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
  #11  
Old 12-05-2017, 01:09 PM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Let me be frank: What the thread is about is nipping the idiocy that people with suspects cannot be trusted in the bud.
I don't want to step into a disagreement between two respected forum posters - but I think it is time to take it outside and duke it out.

Or - if you are up for it - maybe it would be useful to discuss how we ensure we look at evidence as objectively as we are able - given that every one of us has some form of bias, conscious or unconscious.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-05-2017, 01:34 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
I don't want to step into a disagreement between two respected forum posters - but I think it is time to take it outside and duke it out.

Or - if you are up for it - maybe it would be useful to discuss how we ensure we look at evidence as objectively as we are able - given that every one of us has some form of bias, conscious or unconscious.
It is a very simple matter to me - I cannot accept people telling me that the only reason that I do not agree with them is because I have an agenda to pursue.

I do not expect Gareth to have the decency to retract it. I tried to force him to explain himself on the thread where he originally stated this, but he would not do so, claiming that the reason for his silence was that the topic was not suited for the thread. Which is interesting per se, given that he was the one who introduced it!

I therefore opened up a thread of it´s own on the issue, mainly because I think it is of vital importance that things like these are not allowed to pass.

So far, Gareth has avoided commenting on this reckless statement of his on this thread too.

That is all this thread is about, and I do not expect it to be a much visited one. If you - or anybody else - want to expand the thread to a more general discussion about how we should treat the fact that there will always be personal levels of bias involved in all we think and say, feel free to do so.

At the end of the day, I think the matter is a simple one - trying to gain an advantage in a discussion by baselessly making claims about an opponent´s lesser worth as a poster on account of this poster having a suspect is ridiculous and disrespectful, unless you can prove your point. End of story.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-05-2017, 02:38 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
maybe it would be useful to discuss how we ensure we look at evidence as objectively as we are able - given that every one of us has some form of bias, conscious or unconscious.
True enough, myself included. The good news is that it's fairly easy for a person to spot their own biases and, if not avoid them entirely, then at least allow for them. This can be done, for example, by phrasing things in as balanced a manner as possible, and keeping posts of appropriate size and to-the-point. The longer a post goes on, the more likely it is that a bias will creep in and steer the argument in the direction of that bias. It's like a ouija board in that respect; people often don't realise they're doing it, they even deny that they've done it, but it happens nonetheless.

So, my advice would be: keep a cool head, keep things balanced, and keep things focused.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 12-05-2017 at 02:40 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-05-2017, 03:37 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
True enough, myself included. The good news is that it's fairly easy for a person to spot their own biases and, if not avoid them entirely, then at least allow for them. This can be done, for example, by phrasing things in as balanced a manner as possible, and keeping posts of appropriate size and to-the-point. The longer a post goes on, the more likely it is that a bias will creep in and steer the argument in the direction of that bias. It's like a ouija board in that respect; people often don't realise they're doing it, they even deny that they've done it, but it happens nonetheless.

So, my advice would be: keep a cool head, keep things balanced, and keep things focused.
Sounds like my life motto (especially during trying times). Keep calm, be positive, forge ahead.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:38 PM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
At the end of the day, I think the matter is a simple one - trying to gain an advantage in a discussion by baselessly making claims about an opponent´s lesser worth as a poster on account of this poster having a suspect is ridiculous and disrespectful, unless you can prove your point. End of story.
I didn't see the exchange which led to this thread, so will refrain from commenting. Clearly this is something you feel strongly about so I will resist hi-jacking your thread and leave you guys to resolve the issue. Good luck.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-2017, 11:30 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
True enough, myself included. The good news is that it's fairly easy for a person to spot their own biases and, if not avoid them entirely, then at least allow for them. This can be done, for example, by phrasing things in as balanced a manner as possible, and keeping posts of appropriate size and to-the-point. The longer a post goes on, the more likely it is that a bias will creep in and steer the argument in the direction of that bias. It's like a ouija board in that respect; people often don't realise they're doing it, they even deny that they've done it, but it happens nonetheless.

So, my advice would be: keep a cool head, keep things balanced, and keep things focused.
Yes, Gareth - very sound advice, all of it. Truly something we should try and live by, all of us.

But how does it dovetail with telling somebody that they only reason the way they do because they have an agenda to support?

And how does it dovetail with, when having had it pointed out to you that this is indecent and disrespectful, answering that criticism with "indecent, my arse"?

The whole issue out here is a very simple one: We should never make those kinds of statements.

I am all for a civilized debate, but I am totally against one where such things are said, and then not retracted. If it had been retracted and if there had been an admittance that it should never have been said in the first place, this thread would have been a mere three posts long:

-That was a dumb thing to say.
-Yes, I know, sorry about that.
-Oh, okay then.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-06-2017, 12:24 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
I didn't see the exchange which led to this thread.
Neither did I. Fisherman's accusation that I "baselessly made claims about an opponent´s lesser worth as a poster on account of this poster having a suspect" is entirely false. I've made no such claim, baseless or otherwise.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Neither did I. Fisherman's accusation that I "baselessly made claims about an opponent´s lesser worth as a poster on account of this poster having a suspect" is entirely false. I've made no such claim, baseless or otherwise.
This is the exact wording from your post on the Blotchy thread, commenting on why you think I am unwilling to accept what you see as significant differences inbetween the Ripper and the torso series. I am quoting you a verbatim from your post 222 on the Blotchy thread, the initital discussion being about Lewis and Kennedy and then turning into The Ripper/Torso cases:

"The chances of two independent women doing exactly the same things on the same night (leaving home to stay with relatives in the little room opposite Mary Kelly, for instance) are very small.

The chances of more than one independent killer doing rather different things to women in different circumstances and in entirely separate parts of London is another matter entirely. The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue.

In contrast, I don't have an agenda when it comes to Kennedy; on the contrary, I'd welcome another instance of reliable, independent witness testimony in respect of Kelly. However, it's obvious to me that the "Kennedy" accounts don't fall into that category."

Can you remember it now? Of course, if you have no idea what you are writing, maybe I should let you go on that ground...?

But the fact is that you took it upon yourself to make the call that my main reason for not agreeing with you about the significance of the differences is that I have "an agenda to pursue".

That is another way of saying that I am letting an agenda stand in the way for a sounder understanding of the significance of the differences involved.

As I have pointed out before, I am anything but alone in my take on this, many very qualified posters, like Jerry Dunlop, Gary Barnett and Debra Arif are quite open to the idea of a shared identity, and they have no problems at all bridging what you see as nearly unbridgeable differences. The same applies for Richard Whittington-Egan, who said that a shared identity is quite probable and the best suggestion.

These people -and many others who agree with me - have no agenda to defend. Neither have I - I have a conviction, which is something different.

Now that this has been clarified, now that every poster on here have seen that you are not telling the truth and you no longer can deny that you have stated that an on your behalf perceived agenda of mine is the primary reason for me not to agree with you over the significance of the differences between the Ripper and the Torso killer, it may be time to move on.

If you cannot bring yourself to admit that you were overstepping the line of decency - and my understanding is that you cannot do that - it is nevertheless time to move on. The errand has been dealt with, and all that can be added is a retraction from your side. If such a retraction is not added, the thread has played out it´s role, and you will fortwith face the consequences of your decision.

Similarly, if you do admit that you were overstepping the line, the thread has been brought to an end, but in this case I will not hold it against you in the future.

The decision is entirely yours.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-06-2017 at 01:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:35 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

I made no claim of anyone's "lesser worth as a poster". Your accusation was false. It's as clear cut as that.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:29 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I made no claim of anyone's "lesser worth as a poster". Your accusation was false. It's as clear cut as that.
You do not have to use the exact phrase "lesser worth as a poster" when you have made it abundantly clear that I am not to be trusted on equal terms with you on account of what you describe as me "having an agenda".

When you state something as whacky as that, you automatically also grade me down as a poster in terms of trustworthyness, and that cannot mean anything else than you regarding me as lesser worth as a poster. There are no other possible interpretations.

I have put worms on hooks that have wriggled far less than you do. I distincly dislike people saying these kinds of things, but I take even less kindly to those who do - and then refuse to own up to it. I find that measly and pityful.

Please explain how you concluded that my primary reason for not regarding the likenesses like you do is on account of my "having an agenda"! Once again, produce the PROOF for it, or retract it!! Let´s hear it now, and no more wriggling and avoiding the issue, please.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-06-2017 at 04:54 AM.
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 04:29 PM.


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