'it was nice' Observation

[Tom_Wescott]

Labor whatever point you'd like, Adam. I already debated against you on this subject and won hands down. Repeating myself in Rip would be fun but not necessary. I'm sure they'll get a letter to the editor from me.

And I'm not sure how my decision not to debate with you could in any way damage my case. Facts are facts, are they not? I have one thing here you don't, and that's credibility, and I think you're going the wrong way in earning it, but live and learn, right? But if you can somehow manage to trump Malone and change my mind, I assure you no one will sing your praises louder than myself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Oh i've got no doubt that you will. But in turn you can rest assured that anything you may have to say after the publication of the article will be met with my labouring the point that you had the chance to debate with me in the article - in fact, if I recall correctly, you initiated the idea - and then chose not to take it. Before proverbial pen is even put to paper on the article, then, you've already damaged your case significantly.

Meantime you can also look forward to me having my very own column in one of the periodicals shortly.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

And I'll be waiting in the wings in case Malone doesn't get the job done. As for you, I just hope you can try not to embarrass yourself TOO much.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Gee thanks Tom, but c'mon now, don't build me up just to tear me down.

"The Fanny Mortimer Saga: Adam Went VS Cris Malone" - coming soon to a computer screen near you.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Adam. We see you as more than server space.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Hm .

What a waste of server space.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Hm .

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Well, if there were another such discussion, and you didn't find out about it, that might result in someone else having the last word!

I appreciate your concern, but IMO, the "last word" on a forum lasts for a couple of weeks before it's forgotten about by all but a few. I'll consider the pages of Ripperologist in the upcoming future to be a much more emphatic, longer-term statement. And I hope it won't be lost on the general Ripperological community that both yourself and Tom have declined the opportunity to debate in those pages of Ripperologist, when the inevitable backlash comes after the article appears.

Meantime, if you wanted to provide me with a link instead of playing silly games, i'd still be quite happy to take a look at the discussions elsewhere. Otherwise....see ya in church.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

What on earth would possess me to not only have to search out ANOTHER Mortimer discussion, but also enter into yet another debate on yet another topic about it?

Well, if there were another such discussion, and you didn't find out about it, that might result in someone else having the last word!

[Adam Went]

Chris:

What on earth would possess me to not only have to search out ANOTHER Mortimer discussion, but also enter into yet another debate on yet another topic about it? After everything we've already only just said about that very issue on this topic?

If I happen to stumble across it and I feel there's something new or necessary that I can contribute to it, then I will do so. Otherwise, i'll be keeping the public discussions on the subject to a minimum until the new article comes out.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Alternatively, it may be "good manners" of the person or persons who are trying to debate with me, if they know that the subject they are debating has been covered extensively on multiple topics on multiple internet sites over multiple months or even years, to do their homework first.

But Adam, surely you realise I've conclusively refuted that argument - along with all your theories about Fanny Mortimer?

I'm not going to tell you where - that's for you to find out. When you do, perhaps you'd like to continue the discussion there, rather than here.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Alternatively, it may be "good manners" of the person or persons who are trying to debate with me, if they know that the subject they are debating has been covered extensively on multiple topics on multiple internet sites over multiple months or even years, to do their homework first.

Anybody will tell you, Chris, that repetition is frustrating - that's not unique to Ripperology or unique to Fanny Mortimer. Nobody likes having to repeat what they've just said a few weeks ago on another topic. This post i'm writing now, and the several that have gone before it will be all but forgotten in a couple of weeks and, you watch, the same things will be said again in another topic in no time. It is one of my pet peeves, if i'm being truthful.

Otherwise I fear you're likely to end up having a lot of long, pointless, repetitious arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuKNIUqobQs&ytsession=NwUvly_q_sIyVl1P59zyvBz6J2GVch7CjzID8mmVIgyDNHd_AoHms4yOhZ1tdnCN_WjLwL0zagPA0k9QG7F_oTuTNty0tPKhlM-k6-vzD8mjwDtXHLD2hRfijyYLIYuL3r92CsObTaguHl__VuRlFiNyvbkQ5BHuQsiC0uGUX5ioW32oxKmoRmk9QYZGX6ViTnnHv_M8KPV_3chtaOTWVJXOSueYb9dGPj_otat0N7Yr4CqwbyO9Xm54VcyYeDX4DGNjGYo-ADjk8fZE3IM78D9HDk66fQhm

Anyway Chris, we're just going around in circles here. You've got your methods and i've got mine. I've offered you the opportunity to have your say in a debate against me in the pages of Ripperologist and put the vote to the public, and for your own reasons you've declined that. So, again, there's really nothing more to say.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Adam

All this boils down to is that if you're discussing things on Casebook, surely it's only common sense (and good manners) that you give people on Casebook sufficient information to make sense of your arguments, rather than assuming everyone has been reading all your posts on other websites.

Otherwise I fear you're likely to end up having a lot of long, pointless, repetitious arguments. Especially if you try to blame other people for not understanding.

I look forward to your inevitable response at the same time tomorrow.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Regarding Mortimer, you've gone from stating in the article that there might be any number of explanations for the discrepancy - including poor street lighting, misreporting by the newspaper or the fact that she was confused about the times - to believing that the explanation is that she stood at her door for a different half-hour earlier in the evening. And now we're told that you also think she came to her door on a second occasion and saw Goldstein.

OK Chris, i'm not sure how many articles you've written over your time being involved in Ripperology, but you've got the wrong idea about AMOT, and in fact about article writing altogether. The whole reason that I wrote AMOT in the first place was that in early 2010, there was any number of discussions - heated debates even - about the sequence of events in Berner Street and the possible involvement of the IWMEC, or members of the IWMEC, in the murder and/or events surrounding the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

It was never, ever intended to be an article which expounded any theories I may have held specifically about Fanny Mortimer at that time, though I have admitted already, and will again, that my views about her and her testimony have taken shape much more thoroughly in the now quite lengthy space of time since the article was written. In fact, in early 2010 when I wrote the article, I didn't necessarily have any particularly strong views either way about her.

Hence why she was analysed just as the other witnesses were, in an attempt to piece a factually correct timeline of events together. If you've seen the article, then you will know this is the case because of the sections I have added not only about plausible IWMEC involvement but also the possibility of "Pipeman" being JTR.

Now I can say whatever I like about my theories on Mortimer here, or anything else for that matter, but it is up to a decent researcher and writer to at least try and play the objective viewpoint in their work. That's my opinion anyway. If they have some evidence on which they would like to base a certain theory or scenario, then fantastic.

However, it was only AFTER the article was published and Tom Wescott took up the argument over Mortimer and wrote back to the editor that the focus really shifted to her in particular.

That is why, Chris, I feel it is time, if ever there is going to be a good time, to do a piece which is entirely related to Mortimer rather than covering a much more broad range of topics.

And I still don't think it takes much effort to check out the many, many other discussions, on BOTH forums, to get a better grasp of my viewpoints if you feel the need - surely nobody likes being a cracked record.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

I don't pretend to claim that everything I said in AMOT is still what I believe and is still relevant to this discussion, because it's not. Like anybody with any theory, it evolves and changes the more one works on it and considers it.

Regarding Mortimer, you've gone from stating in the article that there might be any number of explanations for the discrepancy - including poor street lighting, misreporting by the newspaper or the fact that she was confused about the times - to believing that the explanation is that she stood at her door for a different half-hour earlier in the evening. And now we're told that you also think she came to her door on a second occasion and saw Goldstein.

Of course you're entitled to change your mind and evolve new theories, but the problem is that you've continued to refer people to that article for your views on Mortimer, because you say you don't want to repeat them here. You referred me to the article only a week and a half ago on this thread.

Essentially what I'm asking is that when people find your theory difficult to grasp in these circumstances - or rather find it difficult to discover what your theory actually is - you don't turn round and tell them it's their own fault for being terminally stupid, or for not having read your explanation of it on another website.