How to make Ripperology better?

[lynn cates]

expert

Hello Neil. A local military man indicated to me that "expert" was derived from two words.

1. Ex=used to be, but are no more. Syn. "washed up."

2. Spurt=a drip under pressure.

Hence, an "expert" is a washed up drip under pressure.

(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Toofew]

There is no crime that carries an obligate sentence of death. <snip>

Rivkah, you obviously have not been on the receiving end of one of Ally's rants!

Sorry, it was just too easy to respond facetiously.

Billy

[Ally]

Just to be clear, no I am not recommending private forums. I don't understand the purpose of them, therefore I would not recommend them. Possibly they do serve a purpose, but I am not sure what that would be... that's why I was asking others, to try and figure out what the perceived benefits are of them.

There's a saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant, so I would think it would follow that making people publicly accountable for what they say would make them more inclined to "behave", I can't imagine what goes on in a brawl safe away from prying eyes. I bet it's popcorn worthy.

[Monty]

No one decides someone is an expert they just are one, like David Starkey is an expert in Tudor history or Jamie Oliver is an expert in erm saying pukka and apparently when it comes to expertise Andrew Castle is an expert at tennis, no wait these examples petered out there, it was only because i realized David Starkey was a bad eg because of his education.

Philipa Gregory is now an expert on the War of the Roses because she did a lot of research ni that area and rote some novels.


These last few posts made me think we need a cb buddy system. People shouldnt be afraid of doing and publishing research, saying hi and not being an expert

It just happens huh?

Monty

[Jenni Shelden]

No one decides someone is an expert they just are one, like David Starkey is an expert in Tudor history or Jamie Oliver is an expert in erm saying pukka and apparently when it comes to expertise Andrew Castle is an expert at tennis, no wait these examples petered out there, it was only because i realized David Starkey was a bad eg because of his education.

Philipa Gregory is now an expert on the War of the Roses because she did a lot of research ni that area and rote some novels.


These last few posts made me think we need a cb buddy system. People shouldnt be afraid of doing and publishing research, saying hi and not being an expert

[Monty]

Can someone please define expert for me please?

And who decides such?

Cheers
Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Me too Robert...I think Ally's thinking along different lines though - at least I hope so...

All the best

Dave

[Robert]

I would be rather sad if discussions were segregated, because this would contradict one of Stephen's aims when he set up the boards in - what was it? - 1996 or 7. I remember, just about the time I joined in 2003, Stephen was getting so much legal hassle that he was considering closing the boards down. I remember him saying that one of his intentions had been to provide a place where the beginner could debate with the expert. I liked the sound of that then and I still do.

[RivkahChaya]

There is no crime that carries an obligate sentence of death. Death may be one option for the jury, but there will always be another option. Even in Texas.

It's possible that this defendant won't get death; it will depend on his defence, and whether or not he is offered a plea bargain. If he's offered a plea bargain for life in prison, I imagine his attorney will suggest that he take it, but he may have a defence that involves duress, or something. If he can convince the jury that his brother threatened him, or otherwise coerced him into participating, he might escape a death sentence.

[Cogidubnus]

So possibly as Chris suggests the idea is to take the research and put it into the Wiki, where the research stands alone, untainted. Then allow the discussion to continue unfettered here, in the muck with the rowdy masses. I do think a link/thread on the boards should be made whenever something new is added to the Wiki, so people know what's being added. Right now the two entities exist in isolation from one another. I think there needs to be more promotion. There is a board devoted strictly to research that has higher standards for posting under General Discussion, but not many people take advantage of it. Maybe that should be the Wiki depository. Anyway just the ramblings of my slightly hungover and sleep deprived brain.

The idea of making better use of facilities which already exist does have appeal...and I like the idea of posting something to advise members of new info appearing in Wiki...It also seems sensible to use part of the research area as a kind of winnowing floor for Wiki. More closely integrating the various part of the site males a good deal of sense...I bet some members have never even looked in Wiki. Not bad for "the morning after" Ally!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

No-one has proven anything yet....

Hallelujah!

(sorry, wrong thread)

Got you. That's a programming feature, entirely beyond my ability to answer but I'll pass it on and see if there's a fix. Can't promise anything, as I really haven't the vaguest idea when it comes to programming.

Oh, for sure it's a programming issue. I didn't expect 'you' to fix it, I know you have 'people'
I should have mentioned it sooner, though I'm not aware of anyone else who has noticed it.

[Ally]

Got you. That's a programming feature, entirely beyond my ability to answer but I'll pass it on and see if there's a fix. Can't promise anything, as I really haven't the vaguest idea when it comes to programming.

[Wickerman]

Hey can you tell me what you mean? I just did a search with press reports feature using "Kelly" and "Watson" I figured those would bring up board discussions, but the only thing that showed were press reports. Can you tell me what name you searched that produced inaccurate results?

Hiya.
I notice Firefox & Explorer sometimes offer a different sequence of articles found, I am using Firefox.

Ok, one quick example, type in 'Isaacs', the first page of any search normally gets you the results you are looking for.
Look at the top of page 2.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Star - 31 August 1888

There is no 'Isaacs' on that page at all.
What it picked up was 'Isaac' in the Related Pages section below the news article, its a Dissertation.

Try another.
Type in 'Mary Kelly', on the first page do you see:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Star - 9 November 1888

There is no 'Mary Kelly' in that article at all.
They are all in Related Pages, below, or on a Thread (left side column).

Further down look at:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Marion Daily Star - 10 November 1888

No 'Mary Kelly' there either, they are all in Related Pages below.

Thankyou for asking!

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Ally, all,

I dont see that Ripperology is in such bad shape that it warrants some kind of revamped method so students can exchange ideas without the emotional clutter. I think the clutter is inevitable when people are offering up what amounts to personal opinion..there will always be someone who disagrees,.. the subtext there is that they believe that their own ideas are correct.

Ive enjoyed the sharing of ideas and data with other members, and have found the egocentric arguments that often crop up can interfere with the imparting of important information or the introduction of provocative ideas, but the issue I find most detracts from the educational component of the discussion boards is the belief by some that there are questions about these crimes that have been answered to a large extent, ...i.e., the number of victims that can be reasonably and legitimately assigned to one killer, the possible culprit or culprits, what the evidence says about the probable motivation for any of the murders....

Ive resolved myself to studying these crimes without setting some long term goals....I dont expect to be able to solve all the riddles to my own satisfaction and I dont expect that I will see revelations from other posters that adequately deal with all the questions for me,...in fact I believe its virtually impossible to answer these questions without additional information.

That being said, I think open discussion influences thinking, and Im not in favor of segregated discussions. There is no test that one can take to prove that they are an expert in this field, because these cases have no absolute answers. There are some members that have read very little about the crimes, times and players....some are well read, some are very well read, and some have published their own take on these crimes. But there is no-one here, or on any board, that has answered some of the basic key questions to any scientific standard.

So lets continue to share ideas openly....discuss and argue about them about them civilly, and accept that the only real differences between posters is their knowledge and perspective.

No-one has proven anything yet....so, it makes sense that anyone still could. I think the newcomers to this study should be able to continue to interact openly with those that have a deeper knowledge and understanding of the known facts in these cases. Some of the "teachers" could use some fresh thinking.

Best regards Ally, all.

[Fleetwood Mac]

How to make it a more cooperative, shared effort and less dog-eat-dog?

There's nothing wrong with oneupmanship and competition. It's what lends toward improvement. Co-operation and competition are two sides of the same coin.

Don't think I've necessarily seen dog-eat-dog on here. I have seen bickering but I'd call that stupidity rather than dog-eat-dog.

I dip in now and again. Take a passing interest and not serious about it.

From my experience reading this board, I think you can rely on certain posters to post with a large degree of fact and reason. Then you have other posters who come out with abstract ideas with no basis in fact and beyond reasonable belief - in my opinion these types of posts simply serve as a hinderance.

I've never been a believer in conspiracy theories nor wild unsubstantiated ideas - the truth is quite simple as human beings are quite simple.

So, in sum, less of the a priori justification and more of the research based opinions. And, again, absolutely nothing wrong with antagonism between two well versed posters - these are the people who will discover hitherto unknown facts.