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
  #31  
Old 12-06-2017, 05:19 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi sam
Sorry to hear your not feeling well.
If you don’t mind me asking is it serious?

And I hope you are feeling better soon! : )
Thanks, Abby. I'll keep you posted
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:33 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post
I don't think it was very gracious, perhaps we should read the exchange again:








So is that gracious - let alone acknowledgement of your mistake? "I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless."

Considering what I interpret as a joking remark to me:

(emphasis added)

perhaps I was too kind in my initial assesment that you actually acknowledged Elamarna's point.

Relevant? Well, considering your high standards for others, certain proverbs about stones and glass houses or pots and kettles come to mind:



As for my original post:

I don't think it will do much good to try to explain, if you are indeed (somewhat surprisingly) unable to understand my post's relevance, since the quote, in my opinion, speaks for itself.
But in brief: the remark, which you so vehemently perceive as belittling, is in my opinion similar in tone and content to remarks you yourself make about others.
And look who gives belittling a try himself! ""Surprisingly unable to understand"...?

So let´s see - you think that I should not be rude to people because we should not, and to emphasize that, you decided to be rude, is that it?

Your example with Steve is a really bad one. To begin with, I wrote "disbaility/unwillingness", allowing for both possibilities, and to carry on, the issue it was about was something I could prove wrong - there is no data telling us that Paul overheard what Lechmere told Mizen.

In the exchange between Gareth and me, it has been claimed that the primary reason that I don´t see the differences spoken about the way Gareth does, is that I "have an agenda to follow". That, Kattrup, is something that cannot be proven. It is an accusation flung out with no underlying facts at all to support it.

As for the pot calling the kettle black, we are not discussing what I say and do here - we are discussing what Gareth has said. If I should overstep the line the way that he has done, I would expect to be taken to task for it, and rightfully so.

Just as I would expect you to be taken to task for implying that I would be in some way daft for not being fully certain about what you tried to say in your former post. Which, by the way, just happened.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-06-2017 at 11:52 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:35 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
What I find worse of all is the constant attempt of some posters to take every thread, every issue every comment back to their suspect.
Say it right out, Gut. Don´t mumble. The worst that can happen is that somebody will disagree with you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:51 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Sam Flynn: So quote things, then - don't interpret and assert your interpretation as if it were truth. Nobody told you that your "views were tainted".

Actually, somebody did - you. Albeit not in those exact words. You said that if it was not for my agenda, I would reason differently. But not in those words. You told me that your view was the one I would accept, had it not been for my agenda. But not in those words. You told me that the primary reason that I did not acknowledge the differences built into the discussion we had was that I had an agenda to follow. But not in those exact words.
Can you see how it works? And do you understand why I think it is extremely unflattering not to stand by what you say?

Your agenda is that all roads must lead to Lechmere, even to the extent of injecting him into unrelated threads so that you can go off on your hobby-horse again.

That´s a blatant lie, I´m afraid. I have no such agenda. I have no agenda at all. I have a conviction, and it will show, inevitably. When I mention Lechmere, it is because I think he applies to the discussion, and he very often do so. If you claim I "inject him" into unrelated threads, then please exemplify, and I will tell you how and why Lechmere applies to the discussion. Then again, you don´t want to hear his name, so it may prove a painful exercise.
He was only just injected to THIS thread - by you. Certainly not by me.
This is another example where you take it upon yourself to state how I think, why I say what I say, what my "agenda" is - and it is not for you to decide.

Every time it happens, you can expect to be hauled over the coals for it, and rightfully so. It is something that will not be tolerated, and for very good reasons.

It's not "ridiculous" and it's not "semantics" to insist that we stick to the facts, rather than presenting beliefs and opinions as if they were facts.Nobody's ducking or running. I'm not well and I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to waste on such things.

But you DO have thetime, energy and inclination to present beliefs and opinions as if they were facts! That is what this whole thread is about!! You claimed it as a fact that the primary reason that I did not agree with you over the differences involved in the cases we discussed is that I have an agenda to pursue. If that is a fact, then you can prove it. That is how facts are established.

And I do not want it to be established as a fact that my "agenda" detracts from my ability to form a viable thinking about the case.

I have asked the question half a dozen times now, and I still lack the answer: WHERE IS THE PROOF FOR YOUR ACCUSATION?

Provide it or admit that you can´t, Gareth. It is simple enough, and either measure will effectively put an end to the discussion.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-07-2017 at 12:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-07-2017, 01:15 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And look who gives belittling a try himself! ""Surprisingly unable to understand"...?
Would you kindly point out where I stated that?


Far from you being too daft to understand, I implied the opposite - which you might of course also find rude.
Namely that in my opinion (as I stated), the quote I supplied speaks for itself and I was therefore somewhat surprised to see that you did not see the same meaning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Your example with Steve is a really bad one.
Well, I thought it was a fine example of you denigrating another poster in much the same manner as you believe Sam Flynn did you.

Whether the issue discussed at the time can be proven to your satisfaction or not is immaterial.


At any rate, there's no real benefit to discussing this.

Have a nice day
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-07-2017, 01:37 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Sam Flynn: So quote things, then - don't interpret and assert your interpretation as if it were truth. Nobody told you that your "views were tainted".

Actually, somebody did - you. Albeit not in those exact words. You said that if it was not for my agenda, I would reason differently. But not in those words. You told me that your view was the one I would accept, had it not been for my agenda. But not in those words. You told me that the primary reason that I did not acknowledge the differences built into the discussion we had was that I had an agenda to follow. But not in those exact words.
Not in those exact words - exactly my point. Neither I, nor anybody else, has told you that "your views" (plural) are "tainted". Individual posts might reveal an agenda at work, but that in no way means that ALL your views fall under that category. On the contrary, you often make good points, so your claim that you've been "told" that your views (plural) are tainted is both inaccurate and exaggerated.

Individual points of detail/interpretation are another matter. If I or anybody else feels that those points of detail are in error and/or distorted/generalised to fit a preconceived conclusion, why shouldn't that be pointed out? It might not even be a case of error, distortion or generalisation, but merely one of not agreeing with someone's interpretation of an agreed fact(s); there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Everyone's opinion and interpretation is open to challenge, and yours are no different from anybody else's in that regard.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-07-2017, 02:10 AM
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
Say it right out, Gut. Don´t mumble. The worst that can happen is that somebody will disagree with you.
Don’t think I could have put it much clearer than I did.
__________________
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
  #38  
Old 12-07-2017, 02:13 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Kattrup: Would you kindly point out where I stated that?

Yes, of course:
"I don't think it will do much good to try to explain, if you are indeed (somewhat surprisingly) unable to understand my post's relevance, since the quote, in my opinion, speaks for itself."

It read to me as if it would be surprising if somebody did not understand what you meant.

Far from you being too daft to understand, I implied the opposite - which you might of course also find rude.

Yes, it can be read that way too. Maybe you can see now why I think you are unclear at times?

Namely that in my opinion (as I stated), the quote I supplied speaks for itself and I was therefore somewhat surprised to see that you did not see the same meaning.

If you have to explain things in retrospect, you may need to polish on your phrasing, Kattrup. But thanks for the vote of confidence - a rare thing indeed!

Well, I thought it was a fine example of you denigrating another poster in much the same manner as you believe Sam Flynn did you.

And I showed you why they were two very different things.

Whether the issue discussed at the time can be proven to your satisfaction or not is immaterial.

No, it is never immaterial if you can prove that you are right or wrong. Especially not in cases like these.

At any rate, there's no real benefit to discussing this.

I disagree. Whenever somebody introduces a voodoo element of detracting from another posters overall credibility, there is a dire need to discuss it. The thread as such is therefore one that is necessary, but one I would have hoped was NOT necessary.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-07-2017, 02:16 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Don’t think I could have put it much clearer than I did.
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...

It´s one of those whooops things, I guess.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-07-2017 at 02:22 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-07-2017, 02:19 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not in those exact words - exactly my point. Neither I, nor anybody else, has told you that "your views" (plural) are "tainted". Individual posts might reveal an agenda at work, but that in no way means that ALL your views fall under that category. On the contrary, you often make good points, so your claim that you've been "told" that your views (plural) are tainted is both inaccurate and exaggerated.

Individual points of detail/interpretation are another matter. If I or anybody else feels that those points of detail are in error and/or distorted/generalised to fit a preconceived conclusion, why shouldn't that be pointed out? It might not even be a case of error, distortion or generalisation, but merely one of not agreeing with someone's interpretation of an agreed fact(s); there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Everyone's opinion and interpretation is open to challenge, and yours are no different from anybody else's in that regard.
Did I ever say that errors should not be pointed out? I think not.
Did I ever say that I am different in this regard? I think not.
That is just smoke and mirrors, nothing else. And I am growing more and more tired about your unwillingness to answer the one question of REAL interest here:
Either you have proof to offer for what you said, or you must admit that you don´t. That is what you need when you say that people make their calls on account of "preconceived notions".
Stop wriggling and answer that, please.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-07-2017 at 02:24 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 04:28 PM.


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