move on? This board is becoming very like some of the Diary boards and I am starting to avoid it as a result. Not to mention that posters are eating up valuable bandwidth with this circular argument and namecalling. As has been stated before, the expense of running this site, including this forum, is largely borne by Stephen Ryder. By eating up space with this endless argument, Stephen is the one who is carrying the financial burden, and he shouldn't have to.
I was delighted to see that Rich Dewar actually got a pat on the back from Brian Schoeneman, despite their prior differences, for mentioning the graffito (or graffiti as SPE insists!) as an example how we can each interpret something written in a different way. Quite so. With that reference to the case, let's move on shall we? It is now 2003 and I would like to see an end to the endless back and forth on the topic of AP Wolf/Cornwell and her publishers. It is leading nowhere except becoming more tiresome for me and I am sure for a lot of visitors to these boards.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:03 am | | Hi Chris,
Here, here!
Rich
PS - Howard, I make no pretense to intelligence - or I wouldn't be so easily dragged into these scuffles! |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:05 am | | Hi Chris,
I thought the whole point of Pub Talk was that it didn't take up any valuable bandwidth because earlier posts disappeared as new ones arrived. I truly didn't realise that this no longer applied, and apologise to all concerned for not paying attention! When Ally directed us to 'Whine and Cheese' to continue this particular debate it never occurred to me that it would eat up space - my fault.
Anyway, I said all I wanted to on the subject in my last post, and agree with you that this topic is unlikely to lead anywhere.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:49 am | | Chris,
No worries. I've said my piece and as I said last night I'm done with this topic.
Your point about bandwidth is an excellent one. The next time I send Stephen a donation I'll throw in some extra cash as a "Rant Tax".
Caz,
"I thought the whole point of Pub Talk was that it didn't take up any valuable bandwidth because earlier posts disappeared as new ones arrived."
Deleting posts saves storage space on the server which should save some money, which is good.
But bandwidth is related to the amount of data moved between the server and other machines. The bandwidth is eaten by all the folks reading our posts. The owner of the site typically has to pay a fee related to the amount of data that is moved in a given billing period. (Ain't computers grand?)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:53 am | | Hi, John, Rich, and Caz:
Actually I don't know whether this thread eats up bandwidth, although John's post appears to indicate it does while the posts are on the server, even if they time out later. Nevertheless, my point is that the same things and the same words have been used over and over in the last several weeks on the AP Wolf/Cornwell matter, and frankly it's a turnoff and a waste of space whether it's hitting Stephen in the pocket or not.
Thanks for your understanding, John, Rich, and Caz.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:17 pm | | Thanks for the explanation John - too technical for me! And I thought there'd only be about two people reading these posts apart from the posters themselves.
Anyway, everyone, it all goes to show that if we all questioned ourselves a bit more severely before deciding certain accusations/attitudes really required to be expressed, the whole site would benefit because there'd be fewer arguments in the long run over interpretation and personal resentment issues. Eh, Sir Robert?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 05:17 pm | | Chris and Caz,
John is on the money.
Bandwidth is the capacity for data transfer of an electronic communications system; primarily the maximum data transfer rate of such a system.
Most website hosting firms allow 5 Gigs of bandwidth per month. If you break that down in terms of megabytes, 5000 megabytes of data can be transferred within a given month. Usually if you go over the allocated amount of bandwidth, you are then charged an extra fee.
Bandwidth is used every time someone visits a website. Each time an image loads, that is actual bandwidth being used and is counted towards an allocated monthly amount of data transfer. The size of the page and the actual size of the images are part of the data transfer.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 07:26 pm | | Inspired by the conversation over at the Mary Kelly thread, some questions about English cuisine have occurred to me.
What's all this I hear about eel juice? Why would I want to drink something called 'bitters'? And baked beans for breakfast? Between that, mushy peas (sounds like someone sits on 'em first), and pudding made out of BLOOD, not chocolate, you Brits sound like a hungry lot! And why doesn't soda bread taste like Coca-Cola?
Leave me my good American food, like pizza and spaghetti (laugh)
The Ugly American,
Dave |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 03:16 am | | David,
It isn't so much what we eat,but when we eat it ,that is the interesting piece.
Fish and chips(potatoes) I consider a midday through evening meal.In all the thousands of conversations I've had on food,I have never heard of fish and chips(potatoes) for breakfast.
Again there is always the exception to the rule.
Eel juice,Stun Em,rotgut,pig's ear.Might mean different things to different people.To me they describe Cider,or alternately beer.Of the strong,rough kind. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 11:19 am | | Harry,
So eel juice is some kind of hard cider? That doesn't sound so bad--I had a mental picture of someone squeezing an eel over a glass.
Actually, I'm a big fan of English breakfasts, and in Chicago at least, they serve potatoes with them (maybe that's just Americans messing up a traditional dish). Since English/Irish breakfast isn't available in Middle Tennessee, I'm very jealous of you people enjoying your rashers, bacon, and black and white puddings!
Grrr,
Dave |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 03:06 am | | David,
Times change and so do peoples habits.I left England Thirty Six years ago,so I can only relate to times before then,and in particular to that part of England where I grew up.Of course Elvers(young eels)were eaten at breakfast,usually with Bacon or an egg,but this a was a seasonel dish,coinciding with the spring tides on the river Severn.
For a tasty Midday snack,try the eel juice with a portion of Stinking Bishop.
Regards. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 12:00 pm | | Folks
Speaking of Breakfasts, does anyone have a Pork Pie breakfast on Christmas morning ??...my Dad swears by it.
Monty
|
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 07:22 am | | Actually, eel 'liquor' - which I believe in fact was the liquid eels had been cooked in - was very popular in the East End - usually poured on mashed potato. Jellied eels is another favourite East End dish - my mother who is in her 80's still craves them.
Pete |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:41 pm | | Whatho Monty,
Yes, we used to have pork pie for breakfast on Christmas Morning. Pork Farms of course. May be it's an East Midland thing.
Cheers, pass the HP sauce, Mark |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:56 pm | | "We'll go in there and get wrecked. Then we'll eat a pork pie. Then we'll drop a couple of Surmontil 50's, which means we'll miss out Monday but come up smiling on Tuesday morning."
Regards
Timnail |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 12:02 pm | | Mark,
Nah, the old man always has a Walkers Pork pie. They queue for miles in Leicester for it.....for the pie as well.
He eats his with Bread and butter, Stilton and a dollop of picalilli.
He also wears his slippers in the snow.
We are looking for a home for him.
EELS ?? disgusting !
Monty
|
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 07:27 pm | | Whatho Monty,
Walkers? Are they the same people who make the crips?
Now there a thing; plain crips with real vinegar on them. My mother swears by them.
Oh to be in Nottingham now that Christmas is here!
Cheers, homesick Mark |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 04:07 am | | Hubby loves jellied eels for breakfast - I have to be in the mood for them and leave all the jelly.
But o rapture - Scampi and lemon flavoured Nik Naks are back and I'm in heaven! I got through bucketloads when I was pregnant.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 11:31 am | | Mark,
They are indeed...well I think they are.
I believe Walkers started out as butchers many years ago and branched out into snack foods...well thats what I was told.
Their sausages are lovely...especially their pork and leak ones.
Man, this thread has gone down hill, hasnt it ?
Monty
|
Author: David Radka
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 09:46 pm | | I think I know what a jellied eel tastes like. I'm not sure I want to have an experience of coming to know that I know.
David |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 01:58 am | | Amen!!!!!
Gee, I wish I had a "clapping" gif to emphasize Dave R.'s point!
Raw fish / jellied eel / ----> UGH!
Cooking BBQ chicken tomorrow night= "rubbing tummy gif"
Billy |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:43 pm | | Whatho Monty,
At least whilst we are talking about food, people aren't throwing insults at each other.
Cheers, Mark |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 08:10 pm | | Many thanks to those who have placed sensible comments on these boards in relation to my book while I have been unable to post.
Firstly the location of the victims, Nichols,Chapman,Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly have been located and have been known for many years.For anyone to state that the exact locations remain unknown simply shows a lack of knowledge regarding the murders.
As for Radka and his piffel I note that those who make the most ridiculous comments on matters they know nothing about are the ones that have not even read my book. Such a fact speaks volumes about the mentality of such people who comment on matters they know nothing about.Constructive criticism from sensible people I welcome but infantile remarks from dorks I cannot abide by. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 09:38 pm | | Ivor,
It has nothing to do with reading the book. The idea that exact distances between the victims is something to go on with respect to solving the case is a matter of making a reasonable structure out of a set of chaotic coincidences. If I wanted to, I could see many different structures in any chaos. This kind of thing is done all the time--you are employing the oldest trick in the book.
Go out on a clear night and look up into the sky. After awhile, the chaotic jumble of stars begins to congeal in your mind into patterns. In any very complex field, you really cannot help yourself but find patterns. See a dog, an archer, a horse, a gravy dipper, etc. This is what a devious factor feeds on. He points out these constellations to you, convinces you they are meaningful, collects your money and then goes looking for another opportunity.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 10:30 pm | | | Retarded Radka, Do not push your luck for you are skating on very thin ice by calling me a con man and stating I only wrote my book to con the public.As for a sucker the only person here who could be termed so is yourself. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 10:48 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Let me distance myself from Mr. Radka's criticisms of your work.
Although I am not persuaded by your theory, I do believe your position has merit and that your research is an important contribution.
I hope that you do not take my remarks as a personal negative reflection upon you or your work.
You have clearly persuaded some people - I am a skeptic of most theories related to the case and, therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I do not find your theory as compelling as some others do.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 11:17 pm | | Richard,
All this "What if" etc does not come into the situation. What if Mary Kelly had done this, what if Mary kelly had done that. She did not move from the room and that is a fact. Also I have aready explained to you that it would not have made any difference to the killer if she had moved.You just dont get it do you ? The killer planned to murder her in that room yes but he could have murdered her elsewhere. As long as it was anywhere on the line of the symbol termed Vesica Pisces which he had drawn on the map. Even D'Onston said that the victims had to be killed profaning christian symbols and he was correct. The first four victims were killed at the four points of the christian cross ( at the four points of the compass )which is a fact. Kelly was to be killed on the sign of another christian symbol termed Vesica Pisis otherwise known as the sign of the fish. You must read the book before jumping to unfounded conclusions for it is no good trying to run before you can walk.Any female prostitute could have been victim number 5 it did not have to be Kelly. I found several symbols on a map relating to the murders and D'Onston made mention of these same symbols back in 1890. The measurements placed with the distances and the symbols show this to be true. Each one enforces the other they should not be viewed independently of each other but rather together along with the routes taken by the killer which are also shown.It all ties in together to put it in a nutshell. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 11:39 pm | | Fact: Ivor picks on me. He began picking on me again with his very first post after his return from banning. I don't know why he chooses to pick on me. Ivor also has his friend Howard Brown, who was banned from this web site for threatening to come to my house to physically assualt me, continue to write me unwelcome e-mails to pick on me. Mr. Brown is beyond the scope of authority of this web site--there isn't anything more the management can do to him beyond banning. Ivor himself writes me bizarre unwelcome e-mails making threats against me. This is the way things work in prison no doubt. This is what is going on behind the scenes. If the people here want a better web site, why don't they make some attempt to find out both sides of the story before they criticize? If you were being accorded the same kind of treatment I am, what would you do?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 11:40 pm | | Hi Richard,
No problems there I assure you we all know what Radka is like. I do not view your remarks as a personal negative reflection on my work. You only see a tip of the iceberg in relation to my work but when you view the iceberg in full you will be able to draw a better picture. What I am trying to explain in a matter of minutes took me years to work out and trying to put it across in a few minutes on a computer is no good for it is like a big jigsaw.Best wishes, Ivor |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 11:44 pm | | Peter Birchwood,
Have you had your question answered yet Peter ? As a point of interest what made you ask that question in the first place ?
Regards, Ivor |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 12:04 am | | | Radka, I sent you a mail stating that if you ever called me a conman again on a public forum that I would seek legal advice against you and the casebook.That is not a threat you little dipstick it is a promise. Also that offending post better be deleted by you or the casebook.Also for the record Radka you are a liar I did not make any comment to you first people only have to view this thread to see what happened you little hard done by wimp. You came along making stupid comments asking for trouble why dont you sod off to another thread you useless prat. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 12:19 am | | Ivor,
With all due respect, I believe that when someone writes a book available for sale to the public, they have to bear the criticisms that may be made of it by the public, including on this public forum. I stated what I believed your position regarding the positioning of the bodies amounts to: I think it is a typical mind-structuring game often used by confidence tricksters. Michael Ostrog, Ponzi, and a million others undertook this kind of practice. I'm not saying you don't have a good book on balance, or that you don't offer other reasonable propositions. I'm only talking about the idea of the distance between the bodies. It might be possible to make 6,667,978 different entirely reasonable-appearing pictures of the five murder victims. The city was very diverse, and had many alleys and warrens. Perhaps the mean distances you refer to were basically constrained by the territory the murderer was forced to operate in.
I don't think calling me a dipstick, a sod, a hard done wimp (whatever that is) or a prat gets anyone anywhere. Why don't you try criticizing my recent comments on Anderson, instead?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:32 am | | | Radka,You must be crazy you do not know the meaning of the word respect and save me your bullsh*t. I am going to give you some good advice whether or not you take it is up to you. I advise you to delete that post in which you referred to me as a con man and in which you stated I wrote my book to con the public.As for your comments on Anderson and all the other crap you come out with they do not deserve any comment from me or anyone else for that matter.The best thing you can do now is ignore me and delete that post. |
Author: Chris Jd
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:45 am | | for gods sake, men, stop behaving like children!
Christian |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:48 am | | Okay Ivor, I went up and reworded the post. If you don't like it better now, let me know.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:01 am | | | Rose, Your last post is the most constructive I have ever seen you post. You amaze me in fact you are only the second person since 1888 ( as far as I am aware ) who has ever twigged on to that. You know why he had to kill two victims in such a short space of time in one night!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:24 am | | Chris,
I will not have people call me a hustler and a con man and accuse me of selling my book to con the public. It is akin to calling an innocent German a Nazi just because he is a German.I take offence when it comes to such slander OK. |
Author: Chris Jd
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 03:32 am | | Ivor, I understand that.
But I think there is a certain limit of niveau, under which things are not offensive anymore but simply ridiculous and there's no need to respond to anymore.
regards
Christian |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 06:10 am | | Hi Ivor,
As you are back I can ask the question that has been ringing in my ears ever since I finished your book. Which, if I am allowed to say, I found very good and very well written = readable. I don't believe in coincedence and so you have bought on the symbols and the patterns.
As I am a "Iwillsitdownandreadabookinonesittingman" I may have missed a vital point:
"Why do you really think that it was Stephenson?"
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 08:27 am | | Hi, all:
I am not sure that I, personally, buy Ivor's theory that the murders were pre-planned or that the killer measured the distances beforehand. However, I think that Ivor's theory merits serious attention and that Roslyn D'Onston aka Robert Donston Stephenson commands our attention as a major and viable suspect.
I do think that Ivor's emphasis on black magic distinguishes his book from Melvin's The True Face of Jack the Ripper (Michael O'Mara books, 1994). They are two books on the same suspect but they have different emphases. It appears to me that the two books differ in that Melvin put more emphasis on the suspect while Ivor focuses more on the black magic aspect.
Sir Robert, thanks for clarifying that Ivor's Blake edition contains a letter from D'Onston on black magic that appears in neither Melvin's book nor in Ivor's earlier edition of his book. I will look forward to reading it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Spryder
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 09:26 am | | | Anyone threatening to take legal action, in any form, against the Casebook, for the purposes of blackmailing or otherwise forcing us to remove or edit a post on these boards will from now on be considered persona non grata on this site, permanently. There will be no exceptions. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 12:11 pm | | I support Stephen's position above 100%. If you threaten Ally and Stephen with legal action, you are essentially putting their necks on the chopping block in return for the privilege they accord you to post here. It isn't their fault what we write.
For my part, I am willing to grant Ivor full consideration on everything he says about what I posted above up to but not including the notion that the distances between the bodies should be taken as meaningful. To me, this notion resembles a scam. If you want me to believe that a pentagram or other ritualistic symbol was intended by the murderer, you have to show me some hard supporting evidence right at the crime scenes. I don't see a pentagram there. The pseudo-pentagram is thus mere stargazing, in which the subject sees what he wants to see.
I'm not claiming Ivor is a scam artist, but I am observing that he himself may have been taken in by this scam. He may have scammed himself accidentally. It happens all the time.
I am willing to accept whatever penurious or self-penurious measures are deemed necessary to get the situation between Ivor and I stabilized.
David |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 12:37 pm | | Ivor,
While Brian and I represent Sooty in his slander suit agains all who have called him the Ripper, I will freely admit I am no lawyer, and for once, I am being serious. Perhaps those among us with experience in that particular arena would chime in here, but I FAIL TO SEE HOW THE CASEBOOK CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT SOMEONE SAYS IN A POST. I know that a newspaper can be held responsible for publishing a "letter to the editor"...the staff chooses what to print... or a publishing house may be held responsible for libellous words printed under their imprimatur, BUT HOW THE HELL CAN STEPHEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT DAVID {OR ANYONE ELSE, FOR THAT MATTER} PUTS IN A POST HE HE WRITES, EDITS AND SIGNS? Stephen's ONE caveat to all of us has been to behave or we would be banned...fair enough. That is the ONLY form of censorship Stephen has ever employed. He has expected us to censor our own ridiculous thoughts when they try to spill over into words posted in public.
Ivor, I THINK we are friends; I would like to believe we are..and I hope you take this as coming from one friend to another...YES, David can get up your nose, but neither Stephen nor the Casebook is at fault for that. David is at fault for that. If you continue on this path with David, WE ALL WILL LOSE. Stephen could, quite fairly, shut down these Boards. ALL THEY DO IS COST HIM GRIEF, AGGRO AND MONEY! If it were me, I would have shut them down long ago. Please, Ivor, don't buy into this thing...if you want to sue the pants off David....GO AHEAD AND DO IT, but leave the rest of us out of it. I, for one, would rather see you ignore David's posts. After all, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, and you two are greasing each other's wheels quite nicely. The rest of us would rather get on with the community of the Boards, and let you two duke it out elsewhere.
Spoken as a friend,
Judy |
|
|
|
|
