Community/Respect/Standards of behavior

[Sox]

There are people on this board who lie with malicious disregard for others and for the truth and treating them with anything other than the contempt that they have earned would validate their behavior

To put these things right is, or should be, the dominion of moderators and not the posters. I have taken frequent breaks from this website specifically because of these problems, and each time I come back it appears to have grown worse.

This should be a platform for the exchange and discussion of idea's/theories/historical fact, and not a platform to launch, or to continue, personal vendetta's. I come here to read opinions from people in relation to the murders of 1888, not to read repeated insults of a personal nature, or opinions as to why certain Ripper researchers are idiots, from people who do not know the first thing about them, no matter how amusing the poster may think he/she is.

All credit to SPR for continuing this fine website, but quite clearly he needs to get himself some moderators.

[Ally]

Ally,
Can I be clear about this .Are you then accusing me of "complicity" in this slanderous behaviour ? Are you also suggesting that I too have a "malicious disregard" for others, because I stated a few days ago that Ap was a friend of mine?
Best wishes
Norma

A person can be a friend of someone and not condone their behavior. Whether you condone AP calling Phil a hoaxer or not, I don't know. You say you don't believe he meant to do it or you don't think that he meant it how everyone took it, but everyone knows full well that he meant exactly what he said: that the background was fake and Phil was the one who did it. It's not the first time he's done something like that and it's not the last. As I already stated I don't know whether or not you condone it, but you surely have not condemned it.

I don't personally know anyone on these boards, and that's a good thing for discussion, but I do know that the people who make a speciality of attacking me as a liar, cheat and whatever else do so because they are personally acquainted with the person they are attempting to defend.

Another lie from AP Wolf. I am defending Phil Hutchinson from your attacks and I have never met the man in person and I certainly don't consider him a personal friend.

[Sox]

Back when I started using these forums, I held the opinions of AP Wolf in high regard. Since returning, I have been forced to put him on ignore (a feature I have never had to use in all the years I have used this site) and not because I do not like him, because I do not know him, but because of the repeated lies, and vicious attacks upon respected researchers. All of which are clearly unfounded, and which constantly ruin otherwise interesting threads.

Sadly, he is not the only one on that list.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sox,

I would disagree with the idea that things are 'worse' on the boards than in the past. The Casebook has literally hundreds of posters, and if you take AP Wolf and perrymason out of the equation, you have virtually no venom to be spat. Of course, you might include Steve Powell in there, but most of us pay little attention to Diary World these days.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi AP,

I've personally never met a single person from the Casebook...ever. I've never been to a conference or convention or even taken a Ripper tour. So I don't know where you're coming from with this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Ally,
I am quite clear in my own mind that there has never been fraudulence of any kind in relation to the document in question whether by Phil -or Rob or John or Monty---I have met them all on several occasions and it has never even crossed my mind,not ever.
However it is my view that Ap has an absolute entitlement to his views on the matter.
To have doubts about the provenance of any completely new artefact put into the public domain for the first time , pertaining to a 118 year old case that we all know full well is riddled with fraudulence and deception ,is in my view healthy and correct.
This,in my opinion,was all Ap was doing and by the way,all I was doing, in the first instance,before it all blew up a year or so ago.

Unfortunately the issue became clouded by accusation and counter accusation.Philip put me on ignore for supporting Ap's right to question the artefacts authenticity and he hasnt spoken to me since---moreover I am no longer welcomed into the company of the above named people at meetings and this has certainly affected me in that I no longer go to events where these people are present -----if I can at all help it.The exception being last years conference,where I paid two brief visits to hear specific speakers.One of these was Philip himself,speaking on the subject in question.And I have to say ,his talk was really impressive and the visuals,including the DFY picture but especially the Whitby Collection were quite wonderful.

But it doesnt bother me at all if I have become "persona non grata" in terms of Philip and his friends.You win some ,you lose some.

I will stick to what I believe is right here: in this case it was and is Ap"s right to state his case,without fear or favour.
Best
Norma

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Being one of the many, that has been present on this wonderful site for many years, one has to say the truth of the matter is, a lot of members have used this as a stepping stone for their ambitions to achieve fame in ripperology ,even if the fortune part is minimal.
I am a trustworthy soul, and would never dream of disputing any claim without good cause, and have no reason to in this case, I will always salute any one that has the good fortune to come across a nugget that has previously not emerged.. which Philips inheritance certainly is.
Lets not have any more sour grapes, and go forward ..
Regards Richard.

[Ally]

However it is my view that Ap has an absolute entitlement to his views on the matter.
To have doubts about the provenance of any completely new artefact put into the public domain for the first time , pertaining to a 118 year old case that we all know full well is riddled with fraudulence and deception ,is in my view healthy and correct.

To have doubts is absolutely healthy and correct. To question authenticity and provenance is what all reasoned people should do. He didn't do that. He accused Phil of hoaxing it. Which is not having doubts or questioning, it's accusing someone of fraud. An accusation of that nature required evidence to support it.

This,in my opinion,was all Ap was doing and by the way,all I was doing, in the first instance,before it all blew up a year or so ago.

That may be what you were doing, and it is certainly what I was doing but AP made a direct accusation of Phil himself, hoaxing it. And he refused to provide a single shred of evidence in support of that direct accusation.

Philip put me on ignore for supporting Ap's right to question the artefacts authenticity and he hasnt spoken to me since---moreover I am no longer welcomed into the company of the above named people at meetings and this has certainly affected me in that I no longer go to events where these people are present -----if I can at all help it.The exception being last years conference,where I paid two brief visits to hear specific speakers.

I've been on Philip's **** list (oh dear there goes my naughty language again) for years and years and years, and I was one of the ones on the thread saying it was right and proper to doubt the authenticity of the photo. Those who support him still speak to me and I don't have any doubt they would let me sit with them at the whitechapel meeting should I attend. Because it's not supporting having healthy doubt that most people object to, it's supporting someone who has made a DIRECT and unequivocal accusation that Phil himself hoaxed the photo.

There is no getting around it. When you say you support what AP did, you are saying you support him making a direct accusation of Phil being a fraud and a hoaxer.

I will stick to what I believe is right here: in this case it was and is Ap"s right to state his case,without fear or favour.

The problem is, as is AP's wont, he didn't state his case. He made an accusation, pointed his fingers and cried FRAUD! and then refused to provide any case or evidence whatsoever in support of that. And while Phil may well be many, many naughty words we all know is in my vocabulary, he is not a fraud and he is not a hoaxer and AP saying he is without evidence is indefensible.

[Sox]

However it is my view that Ap has an absolute entitlement to his views on the matter.

Everyone is Norma, but to be able to do so without resorting to outright lies and personal insults is not difficult or impssible. I do not know any of you, I do not attend any of your events or lectures, I do not belong to any of your cliques, and all I really want to do is come to this website and research/discuss this subject without having to wade through page after page of this personal nonsense.

If people want to rage at, or insult each other, then private messages are a great option, I just fail to see why the average user has to be subjected to it all. All you have to do for proof of this, is to look at how THIS thread has now turned into yet another about personal validation.

[Natalie Severn]

Is it possible to provide this evidence please Ally? It is I suppose possible that I never saw a post which stated categorically that Philip had hoaxed it as it was then removed? Does anyone have a copy of the post in question?

Thanks
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Sox,
Well its quite serious and was quite public at the time .Better to try and sort it than leave it in the air to fester further.
apologies,
Norma

[Ally]

The post that directly accused him was deleted and I don't know if anyone kept a copy of it, I know I didn't.

After a couple of weeks of AP saying that the background had been faked by photoshop, he made a post that basically said something like this:

Phil made a mistake when he inserted the background.

He was asked on the thread in public to provide evidence for that accusation or to withdraw it. He didn't, and received a vacation because of it.

[Rob Clack]

---moreover I am no longer welcomed into the company of the above named people at meetings and this has certainly affected me in that I no longer go to events where these people are present -----

Well that's not strictly true Norma is it. Both me and Neil spoke to you at the recent London Conference and if you don't want to attend the Whitechapel Meetings because of certain people that's your choice, but as far as I am concerned I have no problems with you at all.

Rob

[Sox]

Sox,
Well its quite serious and was quite public at the time .Better to try and sort it than leave it in the air to fester further.
apologies,
Norma

I wuv you Norma, no need to apologise to me

The point is this. The average layman comes to this website to research this subject, many people here have proven reputations in dealing with the murders themselves and/or the Victorian era. There is a certain obligation to posting here that should come before personal vendetta & the need to have to validate reputation.

If you all don't like each other, then kick the crap out of one another at the next Ripper conference, just dont make me read about it

[Natalie Severn]

Well thankyou Rob.Yes, both you and Monty spoke to me and were perfectly friendly,John too on the occasions that I have met him. But we are all aware that there has been a rift,even if it is unspoken.
Norma