Decision

[Henry Flower]

By the way: why is this in the general suspect section of the forum? It doesn't belong here, Pierre.

Surely you agree with that, Pierre? After all, it won't be a suspect book will it? Even though it names your suspect.

This thread isn't about a suspect. It should be moved.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, if it is our inalienable right to define ourselves and what we are doing, and not to have others define us, then get this:

I'm a historian. In fact, I'm not only a historian, I'm a sociologist and an expert in statistics, and a scholar of the history of the production of literature.

You don't get to say I'm not.

Because I say that I am. I insist that's what I'm doing, and I'm offended you won't acknowledge it as true! My qualifications? What? That's none of your business!

Pathetic, isn't it?

I've said for a year, you are one of the more obviously cheap ripperologists, finding hidden clues and bending evidence and sources until they fit your suspect. It's been obvious and transparent to most of us for a long time.

You are a suspect-led ripperologist.

[Brenda]

.

I will look forward to your new suspect-based book. It will be a valuable addition of the field of study that is Ripperology.

[Abby Normal]

Theres a field behind my house.

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;428526




Hi Herlock,

I am not using a dictionary definition. I am using a sociological definition.

Pierre

Sociology I see.

So the Concept of "field" is not a single "concept" rather it varied depending on the viewpoint and the definition used.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Are we? No, Steve. But you must know what you are talking about. So I try to help. And why do you call the forum a "non academic environment"? There are educated people here.

Oh what fun.
Yes there are academics here, and many who are not, but who are bright. It is a forum of a mixture of ability and background. Unlike for instance the EEF forum for professional Egyptologists. And while the are no academics there too it is seen to be an Academic forum.

Not a "favourite word" but a scientific word.

Donīt be silly. It is a new definition since "a field" and "a field of study" ontologically very different things

Again hiding behind semantics, what was said was clear to all. However carry on it is amusing.

"Non academic forum". But there are academics here, Steve. So why that sort of concept?

In the thread : Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

It was you who made the following quotes, suggesting this site was far from academic.

Post 53:

"The dialogue above illustrates exactly how hopeless it would be for anyone to expect any "peer review" from the ones writing on this forum
This is not a university, it is just an internet forum. "



Post # 61
"But there are no seminars here and no scientific papers. So? "

And

"Researchers do peer review. People here do bla bla bla and, donīt forget, bla."



Or have you changed your view?

You are misleading everyone who does not understand the difference between a field and a "field of study" on the issue of trying to convince them that a "field of study" is an "expansion" when it is another concept

Most know exactly what I am talking about, when the message is clear to argue is nothing but pure semantics.

If you do not know what a "field" is, read the book I recommended.

You forget my Background Pierre.
I use the appropriate language for any given audience.

You are using common sense language, and that type of language are often misleading sine the definitions are wide and not precise.

That is the issue is it not. It is not misleading if others know what is meant. Unlike the transposing of the order of quotes from sources, now that is misleading.

It is like saying "You are in a cow barn, among cows, and therefore you are a cow now".

You want to own the right to define my work. But you canīt do that, Steve. I define my own work.

Not at all . However the individual does not define their work, it is defined by the perception of the world.

You love to "break this to me", in fact. But you see, Steve, I define myself and you do not define me. It is not your right to say what I am. I find that very rude and I am not at all happy with that.

Pierre

Sorry Pierre, we are defined by the world not by ourselves. I could for instances say I was a great Batsman in cricket, just because I believe so, does not sadly make it true.
It is not rude Pierre, it is the real world.
And I am sorry you are not happy, but that is life and again the real world.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;428526

Dictionary definition of 'field.'

'A particular branch of study, or sphere of activity or interest.'

It doesnt say 'but only when they are undertaken by professionals.'

Hi Herlock,

I am not using a dictionary definition. I am using a sociological definition.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;428526]

Dictionary definition of 'field.'

'A particular branch of study, or sphere of activity or interest.'

It doesnt say 'but only when they are undertaken by professionals.'

Hi Herlock,

I am not using a dictionary definition. I am using a sociological definition.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve,

No, I am writing in the field of history. That is an existing field but ripperology is not a field. It is a small space in literature.

Cheers, Pierre

Dictionary definition of 'field.'

'A particular branch of study, or sphere of activity or interest.'

It doesnt say 'but only when they are undertaken by professionals.'

You are, in effect, belittling those on this forum that undertake research or study, by constantly reminding them that they aren't 'qualified historians' and that by implication their work is inferior to your own.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428522]

Oh dear we are upset are we not.
Again you are using academic terms in a non academic environment.
Which is the whole issue of course.

Are we? No, Steve. But you must know what you are talking about. So I try to help. And why do you call the forum a "non academic environment"? There are educated people here.

"Concept" one of your favourite words to avoid answers.
And it is not a new definition, it's an expansion of the original description.

Not a "favourite word" but a scientific word.

Donīt be silly. It is a new definition since "a field" and "a field of study" ontologically very different things!

Not at all. You wish to use terms in a strictly academic way, on a non academic forum.

"Non academic forum". But there are academics here, Steve. So why that sort of concept?

Who exactly am I misleading? And on what issue?

You are misleading everyone who does not understand the difference between a field and a "field of study" on the issue of trying to convince them that a "field of study" is an "expansion" when it is another concept.

If you do not know what a "field" is, read the book I recommended.

Please explain how it can be considered misleading when the majority here will understand exactly what is meant by the comments.

You are using common sense language, and that type of language are often misleading sine the definitions are wide and not precise.

And I am sure you understand what is meant by my original posts and you argue over semantics. Really?

You are on a Ripperology forum, posting there, asking questions and presenting arguments.

It is like saying "You are in a cow barn, among cows, and therefore you are a cow now".

If you write about the Whitechapel murders of 1888, like it or not you are writing Ripperology, hopefully you are ALSO writing history at the same time.

You want to own the right to define my work. But you canīt do that, Steve. I define my own work.

And I truly hate to break this to you, but given the time you have spent on here, the research you have done and the report you are writing you are a Ripperologist like it or not.

You love to "break this to me", in fact. But you see, Steve, I define myself and you do not define me. It is not your right to say what I am. I find that very rude and I am not at all happy with that.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is not a police investigation.

And the result, both for the police and for historians, can not be "what if" or "is it possible".

Those are questions that both historians and police investigators ask BEFORE they have a result or what you call an outcome.

Pierre

But 'what if's' and 'is it possible that..' are often employed to reach an outcome.

[Elamarna]

You are wrong. Ripperology is not a field. And now you also added "field of study".

If you want to know what a field is, read this book:

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3630402.html

Oh dear we are upset are we not.
Again you are using academic terms in a non academic environment.
Which is the whole issue of course.

And now you use the new definition again: "field of study". That is another concept.

"Concept" one of your favourite words to avoid answers.
And it is not a new definition, it's an expansion of the original description.

So if people donīt agree with your definition of a "field", they are "an elite".

You do not even use a scientific definition and you changed the concept.

Not at all. You wish to use terms in a strictly academic way, on a non academic forum.

Misleading, as you tell others.

Who exactly am I misleading? And on what issue?

Please explain how it can be considered misleading when the majority here will understand exactly what is meant by the comments.

And I am sure you understand what is meant by my original posts and you argue over semantics. Really?

I do not write ripperology and do not use the word you use.

I write history.

Pierre

You are on a Ripperology forum, posting there, asking questions and presenting arguments.

If you write about the Whitechapel murders of 1888, like it or not you are writing Ripperology, hopefully you are ALSO writing history at the same time.


And I truly hate to break this to you, but given the time you have spent on here, the research you have done and the report you are writing you are a Ripperologist like it or not.


Steve

[Albert]

[QUOTE=Albert;428520]

Pierre,
Can you point us to some history you have written and published, please?
Regards
Albert

Sorry, put in the wrong quote!

[Albert]

[QUOTE=Pierre;428518]

You are wrong. Ripperology is not a field. And now you also added "field of study".

If you want to know what a field is, read this book:

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3630402.html

And now you use the new definition again: "field of study". That is another concept.



So if people donīt agree with your definition of a "field", they are "an elite".

You do not even use a scientific definition and you changed the concept.

Misleading, as you tell others.



I do not write ripperology and do not use the word you use.

I write history.

Pierre

Pierre,
Can you point us to some history you have written and published, please?
Regards
Albert

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428517]

Pierre

You posted on this site. A forum for those interested in the subject of the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

The questions you are asked are those from this forum; not an academic department, your answers should therefore address that forum in language used on that forum.

This is something you seriously fail to understand. One tailors ones presentation to the audience, most academics from what ever discipline accept and understand that.

To say Ripperology is not a field of study is to defy reality.

You are wrong. Ripperology is not a field. And now you also added "field of study".

If you want to know what a field is, read this book:

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3630402.html

Ripper studies or Ripperology as you call it, is certainly not an academic discipline, such is a simple truth.

However it is a legitimate historical area of interest, with its own experts, it is therefore a field of study for those involved.

And now you use the new definition again: "field of study". That is another concept.

To say it is not is to deny what is clear to all accept those who see science and knowledge as The property of an elite.

So if people donīt agree with your definition of a "field", they are "an elite".

You do not even use a scientific definition and you changed the concept.

Misleading, as you tell others.

The same denial which says if you publish a document which names someone as the killer in 1888 Whitechapel that publication cannot be termed a "suspect book".

I do not write ripperology and do not use the word you use.

I write history.

Pierre