How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Tom_Wescott]

What does Swanson's character tell us?

Taking a couple steps away from speculation for a moment and turning instead towards the slightly more agreeable approach of inference, what can we infer from the fact that Donald Swanson seems not to have thought Anderson out of his mind or his theory 'rubbish', at least to the extent that he provided details and a name to Anderson's Polish Jew suspect. Swanson seems to be a far less controversial figure with a more dependable and credible character than Anderson. Surely some of this credibility should therefore transfer to Anderson's theory, if not the man himself?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Admin]

The thread is now re-opened. Please be advised a poster decided to continue the insulting by creating another thread and continuing the argument there. That will not be tolerated. Enough means enough, it's over.

You may continue to disagree, but please do it cordially and on topic.

Thank you.

[Scott Nelson]

What about the time periods in which Anderson and Smith would have been on friendly terms with one another? Were they on again -- off again, or was it a continuous cordial relationship?

[Ally]

According to Leahy, I'm persona non grata there now, which I think is a huge, massive mistake on their part. I guess it doesn't occur to some people that you can professionally disagree and still enjoy a personal relationship.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I think the last sentence sums it up. There are people in this business who have an absolutely huge, yet correspondingly fragile egos and if you cross them or publicly disagree with them on something, you get on their shitlist and there is no escape. It is an attitude that I truly do not understand. I learn best by hearing the reasoning and the debates of others, through vigorous argument and exchange of ideas. I rarely condemn a person based on their ideas (unless they are of a particularly revolting sort obviously.) Unwillingness to learn or admit you could be wrong is one of the worst traits a human can possess in my opinion. I seek out people who disagree with me on many things, because if you only converse with those who agree with you, how in the world do you ever learn anything new?

[Stewart P Evans]

Very Interesting

...
At best, we are left with it being Fido's opinion--learned as it may or may not be--that Anderson did not lie about Jack the Ripper. Accept his word as one wishes, but clearly Paul Begg has embraced it with the fervor of a born-again. The question that needs be asked, however, is whether Begg has done so because of his unwavering faith in Fido's ability to plumb the character of the long dead or because accepting it buttresses his own opinions about the identity of JtR?
...
Don.

Very interesting Don. You may have noted that I gave the example of Fido assessing the characters of Anderson and Smith.

Fido wrote, "It goes without saying that Smith the worldling and Anderson the millenarianist were utterly antipathetical personalities. Neither can be imagined having any comfortable dealings with the other, or willingly exchanging confidences" (Fido, Martin: The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, 1987).

This assessment was firmly accepted by Begg, who quotes it, and adds "This observation seems well made, since the attack on Anderson by Smith [1910] hardly reads like the two men were friends or even friendly former colleagues." (Begg, Paul, Ripperologist 100, February 2009, page 19).

It has been shown that this assessment is totally wrong and the two men were on very friendly terms and exchanging confidences in 1901. Does this reflect on the weight we should attach to conclusions reached by Fido?

[Tom_Wescott]

Maybe he's got Begg locked in a basement somewhere, forcing him to write drivel.

Beggy puts the lotion on his skin or else he gets the hose again!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Begg's an interesting guy. He seems to seek out and nurture grudges, such as against Stewart, myself, and who knows who else. In Stewart's case it's clearly because he holds views on Anderson that don't jibe with his own, and in my case it must be because I used to have a lot of fun at the expense of Ripperologist magazine. Small matter I've also sent them a buttload of subscribers and contributors over the years. According to Leahy, I'm persona non grata there now, which I think is a huge, massive mistake on their part. I guess it doesn't occur to some people that you can professionally disagree and still enjoy a personal relationship.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Ally,

With all due respect, I think it is clear that Fido's statement in the book was applied to all scrupulous evangelical Christians and not just Andrerson. Having edited Martin's work on occasion, I came away thinking he was a careful writer and the use of the rather than this was used with precision.

Moreover, his immediate clarification in regard to another professed evangelical Christian, Barnardo, would seem to bear this out. That is, that the inability to lie for vainglorious purposes applied to only the scrupulous among evangelical Christians. Unfortunately, Martin leaves himself in the position of determing scupulousity and this weakens the objectivity of his analysis. "What is scrupulous?" said jesting Fido . . . and all that.

What he may have said later doesn't enter into what he wrote in the book. In the book, in my opinion, he was speaking of evangelicals in the abstract, though obviously suggesting Anderson fit his definition. And even then he is attempting to divine the character of someone's inner soul at all times based on a modernist's reading of an earlier age. Really doesn't work for Freudians or for other disciplines and also would seem to run into a variation of the "uncertainty principle." What may work in general for a designated class of people can never be applied to a single individual at all times.

At best, we are left with it being Fido's opinion--learned as it may or may not be--that Anderson did not lie about Jack the Ripper. Accept his word as one wishes, but clearly Paul Begg has embraced it with the fervor of a born-again. The question that needs be asked, however, is whether Begg has done so because of his unwavering faith in Fido's ability to plumb the character of the long dead or because accepting it buttresses his own opinions about the identity of JtR?

Even as only Anderson could answer if he was capable of a vainglorious lie, so can only Paul answer that last question about his motivation--and I shan't hold my breath waiting.

Don.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Way I See It

The way I see it is that laughing boy has made up his mind as far as the case is concerned, and has at his disposal (living not far away I believe) the world's leading expert on Jack the Ripper who is advising him.

Add to this the fact that his two favourite authors, his near neighbour and Fido, never get it wrong (in fact Fido is the world's best assessor of the character of religious people). So there really is no need to put anything to us unscholarly, non-academic, proletariat, as whatever we may say will be wrong if it is at odds with his pre-formed ideas or anything that has been pronounced by his two top-notch advisers.

He really should be getting on with making the 'best ever documentary on Jack the Ripper' and not wasting time on these boards with people who simply do not understand and are wrong anyway.

It really is a puzzle as to why he is here at all. Kosminski obviously 'dunit' (although Fido may disagree there), no one else has anything constructive to add, and he keeps repeating himself so he must have run out of ideas as to what to say. Get that documentary made I am sure there is an eager audience waiting to see it.

[Ally]

Have you all thought of this...Leahy keeps making claims that he is posting stuff from Begg, but how do we know that's true? I mean for all we know, he's a liar as well as stupid. Maybe he's got Begg locked in a basement somewhere, forcing him to write drivel.

Or and here's the real argument. If Leahy is indeed posting private correspondence from Begg on the boards...in the past this has been considered verboten and people have NOT been allowed to do it. For one it's tacky. And for two, how do we know that Leahy isn't posting these things without Begg's permission.

So has Begg given Leahy his permission to post these emails, which makes Leahy de facto sock puppet (against the rules). Or is Leahy posting these emails without permission (against the rules). Either way the ventriloquist's dummy act is tacky at best and shady at worst.

[Natalie Severn]

Do not be afraid ....

Begg has a question? He showed up here and posted a question?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom we are not quite sure what is going on re Paul . He is around "somewhere" and Pirate is "ghosting" for him --and sometimes he gets his wires crossed and a lot of completely irrelevant stuff gets shouted at Stewart ,Ally or me from someone .None of us is sure when Paul is switched on or off !

[Ally]

hahahah He's storming off in a huff, I win! I win!

Of course I won a loong time ago after the fifth time Jeffy said he wouldn't respond to the personal insults and the fifth time I goaded him into doing it.

[Jeff Leahy]

No your correct. Even you have excelled yourself in pointless stupidity and failing to see or understand what they were talking about.

Besides I need something to eat and Ally Ryder has made it quiet clear that she does not intend a logical and reasonable debate to take part on her watch!

yet again

I salute your first victory in utter pointlessness

You are indeed the master of banality and idol rhetoric.

Ally will be king of the castle for the next twenty minutes

what a...............

[Ally]

you cant keep it up???

......


Nah too easy. It's like he just handed me that one.

[Jeff Leahy]

Your beginning to flap Ally. You are losing your cool!

you cant keep it up???