'it was nice' Observation

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Read back through the exchanges over the last couple of pages. As I said, i'll be ignoring any further such comments.

Tom:

You crack me up. You say I twisted your words when I said you claimed Mortimer stood at her door for 30 minutes. You then go on to state that Mortimer 'claimed' to have been at her door for 30 minutes and that this was a direct quote (though how you could possibly know this from a police report is anybody's guess).

You really have confused yourself, haven't you? Convincing the general public that you're wrong is beginning to look ridiculously easy, but I won't be playing all my aces just yet.

That should be the central question, though of course we should discuss what implications this has on what she saw and didn't see, and what other witnesses claimed to have seen. I wouldn't want to veer off Mortimer. However, since my last post, some things have changed and it looks like a fire has been lit under my butt. Enough lolligagging. I'll have to get back to you on the Mortimer project.

I think this is fair enough.
Well, i've made the first move by sending you a PM. It's up to you now. But it took you more than a year to answer my questions about sources on Mortimer before and let me be clear that I won't be waiting around for months or years on end again to get this project underway. Either you are in or you're not and you'd better make up your mind, sharpish. I've got other things I could and should be working on.

Huh? Why on earth would I need help to write a mortimer article? I've been publishing on the Berner Street Mystery since you were 13. If I can't do it on my own, then I don't deserve to share a byline with you. Incidentally, I've yet to share a byline with anyone, although I'm somewhat curious what a collaborative effort would be like.


I think you would find collaborative efforts quite enjoyable, if not slightly confusing at times when trying to collaborate over the WWW.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Convincing the general public that you're wrong is beginning to look ridiculously easy,

Minor factual errors aside, when have I EVER been wrong, in spite of the efforts of so many to prove otherwise. Even the great Debs tried her hand at it with her Grainger nonsense and failed to gain any ground. You got balls, kid, that's what I like about you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tji]

You got balls, kid, that's what I like about you.



Not if he puts them in that bucket


Tj

[Wickerman]

I think Tom's just come up with a new signature for himself..

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Minor factual errors aside, when have I EVER been wrong

Sorry Tom, that just struck my funnybone, Jon

[mariab]

Yes, that bucket was a pretty strong reaction (to me). I wonder why he went all the way to Brazil for his metaphor instead of using something about a great white (minus the bucket), or a Tasmanian Devil (with the bucket). Perhaps the described bucket experiment could be suggested as an outlet for the (expectedly frustrated) loser of the Ms. Mortimer contest?
By the by, apologies for having called you “Vegemite“, Adam. But Vegemite is also quite pleasant (for brekkie).
And I still fail to see any “blunder of Gargantuan proportions“ pertaining to ginger beer, but it strikes me that 3 people (including Steven Russell himself) have thought I was disagreeing with Steven Russell pertaining to “the proper red stuff“, and I'm assuming that it refers to this?

Quote Steven Russell:
Maria: the "proper red stuff", I think, was supposed to have been kept in a ginger beer bottle, not actually in ginger beer.

If that is the case, I'm specifying for the third time that I was simply thinking aloud about the Lusk kidney having been possibly “praserved“ in ginger beer too, as I was (marginally) contemplating the possibility of “Dear Boss“/“Saucy Jack“ having been produced by the “From Hell“ author, in a different (as in changed) handwriting. This was just iddle speculation, not a supposition I'm willing to entertain officially. Might it be clear now?
Or did anyone really think that I was picturing the Ripper mixing blood with ginger beer – for a ginger-flavoured vampiristic experience worthy of Willie the Snitch's bar in BtVS?

[mariab]

To Wickerman:
It would look even better like this:

Tom Wescott signature:
Minor factual errors aside, when have I EVER been wrong?

But as a matter of fact, apart from D'Onston and what else I don't know from the past, he's technically NOT wrong in the context of this specific quote.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Minor factual errors aside, when have I EVER been wrong, in spite of the efforts of so many to prove otherwise.

Fanny Mortimer, 10 minute gap - sound familiar to you?
But yes, enough stuffing around - you're either in or you're not Tom, make your mind up quicksmart - or else i'll be going solo on the Mortimer project and I know how much you'd hate that.

Maria:

If that is the case, I'm specifying for the third time that I was simply thinking aloud about the Lusk kidney having been possibly “praserved“ in ginger beer too, as I was (marginally) contemplating the possibility of “Dear Boss“/“Saucy Jack“ having been produced by the “From Hell“ author, in a different (as in changed) handwriting. This was just iddle speculation, not a supposition I'm willing to entertain officially. Might it be clear now?

I'll take your word for it, Maria. For god's sake let's not get sidetracked any more than we already have.

Cheers,
Adam.

[tji]

[QUOTE=mariab;183812]Yes, that bucket was a pretty strong reaction (to me). I wonder why he went all the way to Brazil for his metaphor instead of using something about a great white (minus the bucket), or a Tasmanian Devil (with the bucket). Perhaps the described bucket experiment could be suggested as an outlet for the (expectedly frustrated) loser of the Ms. Mortimer contest?

Um no, I don't think it was a strong reaction to your posts and why shoudn't he use pirahanas, he doesn't have to keep all his expressions to Australia, he could have used ninjaring nuns from Nicaragua if he wanted.
I don't think the frustration was from the Fanny Mortier saga Maria, apparently everyone but yourself knows where his frustration lies, even though he has explained it multiple times on this thread alone.

Also I believe the Fanny Mortimer saga is still undecided (And I am not going to derail this thread with it!) but does anyone over the age of 6 try and bring it up on every thread like you do....and I don't believe people see these learning curves as 'contests'. If Adam turns out to be correct I am sure he will handle it a lot more maturely than what you are!


Tracy

[Chris]

Tom:

Minor factual errors aside, when have I EVER been wrong, in spite of the efforts of so many to prove otherwise.

Fanny Mortimer, 10 minute gap - sound familiar to you?

To be fair, your logic is rather baffling.

You seem to be claiming to have proved that Fanny Mortimer didn't stand at her door for ten minutes.

Your proof appears to consist of choosing to dismiss one press report that she said she stood at her door for ten minutes, and instead to believe another press report that she said she stood there for nearly half an hour. And then you argue that she couldn't really have stood there for nearly half an hour, and so ... ?

[Wickerman]

[B]

But as a matter of fact, apart from D'Onston and what else I don't know from the past, he's technically NOT wrong in the context of this specific quote.

Yes my dear but some of us knew Tom waaaay back. Besides, we all make minor mistakes here and there, "in consequence of haste", I might add.
No, I wasn't taking a cheap shot at Tom, the way he worded that just struck me as funny. Tom is pretty good at what he does.
Just because, on occasion, he may be controversial doesn't mean he's wrong.
I'll ignore the D'Onston fiasco......learning curve? :-)

All the best, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Your proof appears to consist of choosing to dismiss one press report that she said she stood at her door for ten minutes, and instead to believe another press report that she said she stood there for nearly half an hour. And then you argue that she couldn't really have stood there for nearly half an hour, and so ... ?

Thank you, Chris. You share my confusion. Adam creates a circular argument when he says Mortimer is not credible and was exaggerating because she did not see PC Smith, the man with the package, Schwartz, etc. When it's pointed out to him that a more accurate interpretation of the press report has her inside her house with the door open for 20 minutes, followed by ONLY 10 MINUTES when she is standing in the doorway, he completely refutes this (without justification), even though it perfectly explains why and how she only saw Leon Goldstein (whom we know she saw). In the end, my interpretation of this not very difficult to solve mystery is really the only practical and, dare I say, obvious solution.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jon,

I didn't take any offense at what you said. It was pretty funny. And thanks for the kind words. As for D'Onston, I never said he was the Ripper, and was not convinced, though at one time I thought he was a better suspect than I now think he was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tracy:

Well thank you very much.
Personally I think we're all ultimately aiming for the same goal here - that being the truth - and to even mention it in terms of being a contest, a competition or one researcher gaining points over another is indeed immature and pointless.

Chris:

It's evident from your post that you've never read A Matter Of Time, and the subsequent letter follow-ups in Ripperologist, which incase you aren't aware is basically the nucleus of all this debate in the first place. . Rather than me repeating my entire case on Mortimer here, for the umpteenth time, again, online and in periodicals, I suggest you get your mits on a copy of it and read that - THEN come back and debate me over it if you feel the need.

Tom:

Evidently you've gone cold on the Mortimer piece and are backing out of it. You gave the challenge and were caught by surprise when I took it head on. Hardly surprising. I suggest the other posters on here take special note of that before they read any further into the debates between Tom and myself.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

to even mention it in terms of being a contest, a competition or one researcher gaining points over another is indeed immature and pointless.

So you’re above a point/counter-point with me, but…

Tom:

Evidently you've gone cold on the Mortimer piece and are backing out of it. You gave the challenge and were caught by surprise when I took it head on. Hardly surprising. I suggest the other posters on here take special note of that before they read any further into the debates between Tom and myself.

So, you’re above the ‘challenge’, but you took it ‘head on’, and I’m a coward for backing out? And everyone should make note that I’ve ‘backed out’ of a challenge that I created and that you think is immature and pointless, but yet insist upon my participation? Consistent much?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Oh dear.
What everybody should make a note of is EXACTLY that you tried to create a challenge and reeled off the sarcastic, self-obsessed comments (which are there for all to see), then as soon as I mentioned ideas, getting the project rolling and sent you a PM, you dropped the idea like a hot potato.

I am more than happy to have a point/counter-point debate, as i've said. The difference is that if we were to poll views after it, and I were to win, then I would accept that, congratulate you on the good work and contributions and move on to the next project. And yet you, I and everybody else here knows that if you were to win, we'd still be hearing about it when the next generation of Ripperologists start coming through. Again, as i've said, I don't care about all of those outside characteristics, I care about the truth and bringing as much info as possible into the public arena for consideration.

That is the point here, Tom. It shouldn't be a challenge like some sort of stupid sporting contest with supporters on each side mouthing off at each other. But you've talked the talk and have now failed to walk the walk, and I think that's very indicative of where you're at with Mortimer.

Cheers,
Adam.