Pierre's research so far...

[Elamarna]

Hello, Elamarna,

The beginning of your post does sound somewhat like a spoof of Pierre's style, but if you're on the track of something, more power to you!

Re the point you raised elsewhere, about how Pierre seems to take his search "personally", I asked him awhile back if the culprit he was after was related to his own family-- he denied it, of course, but when hasn't Pierre denied any suggestion we have made on the forums?

Pat,

Yes, written in that style, but there is something in there which our friend may recognise, if so may have found something,
if you like pm me

steve

[Pierre]

I have some reservations about your expertise in the social sciences. You keep saying you have lots of experience in the academic realm, but it seems to me that all you have is access to an archive. You don't seem to understand how the social sciences work, the importance of secondary literature (not just primary sources), or anything that one should get from higher level education in history or other social sciences.

Secondary literature has not made anyone find Jack the Ripper. And I guess my vast library with Foucault, Ricoeur, Derrida, Habermas, Bourdieu, Mead, Parsons, Merton, Marx, Weber and Durkheim, to mention a few, wonīt help anyone either.

Yes, primary sources are the basis upon which historians build their arguments. But secondary sources are equally important. You have to know what other people are saying on a subject before you can enter the conversation. Your insistence on not reading the pertinent secondary literature in this case reveals a lack of understanding of how the study of history works at the higher levels.

What "higher levels"? Are you suggesting that ripperological books written by ex policemen and journalists are literature within "higher levels"?

You have to read other people's work, understand what evidence they use, and evaluate their arguments, even if it is to criticize and explain its flaws (as many on this side do).

Does Donald Rumbelow have a degree in history or is he just an ex policeman?

Primary source documents are limited by the fact that you don't always necessarily know the full context of the documents in question. Primary sources are biased. (ALL sources are biased. Again, the first thing you learn in an upper-level history class).

Why do you try to lecture me on source criticism?

You can't necessarily take primary source documents at face value all the time, you have to carefully evaluate each one.

No? You donīt say?

Relying solely on primary source documents is faulty methodology, as they teach in introductory methods classes in graduate school.

Do they now? Oh dear.

Others are doing the exact same thing, looking at the same sources, and making their own interpretations. Being a historian (and here we are in fact being historians, as far as I am concerned),

Everyone who has a degree in history is an historian. If they do not have a degree, they are amateur writers and nothing else.

I stop reading here.


is not just a matter of collecting information from primary sources, but of interpreting them and arguing for your interpretation. This also relies on understanding what arguments have already been put out there. You have to read secondary literature to understand how the rest of the scholarly world views the primary sources.

Here's the important part. You don't have to agree with the secondary literature. By all means, criticize away. Find the flaws, expose the flaws, that is how the scholarly conversation works. But you have to read it in order to be able to engage with it, and to be able to situate your argument in the ongoing scholarly conversation. By not reading it, you are closing off an important resource, and making yourself willfully ignorant on many issues.
When I was in graduate school, this was the first thing my advisor said to me.

By repeatedly insisting that you don't want to read the secondary literature because you "don't want your understanding contaminated" reveals that you don't understand how the study of history actually works. Even if it's just to say that all the secondary literature has been deficient in some way, you have to have read it to have any sort of meaningful impact. You have to be familiar with all the theories that are out there, even if you think they are erroneous. You have to know why you think they are erroneous, and the reason can't be "because I know I'm right, so they have to be wrong". You can't just say someone's theory is wrong because you "know" yours is right. You have to understand what evidence led them to that conclusion, and understand where their evidence is strong and where it isn't. And to do that, you have to have read their work. This is the process of peer review, an ESSENTIAL part of anything remotely resembling an academic discussion. It helps you to evaluate where your evidence is strong and where it isn't. (hint: the v-shaped cuts = chevrons is not strong evidence. You need a lot more.) If you read more widely, you would have read more opinions on these, on many different sides, and see the strength of the evidence that you have. If you understand the things that make others' arguments strong or weak, you can situate your own work in that same discussion, and see where your own work is strong or weak.

There are many, many reasons why reading secondary literature is important, and very, very few reasons it would not be good. The importance of secondary literature is drilled into you in upper levels of education in the study of history. It is a grave mistake to ignore it willfully, and detrimental not only to the reception of your own argument, but to your formulation of a theory as a whole. And this mistake makes me doubt the quality of your expertise in the social sciences.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

your reply to Kookingpot, just about says all that needs to be said, kookingpot is from their post also the holder of a degree in history.

you obviously feel you are superior!
You have no respect for anyone on this site, why is that?
People without degrees are amateurs? so Howard Carter was an amateur. elitists nonsense if I may say so!

You won't even answer much of the post.

[kookingpot]

Secondary literature has not made anyone find Jack the Ripper. And I guess my vast library with Foucault, Ricoeur, Derrida, Habermas, Bourdieu, Mead, Parsons, Merton, Marx, Weber and Durkheim, to mention a few, wonīt help anyone either.

If you discount secondary literature, Patricia Cornwell has found the Ripper. According to her, all the people who disagree with her are wrong. Do you see a resemblance? (yes, I am comparing you to Cornwell, because both of you believe you are correct and everyone else is wrong, and damn all evidence to the contrary). Not all "ripperological books" do in fact find a killer. Some of them are merely extremely useful for synthesizing information and providing interpretations and context upon which you can build or find fault with.

You can name-drop theorists all you want, but if you're not using what they teach you, you won't get anywhere. If you're going to read scholars like Bourdieu, Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, and take what they say to be something worth thinking about, and as essential for how to conduct social sciences, then you should also understand the necessity of reading secondary literature. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy. You have to read all the theorists and compare and contrast and form your own opinion. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim all had different views and came to different conclusions, but you still read them all and came up with your own opinion. It is the same with secondary literature. You have to read it all in order to have an informed opinion. Even Durkheim and Weber read Marx in order to criticize him and find what they considered to be flaws in his theory. You have to read your competition, no matter the level of their education.

What "higher levels"? Are you suggesting that ripperological books written by ex policemen and journalists are literature within "higher levels"?

The "higher levels" you say you have attained. If "ripperological books" have enough sources, both primary and secondary, then yes. NOTE: being in the "higher level" does not mean they are right. Dismissing all the work done before you, by people who have consulted the same documents, and read more about the subject than you have, is tantamount to not reading Durkheim or Weber and only reading Marx, and then saying everyone else is wrong.

Does Donald Rumbelow have a degree in history or is he just an ex policeman?

Clearly you still don't understand how the study of history works. A degree does not a historian make, nor does the lack of one mean their work is worthless. Whatever degrees you have don't seem to have given you the necessary tools to study anything. You're stuck on this academic status symbol of a degree as this thing that magically makes you worth listening to. It isn't. It gives you a bunch of tools with which to better be able to address the question. It appears that you aren't using those tools correctly. If you think the "non-degree" books are so bad, take your fancy degree and criticize them. That's how academia works. If you were an academic, you would know this. But you have to know what they say.

Let me reiterate: You don't have to agree. But you do have to know what they say. And you should read them, and criticize them, and find fault with their methodology, but you have to be familiar with them. Otherwise, you're not doing history, you're just another in a long line of self-important authors so incredibly tied to their own theory that they can't see reason.

Why do you try to lecture me on source criticism?

Because you don't appear to understand it, based on everything you have posted.

Everyone who has a degree in history is an historian. If they do not have a degree, they are amateur writers and nothing else.

Not quite true. Degrees help, for sure, but it is not the defining factor. Just because you have a degree, doesn't mean you write good history. I personally have read a lot of truly bad interpretations by "historians" with degrees. The world is full of bad history written by people with history degrees. Similarly, there are quite a few good history books and other writings written by people with a lot of knowledge, but no official degree.

I stop reading here.

And you betray your closed-mindedness and arrogance as well as your lack of "expertise" in the study of history. If you have as many degrees as you claim in the fields you claim, you would not disagree with me. Why do I know this? Because I do in fact have both undergraduate and graduate degrees in historical fields. I've been there. I've put in the time and effort. And I'm trying to help you.

I'm not interested in Internet slapfights, so I probably won't respond to more juvenile dismissal. But you should reevaluate your position. Use all the evidence available to you. I personally think your theory is intriguing. I am interested in seeing what evidence you have to support your theory. However, some of the evidence you have presented so far (specifically the cuts) I find extremely unconvincing. If you had read more secondary literature regarding the cuts, you probably would be convinced in another direction as well, but instead you're trying to force the data (based on a single description in a biased primary source document, rather than a combination of all the available evidence, which includes photos and a wide variety of other possible interpretations and evaluations of those primary source documents) to fit your theory.

[nicole]

Hi all,

I don't comment on the boards so much anymore, but I do pop on time to time, just enough to keep up with the current JTR vibe so to speak.

This whole thread is in bad taste and I am appalled that the Casebook admin as allowed it to fester as long as it has. It is ugly and in bad taste. Pierre is clearly an immature, attention seeking, cryptically-spewing troll. But just one of many! Theyre a dime a dozen!!!

It was a mistake to start this thread, that is EXACTLY what P wants! Let's be done with it........

Sincerely

Nicole

[JadenCollins]

Steve,

I'm curious.

[JadenCollins]

Hi all,

I don't comment on the boards so much anymore, but I do pop on time to time, just enough to keep up with the current JTR vibe so to speak.

This whole thread is in bad taste and I am appalled that the Casebook admin as allowed it to fester as long as it has. It is ugly and in bad taste. Pierre is clearly an immature, attention seeking, cryptically-spewing troll. But just one of many! Theyre a dime a dozen!!!

It was a mistake to start this thread, that is EXACTLY what P wants! Let's be done with it........

Sincerely

Nicole

Hey Nicole!

Well, Pierre wants attention and he's getting it but there's always a catch.

[nicole]

Hi JadenCollins,

You started this thread, and the sarcastic title should have been enough to dissuade anyone in participating in it. Cue Administrators. I refer you back to post #2 of the thread. The thread should've finished right there.

Respectfully

Nicole

[JadenCollins]

Hi JadenCollins,

You started this thread, and the sarcastic title should have been enough to dissuade anyone in participating in it. Cue Administrators. I refer you back to post #2 of the thread. The thread should've finished right there.

Respectfully

Nicole

To be honest, I'm glad I actually made this thread.
Many people here also agree with me.
And I do hope the admin reads this and finally stops this "Pierre nonsense" for once and all.

[nicole]

Hi JadenCollins,

To be honest, I'm glad I actually made this thread.
Many people here also agree with me.
And I do hope the admin reads this and finally stops this "Pierre nonsense" for once and all.

Glad how? So that others could see Pierre's antics? So that other could join you in bashing the troll? A simple PM to the site admin could have settled it. Pierre could be cautioned, and rightfully so, and that MAY have been the end of it. This circus could've been avoided. Further trolling by Pierre could have resulted in him being blocked.

I'm sure that many, many others enjoy this type of thread....my point entirely.

Respectfully,

Nicky

[JadenCollins]

Hi JadenCollins,



Glad how? So that others could see Pierre's antics? So that other could join you in bashing the troll? A simple PM to the site admin could have settled it. Pierre could be cautioned, and rightfully so, and that MAY have been the end of it. This circus could've been avoided. Further trolling by Pierre could have resulted in him being blocked.

I'm sure that many, many others enjoy this type of thread....my point entirely.

Respectfully,

Nicky

I did message the admin. I'm waiting for their response.

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
I am sure admin will only step in . if the situation warrants it, we may get annoyed over many things, but unless the person , or persons concerned, are rude, or use threatening behaviour, no action is normally taken.
Regards Richard.

[Elamarna]

Dear Nicole

Since Pierre first joined on 2nd September he has started 30 threads so far.
He peddles his views on other peoples threads. today on the thread on Simon Woods book.

He has tried to take over the board, been extremely belittling of senior members calling their ability into question.

As far as I am aware, Admin have been told about it and have said that unless he gets worse he can carry on. However that is only what i have been told by others.
if you consider it troll bashing I am sorry but the regulars here have taken a bashing from him.

maybe it should have stopped after the 2nd post, and that is something for us all to reflect upon I think

Posted in a spirit of conciliation

Steve

[Brenda]

.

I have some reservations about your expertise in the social sciences. You keep saying you have lots of experience in the academic realm, but it seems to me that all you have is access to an archive. You don't seem to understand how the social sciences work, the importance of secondary literature (not just primary sources), or anything that one should get from higher level education in history or other social sciences.

Yes, primary sources are the basis upon which historians build their arguments. But secondary sources are equally important. You have to know what other people are saying on a subject before you can enter the conversation. Your insistence on not reading the pertinent secondary literature in this case reveals a lack of understanding of how the study of history works at the higher levels. You have to read other people's work, understand what evidence they use, and evaluate their arguments, even if it is to criticize and explain its flaws (as many on this side do).

Primary source documents are limited by the fact that you don't always necessarily know the full context of the documents in question. Primary sources are biased. (ALL sources are biased. Again, the first thing you learn in an upper-level history class). You can't necessarily take primary source documents at face value all the time, you have to carefully evaluate each one. Relying solely on primary source documents is faulty methodology, as they teach in introductory methods classes in graduate school. Others are doing the exact same thing, looking at the same sources, and making their own interpretations. Being a historian (and here we are in fact being historians, as far as I am concerned), is not just a matter of collecting information from primary sources, but of interpreting them and arguing for your interpretation. This also relies on understanding what arguments have already been put out there. You have to read secondary literature to understand how the rest of the scholarly world views the primary sources.

Here's the important part. You don't have to agree with the secondary literature. By all means, criticize away. Find the flaws, expose the flaws, that is how the scholarly conversation works. But you have to read it in order to be able to engage with it, and to be able to situate your argument in the ongoing scholarly conversation. By not reading it, you are closing off an important resource, and making yourself willfully ignorant on many issues. When I was in graduate school, this was the first thing my advisor said to me.

By repeatedly insisting that you don't want to read the secondary literature because you "don't want your understanding contaminated" reveals that you don't understand how the study of history actually works. Even if it's just to say that all the secondary literature has been deficient in some way, you have to have read it to have any sort of meaningful impact. You have to be familiar with all the theories that are out there, even if you think they are erroneous. You have to know why you think they are erroneous, and the reason can't be "because I know I'm right, so they have to be wrong". You can't just say someone's theory is wrong because you "know" yours is right. You have to understand what evidence led them to that conclusion, and understand where their evidence is strong and where it isn't. And to do that, you have to have read their work. This is the process of peer review, an ESSENTIAL part of anything remotely resembling an academic discussion. It helps you to evaluate where your evidence is strong and where it isn't. (hint: the v-shaped cuts = chevrons is not strong evidence. You need a lot more.) If you read more widely, you would have read more opinions on these, on many different sides, and see the strength of the evidence that you have. If you understand the things that make others' arguments strong or weak, you can situate your own work in that same discussion, and see where your own work is strong or weak.

There are many, many reasons why reading secondary literature is important, and very, very few reasons it would not be good. The importance of secondary literature is drilled into you in upper levels of education in the study of history. It is a grave mistake to ignore it willfully, and detrimental not only to the reception of your own argument, but to your formulation of a theory as a whole. And this mistake makes me doubt the quality of your expertise in the social sciences.

I grade this post a 10 out of 10. Beautiful.

[nicole]

Hi Elamarna,

He has tried to take over the board, been extremely belittling of senior members calling their ability into question.

As far as I am aware, Admin have been told about it and have said that unless he gets worse he can carry on. However that is only what i have been told by others.
if you consider it troll bashing I am sorry but the regulars here have taken a bashing from him.

It very much IS troll-bashing, and I detest it ALMOST as much as trolling itself. If Pierre HAS being belittling of senior members and giving the regulars a bashing as you say, then the rules have been broken and it should be dealt with accordingly.

Nicole