A major breakthrough

[The Good Michael]

Sometimes people are a bit nasty to ol' Pierre. I'm guilty of snide comments. Yet, there might be something "special" about him that mocking will just worsen. I for one don't want to push someone into therapy as it's not my place to suggest things like Pathological lying or Histrionic Personality Disorder, for I am but a simple man and these mental issues are not in my realm of expertise. I do want to apologize for being not forthcoming with praise for someone who desperately seeks it.

Mike

[Graham]

I don't think our Admin cares.

I believe in having rules and following them, but I would be damned if I would allow one person to bring down my website I'd worked so many years to make top-notch in the interests of maintaining a "democracy". Because that's exactly what is happening.

It's just sad to come back here and see the same old stuff going on.

*Kudos to those that are still creating the interesting threads.

I couldn't agree more, Brenda. I was once banned for a short time, but at least it wasn't for droning on and on and on over about 18 months, boring other posters half to death. Why Admin doesn't act is surprising, I have to say. And why other posters continue reacting and responding to Pierre also beats me - because that is exactly what he wants people to do and it should be painfully obvious by now.

Graham

[Andrea_P]

I would just like to know who he thinks it is and why - guess I will go back to lurking for a bit and wait to see what else he dangles in front of everyone

[The Good Michael]

I would just like to know who he thinks it is and why - guess I will go back to lurking for a bit and wait to see what else he dangles in front of everyone

You won't know. It's a disorder, and not a suspect.

Mike

[Mayerling]

I couldn't agree more, Brenda. I was once banned for a short time, but at least it wasn't for droning on and on and on over about 18 months, boring other posters half to death. Why Admin doesn't act is surprising, I have to say. And why other posters continue reacting and responding to Pierre also beats me - because that is exactly what he wants people to do and it should be painfully obvious by now.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I have considered the arguments for not answering "Pierre" or ignoring his "new" threads, screaming about great discoveries and other crap. They make sense, but only so far. The reason is the nature of the beast, "Pierre".

Pierre is a egotist who is determined to not be ignored. If we all stopped answering him, he'd feel a sense of triumph because we are doing that to him alone. He'd feel we were scared of him. And he would continue thrusting himself about anyway.

People don't recall this now, but the year I was born in was 1954, the year that Senator McCarthy was shown to be the empty bully he was on television. Later that year he was censured by the U.S. Senate. But he had won re-election two years before, so he was still a Senator. Until he died, three years later, he kept popping his head into various Senate hearings and committee meetings (especially those that had media coverage) to remind everyone he was still around. He did that, despite being ignored by his fellow Senators, and the Media. It did wound him - his drinking got worse - but he did not stop until he died in 1957.

I'm not hoping anyone dies, but Pierre would keep entering every damned thread on this website even if we never answered his questions.

Jeff

[Henry Flower]

Hi Graham,

I have considered the arguments for not answering "Pierre" or ignoring his "new" threads, screaming about great discoveries and other crap. They make sense, but only so far. The reason is the nature of the beast, "Pierre".

Pierre is a egotist who is determined to not be ignored. If we all stopped answering him, he'd feel a sense of triumph because we are doing that to him alone. He'd feel we were scared of him. And he would continue thrusting himself about anyway.

People don't recall this now, but the year I was born in was 1954, the year that Senator McCarthy was shown to be the empty bully he was on television. Later that year he was censured by the U.S. Senate. But he had won re-election two years before, so he was still a Senator. Until he died, three years later, he kept popping his head into various Senate hearings and committee meetings (especially those that had media coverage) to remind everyone he was still around. He did that, despite being ignored by his fellow Senators, and the Media. It did wound him - his drinking got worse - but he did not stop until he died in 1957.

I'm not hoping anyone dies, but Pierre would keep entering every damned thread on this website even if we never answered his questions.

Jeff

Oh. so nothing can be done, and nothing should be done. Let Pierre continue to act like the fraud he is until reasonable posters one by one stop coming here - think of some of the big researchers who no longer contribute here. And then the boards will consist solely of arguments between Pierre, David Orsam, and Fisherman. Great.

Admin have been negligent. SPE and Paul Begg used to be regulars here - now we have this pretend historian swanning around telling everyone he has been trawling 'the archives' and knows who the Ripper was but cannot yet name him for ethical reasons, and lecturing everyone here on whether their procedures are properly scientific and academic - while not offering one iota of evidence of his own bona-fides, and contradicting the impression of being a professional academic every time he comments. And admin allow this farce to continue.

admin - you are not doing your job. Go ahead - ban me for saying so and let this fraud continue his year long game.

[Mayerling]

Oh. so nothing can be done, and nothing should be done. Let Pierre continue to act like the fraud he is until reasonable posters one by one stop coming here - think of some of the big researchers who no longer contribute here. And then the boards will consist solely of arguments between Pierre, David Orsam, and Fisherman. Great.

Admin have been negligent. SPE and Paul Begg used to be regulars here - now we have this pretend historian swanning around telling everyone he has been trawling 'the archives' and knows who the Ripper was but cannot yet name him for ethical reasons, and lecturing everyone here on whether their procedures are properly scientific and academic - while not offering one iota of evidence of his own bona-fides, and contradicting the impression of being a professional academic every time he comments. And admin allow this farce to continue.

admin - you are not doing your job. Go ahead - ban me for saying so and let this fraud continue his year long game.

Well, there is an alternative but it is too difficult to fully implement - in fact it may be illegal.

If any of us were able to get a first rate hacker here to locate Pierre's original spot (where it is) to discover his (or her) original identity, expose it, and then proceed to contact everyone he depends on in his actual day-to-day milieu to reveal what a shallow creep he is, so as to ruin him, we might have a real chance. I really don't propose this, for I really believe it is illegal, but it seems the most direct way of handling Pierre. I hope the Administrators here don't ban me from this website as a result of suggesting this. My apologies to them and the rest of you (except Pierre, who really would deserve such treatment).

Jeff

[The Good Michael]

Hi Graham,

I have considered the arguments for not answering "Pierre" or ignoring his "new" threads, screaming about great discoveries and other crap. They make sense, but only so far. The reason is the nature of the beast, "Pierre".

Pierre is a egotist who is determined to not be ignored. If we all stopped answering him, he'd feel a sense of triumph because we are doing that to him alone. He'd feel we were scared of him. And he would continue thrusting himself about anyway.

People don't recall this now, but the year I was born in was 1954, the year that Senator McCarthy was shown to be the empty bully he was on television. Later that year he was censured by the U.S. Senate. But he had won re-election two years before, so he was still a Senator. Until he died, three years later, he kept popping his head into various Senate hearings and committee meetings (especially those that had media coverage) to remind everyone he was still around. He did that, despite being ignored by his fellow Senators, and the Media. It did wound him - his drinking got worse - but he did not stop until he died in 1957.

I'm not hoping anyone dies, but Pierre would keep entering every damned thread on this website even if we never answered his questions.

Jeff

I honestly think mental illness or a disorder of some sort is involved here. I would like someone trained to analyse the posts and come up with some kind of theory of what's going on intellectually if possible. The posts are always the same; they lead people on as if there is real information, but nothing comes of it. Pierre gets almost masturbatory pleasure in pursuing this avenue of misleading. It is an issue and maybe he actually does need help, I for one cannot get angry or irritated with someone like that.

Mike

[Geddy2112]

I honestly think mental illness or a disorder of some sort is involved here. I would like someone trained to analyse the posts and come up with some kind of theory of what's going on intellectually if possible.

No problem, it's called attention seeking, not sure it's a mental illness but that is what it boils down too. I could go on and on about his age, educational background, job, family life etc etc to some great accuracy but it's pointless. He basically feels he is better than us, he will have probably searched other forums looking for ways to gain attention and left due to being banned.

What better way to rope folk in than to claim to have solved the World's most famous crime, it's not a bad entering bet. Most people would have posted other stuff before showing their hand, not Mr P... boom straight in...

[Fisherman]

And then the boards will consist solely of arguments between Pierre, David Orsam, and Fisherman. Great.

Ehrm...!

[Abby Normal]

ive been suggesting just everyone don't respond to him which in an act of desperation to gain the attention back he would reveal his suspect, if he has one. and then it would be such a joke that after the initial ridicule from everyone he would just eventually be ignored and fade away to a dimly pulsing brown dwarf alone in the vastness of space.

[Henry Flower]

Ehrm...!

Hehe - no personal offence intended! I have a lot of time for you and for Mr Orsam.

Maybe not for Pierre; though his arrogant foolishness does give me a nice pretext for venting some spleen.

EDIT - what I mean is, I think both David and yourself have more worthwhile things to do with your time than argue with the pretender.

[Henry Flower]

Jeff, I understand the desire to humiliate the arrogant, and yes, the boards would be a better place without his narcissism, but I can't go along with your suggestion. I'm sure it probably does break one or two laws somewhere along the line.

If Pierre had an ounce of sensibility he would realise that the fact people are even considering reacting to him in that way suggests he is behaving like a boorish, contemptible, posturing little jerk who is fooling nobody.

But he doesn't care. The name of his game is to irritate and grate. That's why I say admin are being negligent.

[Henry Flower]

Abby, your suggestion is entirely sensible. Unfortunately this is the internet, and I'm as guilty as anyone of wiling away twenty minutes of an evening responding to the creep.

As the old cartoon has it:

Woman: "Honey, come to bed, it's late!"
Man (typing furiously): "I can't, someone on the internet is being an as*hole!"

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I have to agree, Admin have taken a lenient approach on the antics of the gentleman in question, allowing the annoyance to continue, in the name of freedom of speech.
It is getting harder to discuss the case in a simplified fashion, without getting the term ''Data'' and 'research thrown' at you .
If the said gentleman is not prepared to offer his suspect, or reasoning, to the Casebook members, in my opinion, he should be pressurised to put up. or shut up.
I regret having to be so negative, I have been a member for a long time, and am passionate about this case, but I never hide behind , data , and future research, in an argument.
Regards Richard.