|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 23 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Ripper Media:
The Quest For Jack the Ripper (Whittington-Egan):
Archive through 23 November 2002
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 08:37 am |        | | One thing about Radka he gets more fire out of the posters than anyone else I have read.At least you don't ignore him.Perhaps there is method in his madness.Even the usually staid and stoic start foaming at the mouth when he posts.There are lot of folks playing 'king of the hill'.He may not be as serious as we think.What is that old Greek proverb--"Those whom the gods would destroy they first drive mad".Let him say what he wants and when he steps in the arena with his thesis then us gladiators will at least have a fight on ideas not playing Don Quixote.I think he's lots of fun, but I thought Graziano was also. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 12:48 pm | | I'm making a single exception to my "End of Thread" statement above, strictly to clear up a subsequent misreading by Mr. Wescott. When I wrote that my work should be reviewed by someone comparable, I meant by someone comparable to Evans, Begg and Fido, as would be Whittington-Egan, Warren, or Sugden for examples. I meant anyone with an independent reputation for publishing on the case, who the public recognizes as a reliable authority. I absolutely did not mean that I, David Radka, am comparable to Evans, Begg or Fido. I am under no illusion but that I am an unpublished Ripperlogical nobody, coming out of nowhere.
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 01:35 pm | | Hi, Tom:
David is, I believe, talking about the inside covers of Ripper Notes being blank, which I believe CM as editor has chosen to do for at least the last several issues which possibly gives the magazine a less cramped look. Needless to say every text page inside the covers contains textual material and is not blank. Since the numbered pages inside the issue stack up to around 27-28 pages each issue, I believe the subscribers are getting their money's worth.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 01:39 pm | | Hi, Tom:
David is, I believe, talking about the inside covers of Ripper Notes being blank, which I believe CM as editor has chosen to do for at least the last several issues which possibly gives the magazine a less cramped look. Needless to say every text page inside the covers contains textual material and is not blank. Since the numbered pages inside the issue stack up to around 27-28 pages each issue, I believe the subscribers are getting their money's worth.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 01:58 pm | | As can be seen from the above exchange between Radka and myself, although I tried scrupulously to be neutral in my postings, I have received for my pains the written equivalent of a slap in the face. I do not in the least care what his personal opinion of me is, but when he impugnes the reputation of Ripper Notes, I am compelled to respond. I beg patience as I address the more virulent parts of his screed:
1. "after I requested that RN not review my paper" Wrong. Your post of 11.19am on September 9 read, "I'd essentially recommend that they ignore the paper," which is a different thing altogether.
2. "The purpose [of asking for a review copy of Radka's opus, 'A.R.'] is to compel me to submit the paper to him in order to be able to advertise, so that he can be sure to have the opportunity to label my work a travesty, destroying my chances right off the bat." No, the purpose of asking for a review copy before accepting advertising for it is to ensure your thesis contains no objectionable or libellous material. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that 'A.R.' was riddled with anti-Semitism (and it should be noted here, before my words are taken out of context, that I am not accusing Radka of being an anti-Semite. We are using this as an example). I would, quite rightly, be deficient in my role as editor of a serious journal devoted to Ripper research were I to allow RNs pages to advertise such a slanderous piece of work. Many magazines say 'well, we accept advertising, but accept no responsibility for your bad dealings with our advertisers.' I do not. Nothing is advertised if I do not know the advertiser or know the content of the product.
3. "If RN is to be fair, then let it publish this policy" Surprisingly, Radka has made a sensible point here. It will be done in the October and all following issues.
4. "DiGrazia had better be sure to assign it to someone who already has a well-developed independent publishing record in the field of Ripperology, not to a sucking sycophant owing him a favor." Do not, sir, presume to tell me how to run my magazine. Your article will be reviewed by whomever I choose, whether that be Scott Nelson, Stewart Evans or Bozo the Clown.
5. "It is a joke for them to claim that a review of my work would be fair." This is a serious charge and deserves a serious answer, part of which I am indebted to a friend of RN for providing. The issue is a simple one: RN is one of four Ripper magazines, and additionally, there are several websites (not least the Casebook) where informed opinion is on offer and can be sought. Irrespective of my personal opinions about Radka, we could not afford to give his work a less than thoroughly sincere and honest review, be that review written by Chris George, myself or someone else, since doing otherwise would devalue our own reputations and that of RN. In fact, the known hostility between us would demand that we lean over backwards to be scrupulously fair - which, in itself, might diminish the honesty of the review. But the bottom line is professionalism. I should be professional enough to give a fair review of Radka's work, irespective of my opinion of him, his intimidation or his character assasination.
6. "George and DiGrazia have a record of falsely and maliciously publicly labelling me a mysogynist and paranoid, with no evidence as support." I do not speak for Chris George, but the portion of this accusation imputed to me is a lie. I have never labeled Radka a mysogynist, and defy him to prove it.
7. "we will consider preparing a lawsuit naming RN, George and DiGrazia. It will be kept available in the event they publish any review of my work exposing its "failings," as George says, before both culprits post public apologies to me" Irrelevant, illogical bluster. Once 'A.R.' is in the public domain, it is available for review. Radka has no control over that, and could subsequently only seek acknowledgement of mistakes or take action against any libel in the normal way. No competent lawyer would even consider preparing such a lawsuit as Radka suggests, and the very idea would be laughed out of court.
8. [George and DiGrazia have been] "calling me a mysogynist paranoid, attempting to terrify me with the spectre of public humiliation, and to ruin my life." Irrelevant, illogical bluster again. I have never posted or suggested in such manner, have not the ability to cause such personal destruction and, as in point 6, defy Radka to prove otherwise.
9. "I may well be the first paid advertiser that journal has had." Wrong again. In our last two issues, the Public Record Office, Londinium Guided Tours and Loretta Lay Books have all been paying advertisers.
10. "regularly includes two blank pages in each issue!" The 'blank pages' are supposed to be the inside back and front covers. They are blank because I find it aesthetically pleasing. On occasion, production problems cause this symmetry to be lost and the blank pages end up clustered at the front or the back of the magazine. I presume Radka is unaware of the varied difficulties inherent in producing a quarterly magazine.
I had intended to close these 10 points with my familiar offer to refund Radka's subscription. But on second thought, why bother? If he sees fit to send me $25 (with the new issue, $30) per year for a magazine whose editor he detests, whose contributors he finds (with one exception) to be lacking in intellectual rigour and whose appearance sends him into paroxysmal fits, who am I to urge him to keep his money to himself? Caveat emptor.
I apologise, again, to the readers of the boards who make up the 'Casebook Readers Who Have Been Bored Sh*tless Over Several Years Listening to All This' Society, as Simon Owen put it, but I will not allow my magazine's hard-won reputation to be jeopardised by innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations. And I again plead with Ally that if this thread is to continue, it be moved somewhere other than a thread devoted to the work of a legendary, well-respected Ripperologist.
CMD |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:46 pm | | All--
I have left it to Christopher-Michael to answer the serious charges leveled by Mr. Radka but let me say one thing, I never, never said that, as David implies, we would set out ahead of time to publish a "review of [his] work exposing its 'failings.'" As I have told him, his work would be judged just like any other work on the case, on its merits, albeit like any other author it is our duty to point out any problems with his theory just like we would likewise point out such problems in any theory by Begg, Fido, Harris, or Edwards or other "name" authors. That having been said, I petition Ally, as CM has indicated, to move this thread elsewhere than under discussion of RWE's upcoming opus.
Next, to bring a bit of levity to this thread:
David may not know it, but even well-published writers receive negative reviews and even rejections. Therefore I thought he and other aspiring as well as established writers might enjoy the following little routine on handling rejections written by poet Chelle Miko:
when your work comes flying back to you, here's what you do:
1. swear
2. repeat #1
3. read the rejection slip carefully:
look for anything that remotely resembles
*hope* i.e. grease stains (your poems went to lunch w/the editor)ink marks (someone almost signed initials)
4. TAKE OUT ANOTHER ENVELOPE
5. LICK ANOTHER STAMP
6. MAIL IT
7. MAKE AN AVIATION. DRINK IT.
8. NEVER DO #7 UNTIL YOU'VE COMPLETED 1-6.
I encourage all who brave the submission process to PERSIST !
:-)
chelle
rejection expert (& you can't call yourself one until you can wallpaper a small condo with 'em) |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 03:34 pm | | Hi all,
Can one sue on the basis of definition of character?
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 04:00 pm | | Hi Rich:
Do you mean defamation of character, or as you have written it, "definition" of character? 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 05:17 pm | | David Rhea,
There's no need to be impressed with Mr. Radka. It is not difficult to gain attention by spouting rude nonsense. And if you find his repetitive insults and false allegations toward others to be 'fun', I must wonder about you. I find it at best annoying, and at worst infuriating.
David Radka,
Since you are a lone reed standing against the wind of Ripperology, and the rest of us are just ill-informed hacks, why do you all of the sudden value OUR opinion in who is and who isn't an 'authority' by suggesting that only such a person should review your work? If WE don't know what we're talking about, and WE elect someone an authority, what does that make him? A huckster? Are you sure you want such a person reviewing your material? By the way, when can we expect its publication?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 06:32 pm | | | whew!!!!! |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 09:30 pm | | Let's end this conversation now. It has been a difficult time for me, and I see where I have gotten too hot under the collar above and been a bother. Last year just after midnight on 9/11 I was acutely stricken, put on life support, had the last rites given me, had to have massive surgery, spent 10 days in the hospital, and came out with a morphine withdrawal problem that lasted a month. All I had to do thoughout my hospital stay was watch coverage of the terrorism on TV. The build-up to the simultaneous anniversaries on the same day has driven me half nuts. I have been living on alprazolam the past week, and have been having intense anxiety attacks where I spontaneously ball my fists and raise my hands up. At least it is technically over now. My apologies to all concerned.
David |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 09:33 pm | | Hey David,
Can I recommend my own personal stress reliever? A hot bath and a a cold drink and snuggly nap with a puppy. Works wonders.
Hope that your next year is better than your last.
Peace,
Ally |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 09:51 pm | | Ally,
Thanks so much. I'm counting on your judgement to get me out of here if I become too much of a pain again.
Once again, my apologies.
David |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 04:39 am | | Hi Ally, David,
I'd like to recommend my own personal stress reliever too. A hot bath run by him, and a cold drink served by him, and snuggly nap with him works wonders for me.
As I say, I'd like to recommend my personal stress reliever to you both, but I just couldn't bear to part with him - sorry!
Love to you both - you have just made me feel very warm all over, and hopefully plenty of other readers too.
(Divia, put that bucket away, dear. )
Caz |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 09:40 am | | David -
Apology accepted. Cordial wishes for your continued good health.
CMD |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 11:07 am | | Hi Chris,
I find frequently those claiming defamation are really complaining about definition!
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 11:40 am | | CMD,
You could get Bozo the Clown to do a review of a Ripper-themed book? Wow, I'd pay to see that. I think it'd either be hilarious or fascinatingly weird.
But isn't Bozo dead?
Dan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 11:54 am | | Dear Caz:
How did you know that I would read this board?!?
*bucket has been rinsed and stored for future use*
Dear Dan:
Bozo will live on in our hearts and minds....
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Dunno - a lucky guess?
I'm off for my bath - my stress reliever just said something about getting me rinsed and stored for future use - at least I think that's what he said.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 04:29 pm | | Dear Caz:
I think that's a good idea, and plan to take my bubble bath this evening... that is, if Monty will do my back.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 07:20 pm | | Dear David,
Now thats what I call a feint!
Rosey :-) |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 09:36 pm | | I am telling the truth about my medical problem and feelings. The person who posts as Rosemary O'Ryan is not speaking responsibly above.
David |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 11:51 pm | | Dear David R.:
I thought Rosey was addressing the other David. Of course, I could be wrong.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 01:58 pm | | Divia,
Perhaps you're right.
David |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 02:28 pm | | Whatho now, I haven't been able to get hold of Whittington-Egan's Quest book. It is not in any library in the state of Connecticut, nor does Amazon sell it. I registered with W-E's agent years ago to have a copy sent as soon as he updates it, but have not heard anything since then. Does anyone know how I can buy or borrow either a new or used copy of this? Thank you kindly.
David |
Author: Spryder
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 02:38 pm | | Hi David -
The W-E update (Quest for JTR) should come out in early-to-mid 2003, per the latest reports. Its been a long wait, but certainly worth it. If you have already registered with Pat Smith you will no doubt be notified when they are about to release.
The original Wegan, "A Casebook on JTR", is extremely hard to find these days, only a few copies remain with collectors - most are in various libraries.
That said, I do have a copy of the original Casebook for sale at http://www.casebook.org/booksale - but it is at a collector's price.
Anyone interested in looking up Wegan's original book can find copies at the following libraries:
CA CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, SACRAMENTO CSA
CA SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIV LIBR CSF
CA STANFORD UNIV LIBR STF
CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COL CUH
CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO CUS
DC LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DLC
IL UNIV OF CHICAGO CGU
LA TULANE UNIV, LAW LIBR LRL
MA AMHERST COL AMH
MA BOSTON PUB LIBR BRL
MA UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST AUM
NC UNIV OF N CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL NOC
NE UNIV OF NEBRASKA AT LINCOLN LDL
NJ RUTGERS UNIV NJR
NM UNIV OF NEW MEXICO IQU
NY NEW YORK PUB LIBR RES LIBR NYP
NY SKIDMORE COL VZS
OK ORAL ROBERTS UNIV OKO
TX TRINITY UNIV TNY
TX UNIV OF HOUSTON TXH
EU BRITISH LIBR UKM
EU CAMBRIDGE UNIV CUD
EU GUILDHALL LIBR LGL
EU TRINITY COL, DUBLIN ERD
EU UNIV OF OXFORD EQO |
Author: Vila
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:39 pm | | Hello all,
Isn't the proper form of the word "What-ho" rather than Whatho? The latter sounds like some form of southern US slang for "A prostitute? Where? Loan me $20, Bubba and let me out of the car please..."
Vila
PS. Rendered phonetically, the exchange would run something like this:
"Lookit d'ho."
"Whatho?"
"Datho. Dare."
"Hotdam, gimme a tweny, Bubba- an' lemmie out d'car..."
Yours in jest,
Vila |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 06:09 pm | | Whatho All,
That's the way I've started my e-mails for over four years and most of my postings on this and other sites. But how it is spelt? I don't quite know. I've checked my books and dictionaries on the [Anglo] Englash language and its usage and I can find noewt. However, whatso had no hyphen so I will still use "Whatho" (© Mark Andrew Pardoe 2002 so now pay up  )
Cheers, Mark |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 09:00 pm | | Thanks so much, Stephen, I've dealt with Amherst before, concerning my M.A. thesis. Tally ho!
David |
Author: Esther Wilson
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 10:58 am | | There is a site that I shop on for hard to find and out of print books.....last time I did a search on there they had hundreds of Jack The Ripper selections which some of you may be interested in.
Esther
www.abebooks.com |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 12:50 pm | | | I would also note that anyone interested in The Quest for Jack the Ripper go to www.laybooks.com and ask to be notified when the book is available, as Loretta will, I am sure, be happy to take your orders for this unseen, whispered-about, destined-to-be-classic tome. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 03:10 pm | | Why not try going to the publisher, C-M? He's in the States, and buyers won't have such an horrendous shipping bill from him as from Loretta in the UK.
If anyone wants the publisher's contact info, e-mail me at needler@ntelos.net.
cheers,
J |
Author: julie
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:27 pm | | Warwick ( Rick)
Spaceyram here, question for you, or whoever would like to respond.
I'v heard so much of so many books, however, I
seldom have heard anyone discuss the
"Mammoth Book Of Jack The Ripper" edited by
Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund.
I found the book very interesting, especially
since it listed approximately 16 different
theories on Jack the Ripper by the various
authors, theorists etc. Has anyone else read this
book? If yes, what is your opinion? I was
surprised that Stewart Evans theories were not
noted in the book. Otherwise I found it very
imformative and non-biased.
I would really appreciate hearing from anyone else
who has read same, and what their opinion is of
same. The editors do not voice their own opinions
on who they think is JtR. They merely printed or
edited what was fed to them by others.
Please get back to me, I feel this book was very
informative, without being one sided.
Thanks Julie
akaspaceyram |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:57 pm | | Hello Spacey, Well,
I think it is a value for money book, 500 pages, about 16 authors, it's a good book to have as a kind of a reference book. It's impartial as you say, sides with nobody.A Dr.Ind, who was a contributor to the boards a while ago recommended the book to me and I think it was worth getting.
There are some interesting theories in there but I've got to say I keep drifting back to Paley.
It gives a kind of a condensed version of 16 or 17 books and it's good to go through before buying the actual book. The first thing I noticed was Paul Harrison, another ex-policeman/author had a theory almost the same as Paley's. I did wonder who came first, but I think it was Paley
All the Best, Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 10:08 pm | | | Julie, Be careful with this book it has many mistakes in it about the suspects in particular. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:52 am | | Friend Ivor,
Don't count on that, and the book is NOT a typical Ripper book.....it is an overview of everything ever written about the Ripper. Mr W-E wanted a comprehensive recap of the Ripper in all media, and after having read it, I can tell you..HE HAS DONE IT. He is NOT proposing any suspect as more likely than any other...he is reporting what others have claimed to be true.
Still friends?
J |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:33 pm | | Hi Judith, All I am saying is that the book contains mistakes in relation to suspects and I know that because I have read it. It makes many mistakes in relation to D'Onston alone. Apart from that I have no problems with the book.
Of course we still are nothing will change that. Every time I go to my fridge and see the magnet with the words,"When the going gets tough the tough eat chocolate" I think of you. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 02:00 pm | | Hello Judith,
Please tell me. Is it true that Richard W.E.'s book really is on the way? And that you have read a proof copy?
A&S. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 11:08 pm | | Dear Ivor, Andy and Sue,
Since Mr W-E's book is simply a review of the literature, any errors should be placed squarely at the feet of the authors. He is not passing judgement or assessing the value of theories; he is itemising and reviewing the Ripper literature. So if there are errors, I would suggest that the author be consulted, rather than shooting the messenger.....sound fair?
A & S, yup, I have read it, but in what might be termed pre-galley form. We WILL see it before we all die, but don't hold your collective breaths; it will be out when it is out, and not one second before. I would guess we'll see it around March, but I have been wrong before.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:07 am | | Judy,
I think that you are talking at cross purposes here. I believe, whilst you refer to Richard's book, Ivor is actually talking about The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper and his assessment of that book is correct.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
|
|
|
|
