In the name of honesty...

[Ally]

I agree AP however would you let poor presentation cloud your opinion of the information itself?

Monty

But of course, if the people aren't forthcoming with the info after dropping the "I know something you don't know", at what point does a person's credibility impact their product? Would you buy secret stock from Madoff even if he swore it was really really genuine?

If the product isn't out there for an open evaluation by all, then until it is, the person's presentation of the product is all we have to go on. And if they are saying "Yes it's definite, believe me, I have proof, and No you can't see it for yourself" then yes, the presentation is going to affect my opinion of the information itself. Until I can see it and judge it for myself, then personal presentation DOES matter.

Once the material is actually out there for peer review, then the person and his presentation becomes almost irrelevant....which is why I think so many people actually hoard their finds and play this stupid game because they don't want to be made redundant, and as long as they are the sole guardian at the gate, they can continue to feel important. Their ego at having something special overrides their desire to actually contribute meaningfully to the body of work. Which is why NO ONE who has "super secret stuff" can just zip it until it's published and out there. Because it's not about just having it. It's about letting everyone else know that YOU have it and THEY don't...nyah nyah. But in most cases the "tease" just ends up going on way too long and when there is no product forthcoming, eventually, yes, the presentation causes doubt about the product. We have seen it time and time again on the boards.

And that's fine if that's who you are. I personally don't have that kind of ego ( I have a huge one, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't manifest itself that way). I have no desire to have my name in lights or the kind of accolades that goes along with that. But when people do have that kind of need, their attention seeking can become distracting to the research. I guess it's the difference between people who want to research for the sake of the information and the knowledge gained, and people who research to find something that will make them "A Name".

[The Good Michael]

I must say, I would hardly call Fiona ''Loony',

I have no fear of calling someone loony when they pull that kind of crap. Face it, there are a lot of loonies out there who just want to peddle BS and then begin to believe what they peddle. The benefit of the doubt is given to those who produce something and don't act like Bilbo Baggins who has a secret something in his 'nasty little pocketesses'.

The best to you Richard

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
I must say, I would hardly call Fiona ''Loony', but I agree that its is frustrating for all of us, just to receive the 'Dangling carrot' post or two , which in the case of the above mentioned resulted in just that.
I for one urged her to continue, but alas to no avail, although she still communicated with Coral.
Any source she may, or may not have come across, would only be judged as pure oral history, but she presented some wonderful snippits to us, before rudeness reared its ugly head, and she retreated into silence, which I for one felt was a great pity. to have had amongst us surely would have been a asset, being the great grandaughter of kellys landlord [proven]
Anyway a shame.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

This thread reminds me of the loony Kendall woman who knows, through her long-dead ancestor John McCarthy, the person who killed Kelly. That stuff pisses me off too. "I've got a secret and I'm not telling." Just give what you've got, come up with a bit of evidence, and I'll still buy the book. I promise. Give me what seems like a lie, and don't come through with anything, and you get nothing but irritated people who don't believe that boy saw any wolves.

Mike

[Cap'n Jack]

No, Monty, I would'nt go as far as that, but it is plainly irritating when these chaps come along with a thunder clap of new info that is going to solve the case, and then all we get is a tiny fart and a bad smell left in the corridors of confusion.

[Monty]

I agree AP however would you let poor presentation cloud your opinion of the information itself?

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

I'd go along with Ally on this, the presentation of these folks is so unprofessional that one cannot take them seriously. They turn something quite positive into a major farce, just because their ego is running the show.
But I think it deeper than that, in that the general view appears to be that new information will help to solve the case, in that some obscure photo or ear clip of weird information is going to solve this case... well I reckon that is bullshit, as the information that will solve this case is already out there, and it just needs someone without a massive ego, and the right presentation to stick the bill board on the wall.

[Monty]

Thats a fair point Ally.

I guess Im not influenced in such away any more, or at least try not to be.

And thats what presentation partly is no? Influencing.

Monty

[Ally]

No I would say that in academia presentation is half the battle. Two people can present roughly the same information, but the way you present it DOES matter. If one person stands there and drones on and on in a flat monotone, barely raising their voice, and another has a dynamic presentation that involves the audience ...which do you think is going to be better received?

Presentation is important. If you turn your audience off before you even get to the meat of the material, you've lost. Flat out lost. Look at all the hoopla over that guy who published the book with MJK's photo on the cover. People were saying they wouldn't even buy the book....Presentation DOES matter in how someone receives what you have to say, absolutely.

[Monty]

Point 1, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However some really do not care what opinion me, you or AP has of them.

Point 2. Absolutely however you misunderstand. What I am saying is that past experiences may effect how people present their info in the future.

Point 3. Usually?

So the presentation is far more important than the information itself?

Theres a hell of a lot more to consider than mere presentation.

Cheers
Monty

[Ally]

You may think they're dicks..yeah, and?

...and don't bitch if you act like a dick and people call you a dick.

Lots of people want it on their lap, and even when its presented they question, query and deny.

Wait...so are you claiming that just because someone works and researches something, no one has the right to question, query it or deny it? Just because someone worked on something doesn't make it right or accurate or plausible.

Damned if you do...

That's usually what people say when they do something dumbass and get called on it. It's rarely true or accurate but the complaint of whiners who make the wrong call and get soundly smacked for it.

[Monty]

Judgement is made one way or the other.

Simple fact is that no one has a devine right to information in this field.

People get off their arses and work tirelessly to find information, how they present it is entirely their call. And your, mine or anyone elses opinion on that call is, quite frankly, irrelivant.

You may think they're dicks..yeah, and?

Lots of people want it on their lap, and even when its presented they question, query and deny.

Damned if you do...

Monty

[Ally]

Surely its down to the individual of how and when new 'finds' are released.

...
Who are we to dictate?

I do absolutely agree to the fact that it is every person's "right" to decide when and how their discoveries will be shared. People absolutely have the right to play "I know something you don't know" and peekaboo games and the rest have the right to think they are petulant dicks and mock them relentlessly both behind their backs and to their faces. Most people just choose to exercise their right to mock behind the back though.

Just because you have the RIGHT to do something, doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't going to judge you viciously for exercising that right. If people want to keep new discoveries to themselves, then they ought to follow that to the letter and ACTUALLY keep it to themselves. Dropping leading hints and nyah nyahs is not only childish but you tend to lose whatever credibility you might have gained from the research if you can't go about presenting it in adult manner.

[Cap'n Jack]

But the voices speak outside the box as well, here is such a voice from late 2008, a Martin Meenagh, who has a right old ding dong at me in particular - the Spanish Brandy gives me away - but then gives such ego and gain its rightful place. Enjoy!

'The second thing that the internet won points with me for this week was the cheerfully insane page on the Jack the Ripper caseboook dealing with Thomas Hayne Cutbush. I think that it's probably the lingering British combination of misogyny, riddling and fascination with madness on the part of the highly repressed that draw so many to the case. Repression is sometimes the other side of great success and discipline, after all.

Anyway, I've long thought that the solution to a mystery no one will ever solve was that some local nutter committed some or all of the crimes. Cutbush is just such a person. His triple barrelled name has been the subject of vast flights of research and fancy, as it refers back to a seventeenth century anti-catholic, and to Webster's famous reply that Abraham Lincoln adapted into the Gettysburg Address.

With the application of a little imagination masquerading as naive realism, and the aid of what seems to be a good sip of supermarket Spanish brandy, various writers on the casebook have sought to connect Cutbush to this intellectual sump, on the basis of very very little evidence indeed. Only one of the victims was a catholic; there were no catholic references in any of the supposed notes from the murderer, most of which were almost certainly written by journalists; and no one has suggested it before. So, all engines ahead on that theory.

Just about the only connection that works between the Lincoln assassination and Ripper suspects is one that is contradictory to the Cutbush theory anyway. Francis Tumblety was a nasty weirdo who collected womens' wombs (known in the past as matrices). He was in London in 1888 and may have been also close to the assassin of President Garfield, Charles Guiteau. Wild rumours once connected him to John Wilkes Booth.

It is one of the minor regrets of my life that I had too much shame to write a book under a pseudonym making all these sorts of links and selling it to idiots at airports and train stations for cash. Perhaps it could have led to the heights of, say, this Weird Chicago website. If you ever are in such a station, save your brain the effort and buy a John Connolly book instead.

How can speculation over such sad things as deranged lawsuits or the whitechapel murders of over a century ago lift the heart? I feel more confident in humanity muddling through its troubles when I see the determination not to deal with facts, reality, or disappointment on the part of some, and the capacity of law and historical method to restrain them on the other. Human nature doesn't change. If a species as daft as us can survive this far, what could ever really stop us?

Here's a video of Sarah Palin babbling on whilst a man slaughters Turkeys in the background.'

[Monty]

Surely its down to the individual of how and when new 'finds' are released.

They have endeavoured and, in some cases, invested monies. Their work therefore their right. And if someone else comes across the same info, well thats the risk.

Who are we to dictate?

However, I dont think thats the kernal of Phils point.

Monty