Not to be trusted

[Fisherman]

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 canīt 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.

Thereīs 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.
Itīs 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.

Itīs really kind of either or.

[Patrick S]

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.

[Ally]

Surely it canīt 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.

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.

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.

Itīs 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).

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

Iīm quite well. And Iīve had supper already.

[Fisherman]

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 donīt bring Lechmere up off-topic. I bring him up on-topic. If you disagree, then maybe itīs 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 Iīm 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. Donīt know where you got that from. But to be frank, I actually never thought of how it creates extra work for others. Iīll 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.

[GUT]

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...

Itīs 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 can’t refrain from pushing it in every thread one must doubt their objectiveness.

I’ve often wished there was some declaration, for the benefit of newbies, where instead of the header saying where you’re from it said “I’m a ....ite (insert suspect of choice).

[Ally]

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:

Then Iīll leave it to you to to produce some little contrafire, Abby. If her ability to judge the Lechmere case is something to go by, Iīd say you neednīt 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.

[Patrick S]

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!

[Fisherman]

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 can’t refrain from pushing it in every thread one must doubt their objectiveness.

I’ve often wished there was some declaration, for the benefit of newbies, where instead of the header saying where you’re from it said “I’m 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 canīt, then how is it interesting?

[Fisherman]

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 donīt, then itīs 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 Iīm sure there are those who are better suited to take care of it.

Goodnight.

[Ally]

It may be wise to look at what Caz has posted - that is, if you want to see the other side. If you donīt, then itīs little use.

See, Christer, and this is why arguing with you is quite like arguing with a Fundy. You are quite literally incapable of seeing the forest from the trees, or the log in your own eye, or all the other arboreal metaphoricals.

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.

You didn't need to judge her qualifications at all. It wasn't relevant to the thread. It wasn't needed. It was actually off-topic and a personal dig, that didn't add anything to the conversation. At all. But you saw an opportunity to jump in there with your suspect, and you took it. Which is basically, what everyone is saying. You just can't see that. Through the logs and the trees, and whatnot.

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

Fundamentalists don't always have to discuss their Lord. They just always have to let you know he's foremost in their thoughts. Praise Cross!

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.

You quite literally put yourself up as the poster child as the one who was not being trusted and you are wondering why people are questioning your actions or criticizing them? You posted a thread that quite literally demanded to have your actions examined and are angry that people have? Really? .... I mean... Really? Don't ask for people's honest opinions on a public forum if you don't really want to hear them. It's generally not wise.

And how is it defaming you, to quite literally post your exact words? If you consider it defaming to post your exact words, choose your words more carefully in the future.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

The answer to that is easy. Yes, of course they can, provided they take a balanced and reasonable approach to the evidence. Trying to make (e.g.) Elizabeth Jackson's abdominal mutilations as similar to Mary Kelly's is not a balanced interpretation; neither is trying to place Lechmere closer to Nichols' body than the records say he was.

It seems much more like a thread with the sole agenda of defaming me, at any cost.

You began this thread by personalising the argument and making derogatory comments about me. From the very first post:

On an adjacent thread, Gareth Williams claims that my suggestion that the Ripper and the Torso killer was one and the same is guided by my agenda, and that I only make the call I do because it serves the Lechmere theory. No other merit is ascribed to my suggestion, the primary reason why I don't acknowledge the significance of the differences Gareth mentions is because I "have an agenda to pursue".

This kind of senseless crap has plagued the boards for far too long. It should go without saying that any poster out here must judge any bid made on itīs inherent quality, instead of trying to hide behind unsubstatiated accusations of the opponent having an agenda to defend.

And this continued in your next post but two after that:

Doing Ripperology in that way is compromising yourself very badly. It is one thing to be wary about how people may over- or underrate the value of different pieces of information, based on convictions of theirs. But is quite another matter to make an initial deduction of credibility on behalf of people with suspects, regardless of the inherent quality of what they say. That is indecent, illogical and totally disrespectful.

Gareth has not only violated this rule - he also seems to be proud of it. The only thing he has managed to establish by it is a glaring lack of credibility and fair judgment

Can't you see that it might be the case that it's your own belligerent and high-handed attitude that's the main problem here? More often than not you're the first out of the blocks with the insults, before playing the innocent victim if someone gives you a dose of your own medicine in return.

[Kattrup]

1. Urgent need to discuss

Whenever somebody introduces a voodoo element of detracting from another posters overall credibility, there is a dire need to discuss it.

2. Discussion does not go as planned

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 Iīm sure there are those who are better suited to take care of it.

Goodnight.

[Elamarna]

1. Urgent need to discuss


2. Discussion does not go as planned

Have kept out of this thread, more fun watching it. But I do like that post Kattrup.

All the best

Steve

[John Wheat]

1. Urgent need to discuss


2. Discussion does not go as planned

Talk about a contradiction.