Mass debating on the Ripper - no hard feelings

[Tom_Wescott]

Ah yes, you mean...



"Levy?"

"Lawrende?"

"Cross?"

It would appear you're forming an LLC!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

what gets your goat?
what ruffles your feathers?
what grates your s**t?

About the field? Every ********** one of you. Except Scott Nelson. I love Scott Nelson.

About the case? Warren erasing the writing, the lack of innovation on the part of the Met police. The stealing away of the Kelly inquest from Baxter. Coroner Langham's lack of curiosity re: Eddowes Inquest. The scarcity of official documentation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Doctored Whatsit]

I dislike it when we depart from the subject of a thread and get side-tracked, often over some minor issue, the truth of which is usually unknowable. Although I admit I've done it myself, probably like most of us.

On one occasion there was a totally pointless, boring and rather irrelevant issue disrupting a topic for some time, and I wrote a piece something like, "this is all repeated stuff and irrelevant, let's please get back to the thread's subject matter." I got about five "likes", but the side issue continued regardless!

[Scott Nelson]

Coroner Langham's lack of curiosity re: Eddowes Inquest.

The Police had the Coram knife and didn't have it analyzed at the Eddowes Inquest with respect to her wounds.

[FISHY1118]

''to the extent that they will manipulate the evidence, edit the evidence, make things up and employ bizarre interpretations to achieve it. I know that we could ignore these people and let them have their dishonest fun but I think that it’s important that they are called out and their deceptions are exposed for what they are'

So basically anyone with a favoured suspect over the years is a Liar . One could say the ''above description'' could be used for those who have no preferred suspect, but use the above to debate against anyone with one . Kettle Pot Black .

[Paddy Goose]

I dislike it when we depart from the subject of a thread and get side-tracked, ...

Amen, doc.

There is a majorly sidetracked thread going on as we speak.

Here was post #1

Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
...
Here's a question for all of you wise and wonderful people...

Are there any individuals in the Ripper case, who didn't even exist?
Are there any individuals who the police invented...?
Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police...?

So the thread was OBVOUSLY about did the POLICE make up this Schwartz character out of thin air.
Tom Wescott answered the question immediately. He stated Schwartz was a real person. But that hasn't stopped everyone and their dog from going on and on about Schwartz, Pipeman, who chased who, which side of the street was the flower lady, and so on and so on. You know, all the generic stuff that all the generic Stride threads have been about since we actually were The Planet of the Apes.




That's Schwartz on the left, the flower lady in the middle and Louis Dimestore on the right. His cart had a flat tire. I betcha didn't know that.

[c.d.]

If A then B arguments. Examples:

If it can be shown there are differences in the murders then they had to have been carried out by different individuals;

If it can be shown that Schwartz did not testify at the Inquest then it shows he was not believed by the police;

If it can be shown that Stride was not soliciting that night then it shows she was not a Ripper victim.

Those are just a few examples. But what the posters making these arguments don't seem to understand is that while their conclusion may indeed be correct, their conclusion does not necessarily follow. Proving A does not necessarily prove B.


c.d.

[c.d.]

And of course the recent Rapture prediction. If A then B. If these signs are present then the calculation of the date that follows has to be correct. And we all know how that turned out.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

I sometimes get irriated by some posts (not posters themselves) that are just plain odd, unrelated, or aim to be all knowing, yet secretive, to suggest the author of the post has all the answers already.

Probably something i am guilty of too sometimes though!

[c.d.]

I sometimes get irriated by some posts (not posters themselves) that are just plain odd, unrelated, or aim to be all knowing, yet secretive, to suggest the author of the post has all the answers already.

Probably something i am guilty of too sometimes though!

Yes, and they give you a teaser but never the actual conclusion that they have reached. You always have to ask.

c.d.

[Fiver]

And of course the recent Rapture prediction. If A then B. If these signs are present then the calculation of the date that follows has to be correct. And we all know how that turned out.

c.d.

Any Rapture prediction requires ignoring what the Bible said about being able to predict it.

"No one knows when that day or hour will come —not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" - Matthew 24:36

[c.d.]

Any Rapture prediction requires ignoring what the Bible said about being able to predict it.

"No one knows when that day or hour will come —not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" - Matthew 24:36

But they are somehow able to get around that with some convoluted logic and whether or not it is to be taken literally.

c.d.

[c.d.]

The implication that some posters simply follow conventional wisdom wanting to stand in the majority camp and are unable to think for themselves. Or that everybody in the C5 camp exchanges Christmas cards.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

. . .

So, I ask you all...

what gets your goat?
what ruffles your feathers?
what grates your s**t?

But remember...

No hard feelings.

I have always found the Diary threads so annoying, plus the Royal Conspiracies, such a total waste of time.
Ironically, Casebook was originally devised to debate the Diary, but as more seasoned researchers joined the site, debates became more rational and took on a serious perspective.
You might not think so when you read some of the nonsense that has permeated the boards over the years, but I think we lost the best members mainly due to the crap that was being promoted.
Though I see one of the 'the Pillars' is back . . . however briefly, we will see.

Another annoyance is the tendency for posters to try turn a witness into a suspect, often on nothing worthy of consideration, or a related tendency to claim a particular witness didn't really exist, being just a creation of the press. This being in response to the fact the statement of the witness destroyed their theory.
It's playing games like this that I find irritating.

Outside of the two original or at least oldest named suspects, the majority of the rest has been a waste of time, as they say 'from the sublime to the ridiculous'.

And, like you say, there's no hard feelings here, each to their own. It wouldn't do for us all to agree on everything.

Disagreement often makes you think, there's an opportunity to learn when your beliefs are challenged, its just a shame not everyone recognizes that fact.
Too many posters are more concerned with defending their view rather than looking at it from a different perspective.

[Wickerman]

. . .

Yup, I know…I’m responsible for a few record breakers and have done more long posts than most ( I wouldn’t even try to deny it) . . .

You might be surprised . . .
If you were to look back through Hutchinson threads between say, 2010-2015 (not sure exactly), you would find myself embroiled in perpetual exchanges with one poster, Ben and his Partisans, for what seemed like a few years. Scott N. is witness to that, in fact I don't think anyone else read those threads because of the tedium of repetitive responses.
If you ever have a hard time getting to sleep one night, just open up one of those threads . . .