The state of the genre on here and generally

[Phil Carter]

Transfering from another post...

Quote: Phil in post to Monty

What I would like to see, obviously not at this conference but a future one, is a debate. The motion being "This house believes that certain areas of Ripperology are limited to a select accepted few, and disdainful of anyone new wanting to feel they are genuine part of the genre" .
(I don't speak for myself, please note)

Quote Monty's reply

You speak for others? Yours is the only voice I hear. Who said those words? What house believes? What accepted few? Give examples of this elitism. I find it very ironic that you gush and support a man who is the epitome of the word distain yet, at the same time, speak for the distained. However as you wish.

Whilst disagreements occur, they always have, there was always a camaraderie that endured. Well, endured until recently. Until the moment when a false cabal was created and some very good people were accused of falsifying documents or altering records with no whatsoever supporting these lies. These very good researchers and contributors have now been lost to the boards, and some also to the field, replaced by the sensationalists who hold more credence to supposition than to evidence.

You have a choice. To carry on this dangerous ‘quipping’, or to quit it and try and restore the damage that has been created with regarding conviviality in Ripperology. And before anyone points out the obvious…..I am trying also.

Time to end it.




Hello Monty,

Thanks for the reply. Here's an attempt to get something constructive going. Calmly. Yes, calmly.

Ok, Let's get the post above out of the way.

I'll do it with openess and respect. I expect that to be the word for EVERY posting on this thread.
AND RESPECT means EVERYONE. So no trying to take the mickey. If you (as a poster reading this, not directly YOU Monty) have something of content to add to it, then keep it on the level without the quips that I, and Monty himself, use. For once, no word games. From anyone. Respect also means no personal comments against any individual. Stick to the meaning of the thread. And that includes you Monty, and me..so no more "youve done this, youve done that"... Right? Let's start in calm mutual respect and see how far we get.



First of all. No. I speak for no-one. I suggested a debate with a title. You can suggest another one if you wish by all means! You ask "What house? Err, the debating forum. Not any particular group.. it's a DEBATING suggestion, that's all, and is how a debate is proposed using those words.."This House..." Even if it is only from one person, when a debate motion is forwarded, that is how it is worded. Hope that is clear now. Not aimed at anyone in particular. Please read on.

You use the word elitism, not I. I said "a limited accepted few"... that doesn't mean they are the elite!!The point, if you care to read again through my entire post which you didn't quote, and is the essential part, is not about you, me, x, y or z arguing on the boards.. it is about WHICH DIRECTION the genre wants to go to ENCOURAGE new followers of the genre. If THEY, newbies, feel, by reading these boards, that they may feel left out of invitation into research, don't know where to start, maybe have suggestions and something to say, then MY opinion is that it can easily be misconstrued that it COULD be limited to a few, who's opinions way heavier than others within the genre. Please do not misinterpret that either.
I just don't want Ripperology to be locked into small groups. If it is to be open, then let's open it further. Encourage, do whatever we can. And before you say, we already do, or suchlike.. my answer is we can always do more. How? I don't know.. suggest things. Everyone. Positivism. Enthusiasm.

When I said (I don't speak for myself) I meant that I talk of MY being accepted isnt a problem, because I don't do anything for myself. Never have and never will. I try to help others. The fact is I like to ask people not to mention my help. I don't have to prove it, and would ask those I have offered help to keep it that way. Enough of me and how I do things in this manner. This thread isn't about that.. So just accept my word for it. End of.

Now, to quote your good self again..

Whilst disagreements occur, they always have, there was always a camaraderie that endured. Well, endured until recently. Until the moment when a false cabal was created and some very good people were accused of falsifying documents or altering records with no whatsoever supporting these lies. These very good researchers and contributors have now been lost to the boards, and some also to the field, replaced by the sensationalists who hold more credence to supposition than to evidence.

A camaraderie that endured? Now Monty my friend, I am sorry. But this is plainly not the case. People have left these boards in anger FAR before any mention of a cabal. Ive been watching these boards for many years before I started posting in 2009. Some of the trash that was thrown about was far worse than what Ive seen since. People have been thrown off these boards for the direct opposite of cameaaderie. Even today there are people who refer to individuals gone by ans STILL hammer their name down. Whatever people have done, I see detrimental comments by limited individuals about certain individuals. And they aren't around anymore. And that is wrong. They can't answer back. As regards what remaining camaraderie there is, THAT will always split into groups anyway as we tend to agree with the TYPE of poster we see posting, the wording, the structure, and yes, the theory. So without any sense of what a camaraderie is, certain people DON'T mix with others because of the difference if ideas, in the main. And that, as I have suggested a long, long time ago, is down to "traditional" Ripperology vs "new approach" Ripperology. I have suggested that you, for example, and I, for example, do things in a different way. Now we could argue until we are blue in the face which methodology is correct, and never agree. However I DON'T NOT accept your methodology. It works for you. Fine. It doesn't for me. Fine. But NEITHER can be classed as being right or wrong.
Someone posted on another thread here a short time ago that the tried and tested way of researching has brought us no nearer to the case being solved.
Therefore a new approach could and should be tried. That means taking speculation and running with it. Researching it. Now if you don't feel that you want to.. fine! But it isn't right to not help and encourage those who do.

Me? I like to ask questions. I try to get people thinking..in a different way. I try to engage the grey cells to say.. hey, that' a good point, what if.....? And I will speculate in order to come to that point. It may not be the historically tried and tested way, it may not lead to a very long alley... but I do it that way. Like it or ignore it... but it's MY way. Like it or not. And others have differing ways to get ME thinking too. That includes YOU. And it includes all who research as you do.

There is no RIGHT way or WRONG way here Monty. The plain fact is that Ripperology has been resting on it's laurels of staid methodology for too long, and expansion is now being tested.
If THAT frightens off researchers, well more fool them, imho. Because the fact is that we are all in this to try and find answers to a case that fascinates, whatever path we choose to tread to get there. There are those who stay, those who leave, those who never say a word except in books and those who never say a word but are still interested. Embrace them all I say. Whatever floats their boat! But the leavers are NOT just limited to the ones you are one about..oh no. I know of some who leave because of the attitude of certain individuals on here and how they post in utter disrespect, or wind up people on purpose, or belittle continually. You may not be aware of that too much, I bet. But believe you me, Ive been emailed and told why. Ive no reason to lie.

I re quote you again..

You have a choice. To carry on this dangerous ‘quipping’, or to quit it and try and restore the damage that has been created with regarding conviviality in Ripperology. And before anyone points out the obvious…..I am trying also.

Time to end it.

This is put to me, not a group. I have a choice of staying the way I am. Thank you very much. I will respond to the mickey taking, I will respond to the ganging up, and yes, you know full well it happens, and I will keep qupping and making funnies because the dog is biting back, which is against my nature. So you want it to end? Have a word with one or two or three people around here that you KNOW do exactly that, and get THEM to rein themselves in, in the same way YOU are admirably attempting to do with yourself. THEN, the dogs (yes, there are more than just little ol me that feel this way Monty) will stop snapping back. In other words, get the dog kickers to stop. And don't say we started it. I honestly believe that the influx of new approach thinkers has nudged the balance of Ripperology. It's just because those people do things and say things in a contrary way to how it has always been done. I can understand if that rankles. Yes!

THAT is what goes against the grain. That is the connection with a "grouping" that can be defined as caballistic. Yes, they bite back to the group that can't stand the methodology and conjecture. . Yes, they have their say. I personally have only just recently started biting back harder. And NOT at you, in the main, as you know. But I will do it if the p*ss taking doesn't stop. QUOTE YOU. Time to end it.
Personally, I have s*d all to lose. And I'll keep making funny little quips addressed to nobody if it doesn't end. It's a two way stretch Monty. I will bite anyone who carries on trying it on, disguised, on occasion, as very well phrased text. No, I'm no fool either Monty. Some think I am. They is wrong.
The games must stop.

OK.. I'll try to restore the conviviality with you. But can you get the people you know of to get off individual's backs? Cos it happens. And it is obvious who. There is a tendency to gang up in here. And you know it as well as I do.

Now this is as open as I can get it. That was by your request. It names no individual, and is aimed at no individual. I will happily take my responsibility for whatever I have done, but I insist that if, as you quote, it IS time to mend it, then ALL must stop. That means all of us. Period.

Now I am NOT expecting a tirade of attack against me here. I expect conviviality from ALL who wish to post. Their very response will tell you, Monty, just what can and cannot be done to stop this nonsense once and for all.

And yes, I believe that the yearly Ripper conferences SHOULD have a debating section put in. It would help an awful lot, imho.

Now this is written with total and utter respect and in calmness. Dont question it. Accept it. Dont read a tone that isn't there eh?
Just pick up the baton and try to get a convivial approach going. That way the whole genre, as you say, and as I have written often, will benefit. Want to try to end the non conviviality? I bet you some wont go for it. That is a problem the genre has then. And I dont know the answer to that. Because it is ultimately down to individual choice of how they act.

best regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello (again) Monty,

Just a little addition.

The "tours" you have been part of organizing are fine..good idea, getting people together.
How about the experienced on the ground researchers like yourself taking one of two newbies who are interested along to help, and even start, their own research? Your experienced guiding hand would be a great bonus, and introduce so many that would like to get their hands dirty in in the ground research. Just a friendly suggestion. It applies to all that are doing suchlike. And who knows, someone might just find an avenue that all the experienced ones don't look for? That surely has to be beneficial to the genre?
You will forgive, I hope, any silence should there be any, for a day or two.. but the next few days are going to be tiring for me. I will try to respond but cannot guarentee it. My apologies.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Phil,
Two questions: you don’t want Ripperology to be locked into small groups? What small groups would that be? Be specific. What are you talking about?

You say that your methodology differ from Neil’s? Can you be specific? What is your methodology? How does it differ from Neil's?

What is "traditional" Ripperology and "new approach" Ripperology? If we can clearly define and establish what you are talking about, then it will be possible to ascertain whether there is such a thing as "traditional" and "new approach".

As for a camaraderie that endured. Yes, it has endured. I, for example, have worked closely with and count among my friends people who had theories I do not share. What underlays this is respect.

[Rubyretro]

Phil -Forgive me for butting in, but don't you think that you are getting a little bit excited over something not terribly important in the scheme of things ?

Shouldn't we put things into context ? :

this is the 21st century, we all have jobs, families, children, friends -you know, real life..

A 19th century serial killer (and all the attendant bywaters) is not real life.

It may be a passion for us -it is a passion for Me, too, -and it may be enriching in many ways, but if nobody were interested in JTR at all, the world would keep turning in just the same way.

The word of Ripperology and the forums here on Casebook function as a mini Society, and therefore we get a mirror of Society in general -different factions, teams and 'cabals' ; leaders and followers; personalities etc etc

There are bound to be rivalries, debates and spats, as well as camaraderie...to my mind it is totally impossible that it should be any other way. It really isn't of primordial importance.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,
Two questions: you don’t want Ripperology to be locked into small groups? What small groups would that be? Be specific. What are you talking about?

You say that your methodology differ from Neil’s? Can you be specific? What is your methodology? How does it differ from Neil's?

What is "traditional" Ripperology and "new approach" Ripperology? If we can clearly define and establish what you are talking about, then it will be possible to ascertain whether there is such a thing as "traditional" and "new approach".

As for a camaraderie that endured. Yes, it has endured. I, for example, have worked closely with and count among my friends people who had theories I do not share. What underlays this is respect.

Hello Paul,

Sorry to correct you, but that was in actual fact, 6 questions..however..

Re. small groups, what I am talking about (questions 1 and 2)

I mean that research within the genre can be encouraged and expanded, and made more available for more to try their hand at it, i.e. "on the ground" as it were. Experienced researchers taking newbies under their wing, giving them practical help. Point them in the right direction by inviting them along. That is what I mean by expanding from small groups, i.e. that is what I am talking about.

Re. methodology differences etc (questions 3, 4 and 5)

The answer to these three questions actually lies within the text. I referred to another poster's views about research and how we approach it. The answers, specific, are there. I cordially invite you to read it again. Thank you.

Re. traditional and new approach Ripperology.(question 6)

The answer to this is in Monty's text. It has it's base in how one is regarded when approaching the subject. I only loosely named the two types. I invite you again to read Monty's post as well as mine.

To add to your comment. Yes, friends do endure I'm sure. It was Monty that claimed that cameraderie was fine until recently, not I. He brought the subject up, I responded with my opinion.


Hello Ruby,

Re. "excited". I responded to a post. I suggested a move in a positive direction for all. I suggested various ways. As, infact, did Monty towards me personally. I suggested it on a wider basis.

Yes, I totally agree with you when you write.."A 19th century serial killer (and all the attendant bywaters) is not real life." I can only add that for some it can be an addictive "passion"..

You wrote..."The word of Ripperology and the forums here on Casebook function as a mini Society, and therefore we get a mirror of Society in general -different factions, teams and 'cabals' ; leaders and followers; personalities etc etc"

Well, that seems to indicate that the cabal word, so passionately refuted, is apparent to you? As regards "leaders".. I will quote Stewart Evans, of whom great respect is bestowed, quite rightly.

"You are correct when you say there is no 'higher echelon of "guardians" over who sees what or who should know what' nor a 'higher echelon of researchers or writers.' Heaven forbid. I do know that some have that perception as I have been accused of it in the past, but I am merely a Ripper enthusiast (if that's the right word) who has written a few books."


(this quote is from post No. 2, dated 31.10.2009, in reply to a thread I started.. "In the name of honesty")

Mr Evans believes there is no "higher echelon" of researchers or writers. Do you agree? What impression do you get?


You also wrote... "There are bound to be rivalries, debates and spats, as well as camaraderie...to my mind it is totally impossible that it should be any other way. It really isn't of primordial importance."

I couldn't agree more. It isn't important, in the scheme of things. However, it is bad enough for some to want some things to "end". Therefore, my reflective offering.


One more quote, from the same reply as above, from Mr Evans..

"...Boosting one's own theories whilst attacking those of others is not confined to Ripperology. And I see that as an essential element. it encourages alternative thinking, deeper examination of one's own theories and, indeed, deeper examination of the theories of others. This can, and does, result in new information coming to light."

That may answer the methodology question in some way.


Thank you both for your reply.


best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Sorry to correct you, but that was in actual fact, 6 questions..however..

Re. small groups, what I am talking about (questions 1 and 2)

I mean that research within the genre can be encouraged and expanded, and made more available for more to try their hand at it, i.e. "on the ground" as it were. Experienced researchers taking newbies under their wing, giving them practical help. Point them in the right direction by inviting them along. That is what I mean by expanding from small groups, i.e. that is what I am talking about.

Re. methodology differences etc (questions 3, 4 and 5)

The answer to these three questions actually lies within the text. I referred to another poster's views about research and how we approach it. The answers, specific, are there. I cordially invite you to read it again. Thank you.

Re. traditional and new approach Ripperology.(question 6)

The answer to this is in Monty's text. It has it's base in how one is regarded when approaching the subject. I only loosely named the two types. I invite you again to read Monty's post as well as mine.

To add to your comment. Yes, friends do endure I'm sure. It was Monty that claimed that cameraderie was fine until recently, not I. He brought the subject up, I responded with my opinion.

Phil
I read your post and Monty's several times and I'm afraid I didn't find the answers to my questions therein. Had I done, I wouldn't have asked for clarification. I'm not clear how you think methodology can differ, nor am I aware of a traditional and new approach to Ripperology. Hence asking my questions.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your reply,

I have very little time at this particular time, but basically, research based on facts vs research based on speculation. That doesnt cover the complete answer, I will attempt a fuller answer another time. (I have a report to sign and am off to the Premiere of the film Kon Tiki tomorrow..red carpet and all!! haha)
New approach embraces the 2nd of these without detrement. (Again, a short answer)

Sorry for the rushed answers.

best wishes

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Mr Evans believes there is no "higher echelon" of researchers or writers. Do you agree? What impression do you get?

Do I agree ? In short, No.

My impression is the following :

In any domain in real life, be it it Art, Music, Literature, Science, Psychiatry, Politics etc etc. There are different 'movements' at different epochs.

Let's take Art -you've got Classic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassicism, Impressionism, Expressionism, Modern art, Contemporary Art (and lots of movements in between).

Each movement had at it's heart a cabal around which Art turned. That cabal was experienced and learned and dictated the 'rules'. They formed and chose their successors.

However, fatally, there was always going to be a brand new movement forming. The new movement had always started by studying what had gone before and then trying to push the limits, experiment, rethink -and they always finished by becoming established themselves. And so the cycle started again.

I know that there are people that try and Compare Classic Art with Contemporary Art and find the latter lacking. This isn't a discussion on Art.
My point is simply that there is an echelon in Ripperology as everywhere else, and the young turks will always start by studying what came before, question it, move on, and come out on top.

At the least we have to explore all the possibilities before we can compare
methodology and outcomes.

Art would be very boring and exhausted if we'd just stuck with Classicism.

[Phil Carter]

At the least we have to explore all the possibilities ....

Hello Ruby,

THIS, I agree with, before or after methodology questions.

best wsihes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. Aren't seasoned researchers who take newbies on a tour of the sites called 'tour guides' and already exist in abundance?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Where do I fit in?

[PaulB]

At the least we have to explore all the possibilities before we can compare methodology and outcomes.

THIS, I agree with, before or after methodology questions.

This is a basic and fundamental feature of any historical methodology - historians collect the data, set it in the context of other data, consider all the possibilities, discount the improbable and unlikely, and formulate a conclusion based on what is likely and probable. This is then peer reviewed and generally accepted or not. The conclusion is then overthrown or amended as new information comes to light, or as somebody looks at existing evidence in different ways and reaches different conclusions. As said so many times in the past, it is this process of interpretation and reinterpretation which makes history fluid, means that it ever changes in a multitude of small ways (and very, very occasionally in big ways), and keeps it alive and exciting. No offence, but I am at a loss to understand why exploring possibilities is being referred to as if (a) people don't do it, and (b) as if it is something distinct from, rather than being first-rung "methodology".

[John Bennett]

I wouldn't mind commenting on a few points that have been brought up...

There is a 'higher echelon' of Ripperologists and there always has been - way back it was people like Cullen, Farson, Odell. Then it was Fido, Begg, Skinner etc. and later Evans. And Don Rumbelow has been considered a big name over all those eras. But I think one has to bear in mind that this 'great expert' label is not one they give themselves. Other people say they are the great names, whether it be the media or others interested in the case. This is where we must be careful. They don't push themselves down others' throats, they are generally approached in their capacity as experienced researchers and enthusiasts of the case, usually published. And the amount of knowledge they have on the subject is phenomenal; even though some of these guys will say they have forgotten so much, the wealth of experience they have in so many aspects of the subject over decades knocks most people into a cocked hat.

As for newbies being made to feel at home on boards like this (and thus the field), it happens all the time. In the 7 years I've been a poster, I have seen several newcomers lambasted and beaten away, but I have also seen others join the debate, post their findings and build a decent reputation over time. Maybe one day these will be the ones who others will look upon as the 'big names'.

And things like Neil and Rob's London Jobs are a great way of meeting those new to Ripper-socialising. Every time there is one, 'new' faces appear, this last one being probably the best example.

Old-style and new-style Ripperology? That is nothing new either. Working from documented facts and sticking to them has coexisted with supposition since the ark. I just think it is more obvious here because it all pops up on the computer screen and anybody can have a voice. And rightly too.

Anyway, I certainly don't think Ripperology is in a bad state. It's just doing what it always does; changes, develops and moves on.

JB

[Monty]

I wouldn't mind commenting on a few points that have been brought up...

There is a 'higher echelon' of Ripperologists and there always has been - way back it was people like Cullen, Farson, Odell. Then it was Fido, Begg, Skinner etc. and later Evans. And Don Rumbelow has been considered a big name over all those eras. But I think one has to bear in mind that this 'great expert' label is not one they give themselves. Other people say they are the great names, whether it be the media or others interested in the case. This is where we must be careful. They don't push themselves down others' throats, they are generally approached in their capacity as experienced researchers and enthusiasts of the case, usually published. And the amount of knowledge they have on the subject is phenomenal; even though some of these guys will say they have forgotten so much, the wealth of experience they have in so many aspects of the subject over decades knocks most people into a cocked hat.

As for newbies being made to feel at home on boards like this (and thus the field), it happens all the time. In the 7 years I've been a poster, I have seen several newcomers lambasted and beaten away, but I have also seen others join the debate, post their findings and build a decent reputation over time. Maybe one day these will be the ones who others will look upon as the 'big names'.

And things like Neil and Rob's London Jobs are a great way of meeting those new to Ripper-socialising. Every time there is one, 'new' faces appear, this last one being probably the best example.

Old-style and new-style Ripperology? That is nothing new either. Working from documented facts and sticking to them has coexisted with supposition since the ark. I just think it is more obvious here because it all pops up on the computer screen and anybody can have a voice. And rightly too.

Anyway, I certainly don't think Ripperology is in a bad state. It's just doing what it always does; changes, develops and moves on.

JB

Completely and utterly agree with you John,

Except with this recent change. Maybe its due to my personal life being raked over this time as to why I feel it has deteriorated.

Monty

[Ally]

I have to say that I find this entire debate hilarious. First, it is absolutely boggling that some think they have "the new Ripperology" (they can't even define it, or explain precisely how their way has led to anything relevant, but it's NEW and NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE, even though it's not and it has been). It amazes me that there exists the kind of arrogance in the world that thinks for starters that because "they" are the ones doing it, it's "new". It's not new. It's the same old same old, but to them it's new, therefore it's better. It doesn't produce results, but it's better. It doesn't further knowledge, but it's better. And it never fails, that these exact same people who go around and state "your way has failed on every level, this way is better, you old guys have contributed nothing to the field, it's time for new ideas" are always, but always the ones whining about the nastiness in the field and demanding respect and good fellowship. It's like they are absolutely immune to irony.

This entire thread was started to discuss a way of moving forward with the "New Ripperology" and yet when asked what precisely that is, there's no response. And that is precisely what's wrong with the "New" Ripperology. Throw out a half-formed idea that is pulled out of whatever orifice, sling it out there with nary a shred of evidence, support or logic and then of course get mad when people point out that it's an empty idea, supported by nothing and therefore irrelevant. Newbies have been doing that for years and it's accepted as the childish theorizing of people who don't know any better. Pick Random Guy. Stitch up circumstances to fit him up as the Ripper. Ignore all the facts that state otherwise. Drum feet and insist the ill-formed, fact-ignoring "theory" has equal weight to all others. Sigh.

This thread was started with the admonishment to be nice and be respectful. This entire thread was started to say "your way sucks and you guys are mean and divisive and it's your fault Ripperology has gone nowhere". Yes, because some people think that as long as you don't say it bluntly or use direct insults, you aren't actually insulting people. They think wrapping a rotting fish in pretty paper and putting a bow on it changes the nature of what they are selling.


If the "New Ripperology" is simply verbally vomiting any empty idea that comes into ones head and thinking it has equal weight to facts and evidence that has been researched and gathered, vetted and passed around, then I'll pass. I don't believe in the "New Ripperology" and I don't believe in the Tooth Bunny or the Easter Fairy either.