Blurred

[curious]

Hi Curious,

yes I don't mind anyone having any ideas, that’s what makes this so interesting, however that seems to be something that some object to, and have stated that they wish to destroy the world of "Ripperology".





Such an attitude shows:

1. A complete and fundamental misunderstanding of "Ripperology". Much of the research carried out here and at other sites is not directly related to the identity of the killer, or as some say killers. Naming the killer would not stop that.

2. The arrogance of such a statement, that naming a suspect, could prove beyond doubt the id, and that it would just be accepted, and that would lead to the end of "Ripperology", is unreal!




Hi GUT that’s the point that those who make comments about people dancing to the tune of one person, miss completely.

The various statements made without naming a suspect and posts which tell the community how they MUST think, and what is ACCEPTABLE to ask as a question must be challenged.

Regards

Steve

Thanks, Steve and GUT, for continuing the fight, especially if you fear newbies will be led astray. I suspect I give people more credit for intelligence than they perhaps deserve.

I have noted the unparalleled arrogance. However, for me, it has gone from hilarious to pathetic and I wonder what's wrong. I've read widely, of course, but not being in the medical field, I can't be sure.

I've been glad numerous times, as I've read through a thread and found something I felt I needed to respond to, when I read a little further, the two of you (and others) had fought the fight before me.

Thanks again.

curious

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=curious;378753]

Thanks, Steve and GUT, for continuing the fight, especially if you fear newbies will be led astray. I suspect I give people more credit for intelligence than they perhaps deserve.

I have noted the unparalleled arrogance. However, for me, it has gone from hilarious to pathetic and I wonder what's wrong. I've read widely, of course, but not being in the medical field, I can't be sure.

I've been glad numerous times, as I've read through a thread and found something I felt I needed to respond to, when I read a little further, the two of you (and others) had fought the fight before me.

Thanks again.

curious

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight. Let the fighters strive vigorously and resolutely to gain power over the enemy, and save the proselytes from being led astray into the dark paths of smoke screens and personal opinions!

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight. May the fighters enlighten the proselytes and hand over the intelligent old traditions to them, with objectivity and neutrality, through their eternal knowledge about the unbiased and reliable sources!

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight! Let these brave men defend ripperology against the hilarious and pathetic unparalleled arrogance of the enemy!

Let us rejoice and be glad, and perhaps the battle will soon be over!

Regards, Pierre

[curious]

What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism.



Regards, Pierre [/B]

Pierre,
So far as I know you have not provided the first credential, and I can assure you that your postings do not inspire trust.

curious

[GUT]

Well the above makes about as much sense as most of what Pierre says anyway.

[GUT]

Pierre,
So far as I know you have not provided the first credential, and I can assure you that your postings do not inspire trust.

curious

And he's been asked numerous times to demonstrate his qualifications as an "Academic Historian" as he describes himself, something he has failed repeatedly to do and yet when real historians read his words here they say "That's not a person who holds an MA in history, or if so the University that awarded it needs investigating".

[Elamarna]

Hi.

Am out at the moment so will respond to the post by Pierre later.
Such a poor post . Still it requires a firm response.

Steve

[DJA]

Algernon Allies in the Cleveland Street Scandal .

As you probably know his previous job and lodging was at The Marlborough Club.
Established in 1868 by William Waldorf Astor,King Edward VII,Sir Henry Irving and Ernest Shackleton so that King Edward VII had a quiet spot for dinner,cards,etc.

[MsWeatherwax]

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight. Let the fighters strive vigorously and resolutely to gain power over the enemy, and save the proselytes from being led astray into the dark paths of smoke screens and personal opinions!

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight. May the fighters enlighten the proselytes and hand over the intelligent old traditions to them, with objectivity and neutrality, through their eternal knowledge about the unbiased and reliable sources!

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight! Let these brave men defend ripperology against the hilarious and pathetic unparalleled arrogance of the enemy!

Let us rejoice and be glad, and perhaps the battle will soon be over!

Regards, Pierre

Pierre.

I think all of this is spiraling out of control now. I can quite see why you would feel like everyone is against you, but I'm not sure you understand why. Since you arrived on the boards you have been oddly antagonistic, and extremely dismissive (to the point of being extremely rude, actually) on several occasions. To begin with, nobody was actually being rude to you - they were just pointing out the factual errors in the information you were presenting. Rather than admitting that you have only recently come into the field that you are discussing, you belittled and attacked the people who, actually, were trying to help. When you combine this with your somewhat esoteric posts, it's not difficult to see why a lot of people (myself included) thought that you were trolling the board.

While I do believe that you are genuine at this point, I don't think you understand that many of the people on this board do not want to 'solve' the case (I think you'll find a good chunk don't believe that it can be solved) - they are here because they have an avid interest in Victorian history and would continue to research the lives of the victims and suspects regardless of whether the case is solved or not. Therefore, nobody is concerned or interested whether or not your discovery would 'destroy' Ripperology...because it wouldn't.

You have at least stimulated some interesting discussion, and I thank you for that.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks, Steve and GUT, for continuing the fight, especially if you fear newbies will be led astray. I suspect I give people more credit for intelligence than they perhaps deserve.

I have noted the unparalleled arrogance. However, for me, it has gone from hilarious to pathetic and I wonder what's wrong. I've read widely, of course, but not being in the medical field, I can't be sure.

I've been glad numerous times, as I've read through a thread and found something I felt I needed to respond to, when I read a little further, the two of you (and others) had fought the fight before me.

Thanks again.

curious

I've been wondering for awhile now if Pierre is "neuro-typical" or more of an "atypical" sort of a guy (or gal-- mustn't make assumptions!) He's changed a bit from his early posts last year.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;378774]

Read the thread "Troll-related doggerel".

And this is off-topic.

[Pierre]

I've been wondering for awhile now if Pierre is "neuro-typical" or more of an "atypical" sort of a guy (or gal-- mustn't make assumptions!) He's changed a bit from his early posts last year.

Yes. Suspicion is the fuel here. Try to classify the suspects.

And this is off-topic.

[DJA]

What suspects?

Thought you had it solved.

A policeman?

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378678][QUOTE=Mayerling;378524]

Hi,

Sure. And what was in their heads must have been internalized through reading. Otherwise they would not have had any knowledge about the style of the Dear Boss letter. So the journalists must have read the newspapers. seen the Dear Boss letter and the descriptions of the "good round hand" and remembered this when they interpreted the witness statements and when they wrote their articles.

Journalists read, interpret and write.

OR: Was it Halse that had read about the Dear Boss letter and then applied this view on what he saw?

If you would like to, you could test that hypothesis. But it is difficult, since Halse says nothing of it in the original inquest sources. And also, he saw the GSG and why should he have made the same type of interpretations as the journalists did for the Dear Boss letter? Since he saw it.

Therefore, it was with high probability not written in a good round hand but as Swanson said, in a normal hand. And Halse did not try and apply the general knowledge about the Dear Boss letter, which had been in the newspapers for days prior to the inquest, on the GSG - since he saw it.

Regards, Pierre

I have had some time to think of this.

If the reporters had been reading the reports on the "Dear Boss" letter to enable them to formulate any ideas about it, it means they had to be reading each other's reports of the letter to see if there was any trend. This may (in your great opinion) have been a silly error on their part, but it suggests a closer bunch of reporters (even from rival newspapers) than your suggestions of the "internalized" newspapermen coming to the same conclusion.

I can imagine these newspapermen, meeting at pubs after handing in their copy, discussing the mystery (everyone was doing it at the time), and considering the "Dear Boss letter" or the "GSG" and any similarities or whatever (they could have voiced differences about these too). No, I misused the word "cabal", but some concerted thinking together could have occurred.

Of course, you can counter, "Do you any proof of this?" I don't, but I am curious if when you came up with the possibility of these newsmen with internalized ideas, you began looking at who exactly these reporters were (i.e., what their names were) and had they shown a similar unanimity of ideas on crimes in the past).

As for Halse, since there is no evidence that he saw the "Dear Boss" letter, we can ignore the point entirely.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

As for Halse, since there is no evidence that he saw the "Dear Boss" letter, we can ignore the point entirely.

Seriously, Jeff? You are talking about the 'Dear Boss' letter, a facsimile of which was reproduced on posters put up all over London and in newspapers prior to the inquest on 11 October? We need evidence to show that Halse might have seen it?

[David Orsam]

OR: Was it Halse that had read about the Dear Boss letter and then applied this view on what he saw?

If you would like to, you could test that hypothesis. But it is difficult, since Halse says nothing of it in the original inquest sources. And also, he saw the GSG and why should he have made the same type of interpretations as the journalists did for the Dear Boss letter? Since he saw it.

Pierre, you have completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the point that is being made against you. That point is that Halse saw the GSG and that when, a few days later, he saw a facsimile of the 'Dear Boss' letter, he thought to himself "oh, that handwriting in the Dear Boss letter is rather similar to the GSG" so that, when describing the GSG in court, he was influenced by the descriptions used by the newspaper journalists, having read that the 'Dear Boss' letter was in a 'round hand'.

It's no good you saying, "oh, there is no evidence that Halse saw the 'Dear Boss' letter in the newspapers, or read the descriptions", because there is equally no evidence that any of the court reporters saw the 'Dear Boss' letter or read the descriptions either.

It is a thousand times more likely that Halse was influenced by the press reports than that the court reporters were influenced by them because it was the job of the court reporters, for which they were paid, to accurately report what Halse said in the witness box. They were not paid to insert their own fabricated versions of what Halse, or any other witness, said in the witness box.

You need to at least understand the point and get to grips with it before you can possibly dismiss it.