'it was nice' Observation

[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]

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]

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:

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself if you believe you've ever won any debate "hands down" against me, let alone the one about Mortimer. Just to recap, you never responded to my letter to the editor in response to yours in the pages of Ripperologist, despite the urgings of others involved. In fact, as I recall, you had precious little to say about it anywhere, at any point. You had the opportunity to debate with me via Jon Menges' Rippercast program but turned it down (though you have given reasons for this). You were hounded for over a year to provide your sources which you had never done, not even in your letter to the editor, and eventually it was thanks only to the work of somebody else that one source was given. Jeff Leahy has been looking for "vidcasts" for his new project and offered it on the Mortimer thread on JTR Forums but you've had nothing to say there. And finally you initiated the idea of a debate and even publicly named a format for the final Mortimer debate showdown between the two of us, and then as soon as I took up the challenge you meekly backed down.

And you lecture me about "credibility", Tom?

You said it yourself. Facts are facts.... see ya in church.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself if you believe you've ever won any debate "hands down" against me, let alone the one about Mortimer.

To debate me is to lose. If we've debated, you've lost.

You were hounded for over a year to provide your sources which you had never done, not even in your letter to the editor, and eventually it was thanks only to the work of somebody else that one source was given.

You mean the sources I told you to go look for in the Casebook press reports, search word 'Mortimer'? The fact you waited over a year for someone else to find them for you might answer your other questions as to why I didn't go out of my way to "debate" with you.

Jeff Leahy has been looking for "vidcasts" for his new project and offered it on the Mortimer thread on JTR Forums but you've had nothing to say there.

I looked at that thread once, only a couple days ago, and I didn't read much of it. I certainly didn't read the offer from Jeff, though I'm curious why he'd want to fly to Oklahoma and Australia to video tape us. Or is this something where I'd have to buy equipment, like with Menges podcasts? If anyone knew what I looked like, I couldn't go to the conferences incognito, now could I.

And finally you initiated the idea of a debate and even publicly named a format for the final Mortimer debate showdown between the two of us, and then as soon as I took up the challenge you meekly backed down.

It's so cute that you think I would be afraid to debate you. I could just pinch your cheek.

And you lecture me about "credibility", Tom?

No lecture, just stated you have none yet. You've published one very poorly received brief essay on Stride. That's it. And a fluff piece or two. But you're getting your legs and that's cool. But debating me on something where you simply can't win is bad for you and pointless for me. Now, the two of us debating on an area that's more gray might be fun.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

A vidcast to concentrate on a “debate“ over Mortimer's time spent at her door? Man, I just love where Ripperology's apparently heading.
I recently located a source which allowed us to clearly identify for the first time who got the MJK scene photograph for publication, and I'd really appreciate some input (from the connoisseurs) about how things with the HO might have worked behind the scenes, but what's all this vs. beating a dead horse?

If anyone knew what I looked like

Maybe someone's beat you to that. (But wouldn't let it get out even if confronted with the Spanish Inquisition.)

[Adam Went]

Tom:

To debate me is to lose. If we've debated, you've lost.

Sounds like the lyrics to a Madonna song.

You mean the sources I told you to go look for in the Casebook press reports, search word 'Mortimer'? The fact you waited over a year for someone else to find them for you might answer your other questions as to why I didn't go out of my way to "debate" with you.

Why should I find it when you're the one trying to make the case? That's like me asking you to get a coffee while you're up and about and then driving down the street to buy one instead.

I looked at that thread once, only a couple days ago, and I didn't read much of it. I certainly didn't read the offer from Jeff, though I'm curious why he'd want to fly to Oklahoma and Australia to video tape us. Or is this something where I'd have to buy equipment, like with Menges podcasts? If anyone knew what I looked like, I couldn't go to the conferences incognito, now could I.

I'm sure there's many methods you could use - video camera, digital camera short film, webcam, whatever you like. And don't worry Tom, most cameras have a wide angle lens these days.

It's so cute that you think I would be afraid to debate you. I could just pinch your cheek.

Evidently, you are. Don't know why.

No lecture, just stated you have none yet. You've published one very poorly received brief essay on Stride. That's it. And a fluff piece or two.

LOL. If anything, AMOT was the fluff piece, which is somewhat ironic. If "Cousin Lionel" counts as a fluff piece, then I might as well retire from Ripperology right now. You can't begin to imagine the amount of work that went into that.

Now, the two of us debating on an area that's more gray might be fun.

Oh, like what?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

I recently located a source which allowed us to clearly identify for the first time who got the MJK scene photograph for publication, and I'd really appreciate some input (from the connoisseurs) about how things with the HO might have worked behind the scenes, but what's all this vs. beating a dead horse?

Probably the best thing would be to start a new thread. People who may be interested are unlikely to see the information here.

[mariab]

I think I'll start a thread, as I'd really appreciate some input about the HO situation behind the scenes, but I won't post the original source, as it'll be used in someone's book – I'll just post a transcription of the source.
Thank you.

[John Bennett]

My God, there are some egos at work here!

[Colin Roberts]

If anyone knew what I looked like, ...

[mariab]

My God, there are some egos at work here!

I hope this doesn't refer to me.
To be fair to Tom, the Mortimer “debate“ is not only a dead horse, but also pretty much cringe-worthy. Even Chris Phillips has given up, and he's one of the most patient, civilized Ripperologists when debating.

PS.:As for the pic, who's the ladies' man? Ryan O'Neal in Love Story? (Ugh.)

[John Bennett]

I hope this doesn't refer to me.

No, it doesn't.

[Adam Went]

John:

My God, there are some egos at work here!

Likewise, I hope this doesn't refer to me either. As i've said elsewhere before, i'm Australian, and Australians don't have egos....we just enjoy beating Americans at everything.

(1983 America's Cup, anyone? )

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Maybe someone's beat you to that. (But wouldn't let it get out even if confronted with the Spanish Inquisition

Trust me, whatever pic you have that you think is me, isn’t me.

LOL. If anything, AMOT was the fluff piece, which is somewhat ironic. If "Cousin Lionel" counts as a fluff piece, then I might as well retire from Ripperology right now. You can't begin to imagine the amount of work that went into that.

Actually, I was thinking of the Princess Alice piece. Your Druitt piece was very, very detailed. Perhaps I should have said ‘of only peripheral interest’ and not fluff.

My God, there are some egos at work here!

Don’t blaspheme.

Likewise, I hope this doesn't refer to me either.

Of course he’s talking about us, Adam. He likes his barbs, and apparently isn’t aware of the manner in which you and I like to egg each other on. I just hope our exchanges are somewhat entertaining to those reading them, including the incomparably modest John Bennett.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott