Official Integrity (Off-Topic Discussion moved from Suspect thread)

[jmenges]

Ally:

Are you still here? What is it, Ally? Are you lonely? Bored?
It really is quite sad to see somebody like yourself lurking on threads like these, wallowing in your own obsoleteness.

Since they won't delete my reason for my deletion above (naughty words)...

Let's just say that's an amazingly rude and idiotic comment.

JM

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Oh it's not that your nasty - I can handly nasty - it's more the fact that you and your cronies will jump on anyone who dares to think a little outside the square in regards to the case. Personally the way I see it is that straightforward thinking has got nobody anywhere for 124 years, so what's so wrong with a bit of fresh thinking in the case? Disagree if you want, ridicule if you must, but there's no harm in it - in fact, it should be encouraged.

Your point was shown to be mere opinion and baseless.

Of course it's an opinion, being that it was written in an opinion column. Have we really still made that little progress in the discussion since it was published?

Everyone can see this discourse is over, apart from you.

Well actually, as I said in just my last post:

"Maybe we should leave it at that, Monty, it's evident that an agreement isn't coming any time soon."

Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in order as well? As I said, it's quite clear we're getting nowhere in a hurry on this thread.

Tell you what Monty, i'll cut you a deal.....if England win or retain the Ashes in 2013, i'll give up Ripperology for good. If Australia win, you give up Ripperology for good. Deal?

Ally:

You know, I appreciate you enjoy your role as board fool, but get a grip. It is a poor man (and I use the term in the general sense) who when called on his BS goes "I know you are but what am I" and "I'm rubber, your glue". You made statements that were NOT factual. I called you on them and rather than attempting any reasonable debate, you fronted and put up a wall of bullsht and now you are trying to claim that *I * am the one who is starting this?

I'm presuming you can provide quotes for all of these claims as well, yes?

The underlined factor in all of this, Ally, is once again the fact that you have not even read the column in question, nor the prior discussions pertaining to it. When that is the case, and yet you still choose to come on here and ramble away and insult and so on, as is your wont, you have to expect responses you may not particularly like.

You could make it so much easier for everybody if you just read the damned column and then responded to it in a reasoned fashion. Who knows, I might even change your mind?

Jon:

Thanks for your contribution. Feel free to send the original post to me via PM, i'm sure it'll make some very bemusing breakfast reading.

Cheers,
Adam.

[jmenges]

Jon:

Thanks for your contribution. Feel free to send the original post to me via PM, i'm sure it'll make some very bemusing breakfast reading.

Cheers,
Adam.

Thanks for your contribution as well. No need to keep it for breakfast, in the original post I called you a dickhead.

JM

[Monty]

I did state I was bowing out but hey, its Sunday, I'm bored, and you love this Phil....I mean Adam,

Thinking outside the box? You are such an arrogant fu...

Two points.

1) You placed an accusation without providing evidence. Its not a case of jumping on 'anyone who thinks a little outside the box'. That's a lame accusation usually laid at me by those who get upset at me for dismantling their thinking with logic and fact. Its tiresome, its old, it'll keep happening and I love it.

Its a case of getting your facts correct, providing evidence and presenting correctly. You failed on all counts and now getting pi$$ed when people pull your ideas apart.

2) You think that you, and your cronies, are the first to think 'outside the box' in 124 years? Please. However, I ask, where has this radiacal 'new' thinking gotten you/us?

Now all I see, in this brave new Ripperological world, is the blatent disregard of fact. The very cornerstones on which any idea and theory should be based on nowadays.

As I've stated elsewhere, this is cancerous. Its doing more harm than good and is dragging this case away from reality and more into fantasy and myth, and yes, y'all can quote me on that.

So with each outlandish, baseless claim we step away from credability and more toward ridicule. Its not just you Adam (who, on the whole, has made some valid and thought through points....at times), the unbelievable claims, the accusations made without any supporting evidence other than opinion presented today seems to be accepted by the ill informed who prefer to be tittilated than educated.

The state this field is in just now has been commented upon to me quite often, maybe there's a podcast in it Jon, and I know we have lost bloody good researchers because of it. Are you aware of a rediscovery of a photo of a murder site? No. Nor will you. As the person who found it hardly posts due to the folly that is sometimes the boards. They'd sooner reveal to those they trust and respect, and I'm honoured they consider me trustworthy.

We have a responsibility to the truth. By disregarding facts and evidence without good reason spits on that truth and mocks that responsibility.

Just for the sake of personal ego.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

Ally:

Are you still here? What is it, Ally? Are you lonely? Bored?
It really is quite sad to see somebody like yourself lurking on threads like these, wallowing in your own obsoleteness.

Obsolescence

You're welcome.

Mike

[Ally]

But she was absolutely not in any condition to be making her way around the streets, and to release a woman onto the streets during the middle of Jack's reign, still partially intoxicated, was nothing short of irresponsible.....

Let's just review shall we? Adam made this statement. I made a comment. Adam is now claiming quite hilariously that unless one has read every other comment he has ever made on the subject, one is not qualified to judge the content of this comment.

Stupid, immature, outrageously moronic. That's his argument. The above quote is stupid, immature, outrageously paternalistic and chauvinistic, and indicates a complete lack of awareness of the timing of the event, the function of the police and ..oh every subject under discussion.

[The Good Michael]

If Adam is right and Eddowes was released in a state of complete inebriation and should never have been let out of jail, which is possible though there is no evidence of it, what is the point he is trying to make? Is he looking to use that argument to prove that Eddowes wasn't one of JTR's victims? I am actually curious about that. So far, no one has given any coherent arguments for Eddowes NOT being one of the victims. I do wonder what leap is going to be made.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

GM,

At some stage they would have had to charge Eddowes, which if found guilty she would have had to pay a fine.

However, the majority of times they were released with a warning. It frees the court system up.

Monty,

Yes, but I am wondering what bit of conspiracy stuff is connected to the belief that Eddowes shouldn't have been let go. Why is it so important for Adam to be right here?

Mike

[Steven Russell]

[quote=Adam Went;207711]Monty:

Tell you what Monty, i'll cut you a deal.....if England win or retain the Ashes in 2013, i'll give up Ripperology for good. If Australia win, you give up Ripperology for good. Deal?

Is this a deal like those other deals you promised and noticeably failed to deliver?

[Adam Went]

Jon:

Oh, is that all? Jeez you had me worried that it was going to be something nasty or untrue....

Monty:

Thinking outside the box? You are such an arrogant fu...

That's a bit rough, Monty. Thought we were mates?

1) You placed an accusation without providing evidence. Its not a case of jumping on 'anyone who thinks a little outside the box'. That's a lame accusation usually laid at me by those who get upset at me for dismantling their thinking with logic and fact. Its tiresome, its old, it'll keep happening and I love it.

Its a case of getting your facts correct, providing evidence and presenting correctly. You failed on all counts and now getting pi$$ed when people pull your ideas apart.

People are welcome to rip my theories to shreds all they like, Monty, provided that it's done in a constructive and rational manner - much like the previous discussions on this very subject. However, on this particular thread, people have preferred to attack the theorist rather than the theory, which is also fine to a point, but not so when you haven't even read the theory in its entirety to be able to make the judgement or the criticism in the first place with all the facts at your disposal. (obviously this part isn't directed at you, at least you've actually read the column.)

2) You think that you, and your cronies, are the first to think 'outside the box' in 124 years? Please. However, I ask, where has this radiacal 'new' thinking gotten you/us?

I would suggest that those who think outside the square have advanced the case much further than those who prefer to go with the tired old straightforward thinking that got the police nowhere in 1888 either. They were conservative and so are many researchers now. I'm not saying that thinking outside the square will solve us the case because in all likelihood it never will, but at least it should be given the opportunity to solve some of the mysteries within the mystery even by those who do it no favours by ridiculing it every time a hint of it is evident.

The state this field is in just now has been commented upon to me quite often, maybe there's a podcast in it Jon, and I know we have lost bloody good researchers because of it. Are you aware of a rediscovery of a photo of a murder site? No. Nor will you. As the person who found it hardly posts due to the folly that is sometimes the boards. They'd sooner reveal to those they trust and respect, and I'm honoured they consider me trustworthy.

We have a responsibility to the truth. By disregarding facts and evidence without good reason spits on that truth and mocks that responsibility.


There is no doubt that Ripperology is heavily divided and it's a great shame because aren't we all working towards the same common goal?

Let me be very clear about this, to anybody who doubts it - I have never, and will never, advance any theory, especially in published format, which I have not wholeheartedly believed to be the truth, or come to believe is the truth through a variety of different methods.

When I was offered and accepted the role of writing a column for the Review, I made it my mission to create discussion and even controversy if it needed to be so, by analysing some of the areas of the case which don't receive the attention they should receive, but never was it my intention to sensationalise or falsify for the sake of gaining more interest, or creating more discussion.

So I wholeheartedly believe that Catherine Eddowes was in no fit condition to be released onto the streets that night. Contrary to what a lot of people here might like to think, this is not an "opinion" i've come up with overnight for my next sensational column, but rather a view i've held - but not stated - for some considerable time now. Something which I have researched from a medical and scientific standpoint and something which I have consulted with medically trained individuals about.

Agree with it or disagree with it as you wish, but let me not be accused of being a sensationalist writer or a reckless opinionator.

Ally:

So you're admitting then that you're judging an entire column and an entire theory, five or six pages long in its published format and many more times that length in the pages of other discussions, based on one single, two-lined sentence?

Yeah, 'nuff said, methinks.....

GM:

There is no "leap". I have no agenda. I forward my theory not for the benefit of improving the case against some suspect or some idea i'm formulating, which should be obvious enough. I believe Eddowes was a JTR victim.

Also contrary to what some might have been led to believe, i'm not particularly a police critic either. I've stated numerous times in the past - and even in the column itself IIRC - that I believe the police force did a highly commendable job overall with the resources they had in 1888.

However, bearing in mind the theory as it is in regards to Eddowes and her condition that night, if it is correct, then the police absolutely dropped the ball and made a blunder. In fact the case could be made for more bizarre police behaviour that night outside of Eddowes' being locked up, but this is not the time nor the thread for those sorts of suppositions.

That is as much as there is to this particular theory.

Steven:

Oh but I do intend to follow through with the bets you allude to when the chance arises, hopefully in the not too distant future. I'm a very busy boy, you know, and a little patience doesn't go astray....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Steven Russell]

OK, Adam. Just thought I'd refresh your memory. It seemed a little rash of you to propose Ashes bets when you haven't yet made good on the last lot.

Steve.

[Ally]

Ally:

So you're admitting then that you're judging an entire column and an entire theory, five or six pages long in its published format and many more times that length in the pages of other discussions, based on one single, two-lined sentence?

Yeah, 'nuff said, methinks.....

No what I am saying is considering that the above appears to be the sum totality of your reading and writing comprehension, it amazes me that anyone would offer you a column in the first place considering you have about all the analytical intelligence of a gibbon.

I will use the tiny words. I am not judging your column. I am judging the statements that you have made on this forum, which are pure balls. I do not have to read everything you have ever written in the entirety of your life, to do so. What you have written here, is pure, unadulterated balls. It's moronic, it's stupid and I really don't need to read anything further to judge it so. Just like I don't need to read the A-Z to take issue with something Paul Begg or MArtin Fido says on here, nor do I need to read letters from hell to take issue with something Stewart Evans says. If you are not prepared to discuss your theory on a forum, DON'T discuss them on a forum But to come on a forum, make statements and then tell other people they don't have the right to take issue with them makes you seem like, oh what was that Monty said right, an arrogant fu...

You aren't Paul Begg, you aren't Stewart Evans, and you aren't anyone of note. So trying to make it seem like you are even better than all who have gone before you and that one must have read every single thing you ever uttered in order to have an opinion on your stupidity is really...quite remarkable. What I was responding to does not require reading a five page theory about any more than I would be required to read a five page theory if someone came on here and said "Van Gogh is the Ripper". Some things are just obviously moronic and don't require the supporting documentation.

You are completely incapable of writing a coherent thought, arguing rationally or defending a stance, which makes you a very poor choice for a regular contributor to anything, and your method of attempting to get people to read your drivel does neither you nor the publication any service. In short, you are not a credit to any publication that would have you and I would think as a journalism major, your first class should have been in being a professional, not a poncy little git when it came to representing the organization. Of course if you are aiming to be the next contributor to the National Enquirer or Fox (if we repeat it often enough, it must be true), well then you are well on your way. Good show.

[Monty]

Sorry Adam,

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Steven:

Surely the suspense will make it worth the wait all the more? Better late than never, as they say.

Monty:

Not at all, one must be thick skinned around here, it's a pre-requisite of being a Ripperologist. However, if my last post managed to clear up a couple of small misconceptions regarding myself and/or my theories, then i'll be very glad of it.

Ally:

My god, why don't you get a job or something? Do something constructive for the community and society in general? I know you're trying your best to wind me up but you of all people would be the last to do it.....in fact, if it hadn't been for my fits of laughter throughout your post, I think i'd have fallen asleep by about the third word.

In the whole time i've been involved in the field, i've seen you contribute nothing of substance to anything - forum, periodical, or otherwise. Instead you just prefer to waste away your life chastising people, which is actually just a little bit sad. So you're not in a position to say jack sh*t to anyone who has actually put in the effort to make some sort of contribution (whether it meets your lofty standards or not) to the case.

I don't claim to be anything more than a humble researcher (nor do I have any designs on being anything greater than that), and whether or not you approve of works that you've not read or believe that you have some God-given right to say who should or shouldn't be contributing what to any periodical, is also a point that is entirely indifferent to me.

And with that, i'll have nothing more to say to you on the matter from here on in.....go ahead, take it away, have the final word! I enthusiastically await its arrival....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Ally]

In the whole time i've been involved in the field, i've seen you contribute nothing of substance to anything - forum, periodical, or otherwise.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.