Not to be trusted

[Fisherman]

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 If it had been retracted and if there had been an admittance that it should never have been said in the first place, this thread would have been a mere three posts long: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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

I made no claim of anyone's "lesser worth as a poster". Your accusation was false. It's as clear cut as that.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Kattrup]

That is what I interpret as being unfair and misleading. And it all owes to your disability/unwilingness to see beyond the surface.

From here, found after a five-minute search of recent Fisherman-posts...


(in fairness, he later acknowledged that he'd meant inability, not disability)

[barnflatwyngarde]

I have said before that I am sometimes surprised at the level of invictive comments doled out by some people on the threads.

As an old hippy, I find this type of behaviour disappointing, however I don't in all honesty think these comments are meant to be as rude, and sometimes cruel, as the specific posts would suggest.

Surely this is just another manifestation of people posting comments across all areas of the internet that they would never say to a persons face.

I am on record as favouring Blotchy as the killer, however I am all too aware that my views of people criticising the Blotchy theory are influenced by my confirmation basis.

I go on the basis that all serious posters to the boards try and factor in the existence of confirmation basis when writing their contributions to the boards.

Unfortunately I think that the rudeness will probably continue unabated, simply because it seems "de rigueur" for most people posting on the internet, not just these boards.

In my experience, most arguments can be resolved amicably over copious amounts of beer.

A particularly Glasgow approach to things I will admit.

But it works!

[Fisherman]

From here, found after a five-minute search of recent Fisherman-posts...


(in fairness, he later acknowledged that he'd meant inability, not disability)

Did I now? How gracious of me! Now, can you tell me what you are trying to say with this? I am unable/disabled to see it, but I´m sure you can explain.

[Fisherman]

I have said before that I am sometimes surprised at the level of invictive comments doled out by some people on the threads.

As an old hippy, I find this type of behaviour disappointing, however I don't in all honesty think these comments are meant to be as rude, and sometimes cruel, as the specific posts would suggest.

Surely this is just another manifestation of people posting comments across all areas of the internet that they would never say to a persons face.

I am on record as favouring Blotchy as the killer, however I am all too aware that my views of people criticising the Blotchy theory are influenced by my confirmation basis.

I go on the basis that all serious posters to the boards try and factor in the existence of confirmation basis when writing their contributions to the boards.

Unfortunately I think that the rudeness will probably continue unabated, simply because it seems "de rigueur" for most people posting on the internet, not just these boards.

In my experience, most arguments can be resolved amicably over copious amounts of beer.

A particularly Glasgow approach to things I will admit.

But it works!

Never been to Glasgow. Been to Edinburgh, Pittenweem, the Hebrides, Spean Bridge and so on. Does that help?

Just as the case is with Kattrup, you have not spelt out what you think, but it seems you may think that I should accept being told that my views are tainted on account of me having an agenda. Is that about correct, or am I misunderstanding you?

By the way, I am not a beer man myself. But I nevertheless get on with most people anyway. Whisky and wine may have something to do with that.

[Sam Flynn]

Just as the case is with Kattrup, you have not spelt out what you think, but it seems you may think that I should accept being told that my views are tainted on account of me having an agenda.

Who has actually told you that your "views are tainted because you have an agenda"? Nobody has. It might have been implied, but an implication is not the same as "being told".

It helps if one sticks to the facts.

[Fisherman]

Who has actually told you that your "views are tainted because you have an agenda"? Nobody has. It might have been implied, but an implication is not the same as "being told".

It helps if one sticks to the facts.

Yes, so let´s do that! Then we will see that you wrote "The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue". That is something that is an exact quotation, and the meaning is impossible to misinterpret: You state, not as an implication but as a fact, that you know the primary reason why I do not "acknowledge the differences", and that this reason lies in my having an agenda. THere is no implication at all invlved, it is all totally straightforward, with no "perhapses", no "possiblys" no "maybes".
You effectively reccommend that less trust in invested in me, since I have that "agenda" you speak of. That is the sum of it. And now, you are too much of a coward to admit it. It "might have been implied", you say, but there is no implication at all, as I have shown you - there is an unequivocal statement involving that you know the reason for my stance. There´s no way around that, Gareth. The time may have come to realize that, eh?

Furthermore, please tell me what you think is my "agenda"! Is it to mislead by lying about Lechmere? Or is it to inform about him? Or is it to discuss the case? Pray tell me! For somebody who was not aware that I HAVE an agenda, it should be intersting to hear. You yourself state, à la Mother Teresa, that YOU have no agenda, so why is it that you think that I have one?

As is so often the case, you resort to semantics, and you point out that nobody has used THE EXACT wording I employ. Which is just ridiculous. You can´t say that the reason I don´t agree with you is because I have an agenda, and then say that nobody has said that this agenda is tainting my views IN THOSE EXACT WORDS. There is nobody stupid enough around to accept that kind of arguing. Not a soul. We can all see and understand what it means when somebody says that another posters ideas are not the result of measured and balanced thinking but instead of an agenda.

And all the while, you duck the questions you are asked, and refuse to answer them.

Here we go again, therefore:

Prove to me how you know that my reason for not seeing the differences the way you do lies in me having an agenda to pursue. Just how did you reach that conclusion? Why do you think you are at liberty to tarnish me by claiming that I am primarily agendadriven when I disagree with you? If I had not been a Lechmere supporter, do you actually think that I would have agreed with you?

And a new question: If it had been the case - but we have seen it never was - that you "only" implied that I am agenda-ridden in my thinking, then what business had you to do so and what proof can you offer to substantiate it?

Let´s have some answers from you instead of having to watch you run like a rabbit, Gareth. It´s unbecoming and it takes up a lot of unmotivated space out here.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, so let´s do that! Then we will see that you wrote "The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue". That is something that is an exact quotation, and the meaning is impossible to misinterpret

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

Furthermore, please tell me what you think is my "agenda"! Is it to mislead by lying about Lechmere? Or is it to inform about him? Or is it to discuss the case? Pray tell me!

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.

As is so often the case, you resort to semantics, and you point out that nobody has used THE EXACT wording I employ. Which is just ridiculous.

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.

And all the while, you duck the questions you are asked, and refuse to answer them.... Let´s have some answers from you instead of having to watch you run like a rabbit, Gareth.

Nobody's ducking or running. I'm not well and I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to waste on such things.

[Kattrup]

Did I now? How gracious of me!

I don't think it was very gracious, perhaps we should read the exchange again:

That is what I interpret as being unfair and misleading. And it all owes to your disability/unwilingness to see beyond the surface.

It's inability, not disability by the way. However that assumes you are not saying I am mentally disabled.

And it´s upcoming, not up coming by the way...

My typo was auto correct,but still means the same.
Yours involved two different concepts. Inability is not the same as disability. It could be viewed as a very serious offence term. I assumed it was a typo or maybe the fact that English is not your first language.
Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

My typo was auto correct,but still means the same.

Yes, I was just catching onto your funny little game of correcting people, and since autocorrection is something that we can mend, I think the responsibility lies with you anyway. It should make for a grand future if we start adding these things. Good inititiative!

Yours involved two different concepts. Inability is not the same as disability.

Yes, I know that, but since I am not using my native language, I sometimes miss out.

It could be viewed as a very serious offence term. I assumed it was a typo or maybe the fact that English is not your first language.

Correct on the latter score!

Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

It may have something to do with then overall tone of this discussion - of course, I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless.

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:

I am unable/disabled to see it, but I´m sure you can explain.

(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:

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.

As for my original post:

Now, can you tell me what you are trying to say with this?

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.

[GUT]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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

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! : )