Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 8 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by RockySullivan 50 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by sdreid 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 5 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Kaz 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Kaz 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (19 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:21 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Ally:

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

Well I can't say whether your opinion is clouded on Lechmere but I can say your opinion is clouded on this argument because you are so busy having the argument you THINK we're having that you aren't actually arguing the points I am making. I have merely replied to your exact words on this exact thread. What you, YOURSELF have stated. You stated you put in Lechmere whereever you think he fits and of course, because you think he was Jack the Ripper, I imagine you think he fits in quite a lot of places don't you? That's against the rules of the board and that's what I said. You asked about Kosminski as an example. I gave an example of how the rules would be interpreted.

Surely it cant be against the rules of the board to think that a suspect fits in a lot of places? Does that not only apply when this is not true? If so, it makes a lot more sense, and I would welcome any actual examples - if there are any - of where I have overstepped that line.

Yes, just like you say, I do believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. But that does not mean that I "put him in wherever I think he fits". It means that I may put him into discussions where I think information relating to him can be offered that is of use to the overall case understanding.

I noticed your example and it is easy enough to understand. What I want to know is whether there are any examples of me doing that to present so that I may have a chance to look at it.

And your choice of the word "introduce" is typical of people who want to "introduce" me to their Lord and Savior.

Theres that religion thing again. I have introduced and been introduced to thousands of people over the years, none of whom walked on water.

You see it as a positive thing. Others see it as intrusive and unwelcome. It's about perspective. Not everyone wants to be saved. And please just don't draw comparisons of your situation to Galileo, because that amount of ego, I just can't...no...

I have spoken about Galileo before, and for much the same reason. It does not mean that I compare myself to him - only that we may be dealing with a similar situation.
Its quite enough that you draw comparisons with religious brooders, there is no need to speak of illusions of grandeur too.

As for me always being intrusive and unwelcome when bringing up Lechmere, I disagree again - in the normal case, most people see the relevance of it and are happy to discuss with me, Lechmere included. There are others who see red when they hear the name, some of them resorting to a VERY low level of discussion in that context.

But of course, if I am that religious brooder you envisage, and seeing myself as the equal of Galilei, then it may of course be that I cannot understand these things, and that my mind is long since gone due to overindulging in Charles Lechmere.

Its really kind of either or.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:45 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 980
Default

Christer,

This thread has brought back memories. I'm sure you could easily have simply cut-and-pasted comments from some of the threads we've shared, or from several of the nearly identical threads between you and others who've taken issue with your conclusions and the manner in which you typically support them.

Now, I, for the most part, bowed from the Lechmere discussion on this site some time ago because, frankly, its no longer interesting to those of us who've taken the time to fully understand what you have proposed. Many of us who have done our own research and analysis, and applied our own findings, along with simple reasoning, have found your "suspect" entirely untenable. As well, any debate on elements of the theory, or on Lechmere in general, seem to quickly descend into what we've seen here: your demands for respect, for retraction of something posted to which you've taken offense, for recognition of your open-mindedness, fairness, and impartiality when it comes the consideration of any aspect of the crimes and how it may impact your theory.

Now, without commenting further on the substance of what you propose, I'd simply suggest that, if these types of discussions/disagreements/arguments keep occurring, with different posters but with identical themes and, in some cases I think, your near verbatim protestations, indignation, and outrage, perhaps these breakdowns in communications may have something to do with how you communicate and respond to criticism.

Food for thought. I hope you're well.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:48 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

Surely it cant be against the rules of the board to think that a suspect fits in a lot of places?


It's not against the rules of the board to think anything. It's against the rules of the board to spray your thoughts off-topic-like in threads they don't belong, just because you see a slight opening where you think they apply.


Quote:
If so, it makes a lot more sense, and I would welcome any actual examples - if there are any - of where I have overstepped that line.
Well as I wasn't actually the one who made that direct statement against you, I couldn't say but I've seen you bring him up before in unrelated threads or make statements near enough to count so I imagine if someone wanted to do the work they could find examples. Whether any of it would be enough to convince you so as to make the effort worth doing is probably debateable. I'm surely not going to bother.

I think the point's been made that if people feel you hijack, there's options. They ought to use them, instead of just seething.

Quote:
I noticed your example and it is easy enough to understand. What I want to know is whether there are any examples of me doing that to present so that I may have a chance to look at it.

Well you have made claims as to being a noted journalist and researcher. Why don't you journalist and research. If you are doing these things it ought to be easy enough for your own self to suss out and prove or disprove to your own satisfaction. If you don't feel you do it, then good on you. If they feel you do, then they can report you when they feel you do. Fair deal all around.

Quote:
Its quite enough that you draw comparisons with religious brooders, there is no need to speak of illusions of grandeur too.

But there is a certain degree of grandeur and ego at work here Fish if only because (WARNING MASSIVE TANGENT AHEAD) you've been posting on this forum for how many years and posted how many posts and yet, you and you alone seem incapable after all these years of figuring out how to use the quote feature to make your posts more easy and accessible for the other posters. Why that is, I can't say, it's a simple freaking thing that would aid those attempting to slog through your prose and make it so much easier. You can master color and bolding and every other thing but you can't put quotes around other people's words to separate them out from your own and make life just a tad easier for everyone else around you. Why is that, really, I've always wanted to ask you, since we're all hashing out grievances here, why not?


Everyone else has to do twice the editing when quoting/responding to your posts because you don't use the quote feature are you aware of that? (END TOTAL TANGENT).

Quote:
But of course, if I am that religious brooder you envisage, and seeing myself as the equal of Galilei, then it may of course be that I cannot understand these things, and that my mind is long since gone due to overindulging in Charles Lechmere.
You did create an entire thread to discuss your perceived persecution.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:18 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Christer,

This thread has brought back memories. I'm sure you could easily have simply cut-and-pasted comments from some of the threads we've shared, or from several of the nearly identical threads between you and others who've taken issue with your conclusions and the manner in which you typically support them.

Now, I, for the most part, bowed from the Lechmere discussion on this site some time ago because, frankly, its no longer interesting to those of us who've taken the time to fully understand what you have proposed. Many of us who have done our own research and analysis, and applied our own findings, along with simple reasoning, have found your "suspect" entirely untenable. As well, any debate on elements of the theory, or on Lechmere in general, seem to quickly descend into what we've seen here: your demands for respect, for retraction of something posted to which you've taken offense, for recognition of your open-mindedness, fairness, and impartiality when it comes the consideration of any aspect of the crimes and how it may impact your theory.

Now, without commenting further on the substance of what you propose, I'd simply suggest that, if these types of discussions/disagreements/arguments keep occurring, with different posters but with identical themes and, in some cases I think, your near verbatim protestations, indignation, and outrage, perhaps these breakdowns in communications may have something to do with how you communicate and respond to criticism.

Food for thought. I hope you're well.
Im quite well. And Ive had supper already.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:41 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Ally: It's not against the rules of the board to think anything. It's against the rules of the board to spray your thoughts off-topic-like in threads they don't belong, just because you see a slight opening where you think they apply.

But I dont bring Lechmere up off-topic. I bring him up on-topic. If you disagree, then maybe its time to produce that example I have been asking for?
And if I am allowed to bring him up on-topic, but not off-topic, I suspect that there is a grey area of "on topic, but perhaps not enough on-topic", in which case there is a pedagogical problem.


Well as I wasn't actually the one who made that direct statement against you, I couldn't say but I've seen you bring him up before in unrelated threads or make statements near enough to count so I imagine if someone wanted to do the work they could find examples. Whether any of it would be enough to convince you so as to make the effort worth doing is probably debateable. I'm surely not going to bother.

Then Im afraid I find the whole exercise kind of pointless. In my world, accusing people of something should always be accompanied by some sort of ground.

I think the point's been made that if people feel you hijack, there's options. They ought to use them, instead of just seething.

The simple solution would be to just say what they feel in that case.

Well you have made claims as to being a noted journalist and researcher. Why don't you journalist and research. If you are doing these things it ought to be easy enough for your own self to suss out and prove or disprove to your own satisfaction. If you don't feel you do it, then good on you. If they feel you do, then they can report you when they feel you do. Fair deal all around.

No, I have not made claims to be a noted journalist and researcher. I have made claims to be a journalist and researcher, simple as that. And yes, people can report me as much as they want to. They always could.

But there is a certain degree of grandeur and ego at work here Fish if only because (WARNING MASSIVE TANGENT AHEAD) you've been posting on this forum for how many years and posted how many posts and yet, you and you alone seem incapable after all these years of figuring out how to use the quote feature to make your posts more easy and accessible for the other posters. Why that is, I can't say, it's a simple freaking thing that would aid those attempting to slog through your prose and make it so much easier. You can master color and bolding and every other thing but you can't put quotes around other people's words to separate them out from your own and make life just a tad easier for everyone else around you. Why is that, really, I've always wanted to ask you, since we're all hashing out grievances here, why not?


Everyone else has to do twice the editing when quoting/responding to your posts because you don't use the quote feature are you aware of that? (END TOTAL TANGENT).

It has nothing at all to do with grandeur or ego. Dont know where you got that from. But to be frank, I actually never thought of how it creates extra work for others. Ill weigh that in, and maybe I can make a post or two before being reported...

You did create an entire thread to discuss your perceived persecution.

My opponent refused to answer me on the thread where he made his accusation, simple as that. He has avoided answering me on this thread too, so in that context, creating a new thread was in vain.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:07 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, you could - you could have told us who you are thinking of.

By the way, can you see the irony of telling us that you dislike people introducing what you find unrelated topics into thread about other things - and then you go introducing that exact topic into this thread, which is about whether people with suspects are to be trusted or not...

Its one of those whooops things, I guess.
I actually want thinking of anyone, or perhaps the late non lamented poster who touted their great academic qualification. There are also some that constantly insert Bury or a Kelly or Kozminski at every opportunity.

The fact you seem to have thought it was directed at you, us however interesting.

But see the two issues, bias and inserting a suspect all over the place, are in fact related, if someone has such a bias that they cant refrain from pushing it in every thread one must doubt their objectiveness.

Ive often wished there was some declaration, for the benefit of newbies, where instead of the header saying where youre from it said Im a ....ite (insert suspect of choice).
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:15 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Y0u know what I find hilarious.. just for shits and giggles I looked at Fish's posting history and literally just a few days ago, he posted this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Then Ill leave it to you to to produce some little contrafire, Abby. If her ability to judge the Lechmere case is something to go by, Id say you neednt worry too much.

Now there are two things to note here. One, it was on a George Hutchinson thread (obviously not the most egregious example ever of hijacking, just that he has to plug that suspect where he can). So, off topic and interjecting his suspect on a non-relevant thread. Two, he's literally doing to someone else what he's pissed at someone doing to him: namely stating that their take on Lechmere disqualifies them from rational thought or serious consideration and why he started this whole thread.

....

....

I really couldn't make this up if I tried.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

Last edited by Ally : 12-07-2017 at 12:21 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:54 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
I really couldn't make this up if I tried.
Hi, Ally.

In my view, Christer demands respect at all times, but only gives it to those who (he claims) support his theory (Griffiths, Payne-James, Ed Stowe), and they receive glowing praise (while we receive endless reminders of their bona fides). And if you don't abide his insolent jabs at your intellect and/or abilities (a fine example of this you've posted) in silence, well, then we get entire threads of indignation and demands for apology.

I admit I've been dragged into the mud, but not for some time. I won't be again. It's no longer amusing because, as I said, the Lechmere tale is no longer interesting. It's been through the wash and come out a pile of tattered rags. I think Christer knows this but he's so invested in it that he cannot restrain himself and we see these rants detailing offenses given again, and again.

In any event, good luck!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-07-2017, 01:18 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
I actually want thinking of anyone, or perhaps the late non lamented poster who touted their great academic qualification. There are also some that constantly insert Bury or a Kelly or Kozminski at every opportunity.

The fact you seem to have thought it was directed at you, us however interesting.

But see the two issues, bias and inserting a suspect all over the place, are in fact related, if someone has such a bias that they cant refrain from pushing it in every thread one must doubt their objectiveness.

Ive often wished there was some declaration, for the benefit of newbies, where instead of the header saying where youre from it said Im a ....ite (insert suspect of choice).
I can not see where I said that I believed that your post was aimed at me. Can you help out?

And if you cant, then how is it interesting?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-07-2017, 01:24 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
Y0u know what I find hilarious.. just for shits and giggles I looked at Fish's posting history and literally just a few days ago, he posted this:





Now there are two things to note here. One, it was on a George Hutchinson thread (obviously not the most egregious example ever of hijacking, just that he has to plug that suspect where he can). So, off topic and interjecting his suspect on a non-relevant thread. Two, he's literally doing to someone else what he's pissed at someone doing to him: namely stating that their take on Lechmere disqualifies them from rational thought or serious consideration and why he started this whole thread.

....

....

I really couldn't make this up if I tried.
It may be wise to look at what Caz has posted - that is, if you want to see the other side. If you dont, then its little use.

Saying that I interjected Lechmere in the thread is a bit rich too - my dealings with Caz have been about the carman entirely, more or less, and so that is what I have to go by when judging her qualifications.

I had no wish to discuss him, and did not do so either.

When it comes to disrupting threads, by the way, who would have thought that this is a thread about whether posters with suspects can be trusted? It seems much more like a thread with the sole agenda of defaming me, at any cost.

I really cannot be arsed to contribute more to that. But Im sure there are those who are better suited to take care of it.

Goodnight.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-07-2017 at 01:27 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.