Tossing out a scenerio

[harry]

conspiricy

I'm not averse to people who write of conspirices, as I'm of the opinion that conspiracy abounds ,though most are hard to prove.I myself posted such a one some time ago,and it was met with derision,though no one sought to a sk me for details.It is the rejection without consultation or argument that I find offensive,

[DVV]

Ah, voilà !

Ce vieux pédophile qui attire les enfants avec du poisson....

[Cogidubnus]

Not sure I like those Batinets de Colin...Does Colin know?

Alarmed

Dave

[Robert]

Here you are, David :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut7UAqCaUVs

[DVV]

Robert, in France we know him as "Capitaine Igloo" (king of square fishes, with eyes in the corners - sorry, straight from French again).

[Robert]

This will explain, Jeff :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lklk5TYBAAI

[Mayerling]

It's a pity that we don't have any reminiscences from Valentine's school, for if Monty did indeed bear a close resemblance to Eddie, then boys being boys, Monty would have been instantly baptised "Collars and Cuffs" - in the same way that a teacher who smokes a pipe becomes 'Sherlock Holmes' and a teacher with a beard becomes 'Captain Birdseye' etc.

Hi Robert,

Excuse my ignorance - who is 'Captain Birdseye'?

Jeff

[Robert]

It's a pity that we don't have any reminiscences from Valentine's school, for if Monty did indeed bear a close resemblance to Eddie, then boys being boys, Monty would have been instantly baptised "Collars and Cuffs" - in the same way that a teacher who smokes a pipe becomes 'Sherlock Holmes' and a teacher with a beard becomes 'Captain Birdseye' etc.

[RavenDarkendale]

Regarding Prince Eddy and Montague John Druitt:




Admittedly, shots taken of Druitt without the mustache do not look a lot like Prince Eddy, but this one, taken shortly before his death, does resemble the Prince. Even to the dimple in the chin. IMHO, of course, and I reserve the right to be totally wrong.

God Bless

Darkendale

[DVV]

Phil H is leaving once a week.
He'll be back, if he wants to leave again.

[Errata]

I'm going to get my butt kicked for this but I'm doing it anyway.

So from what I understand, Phil H. thinks that tossing out random speculation on suspects, especially the famous ones, is both irresponsible and detrimental to Ripperology.

Raven Darkendale thinks that this is an overly harsh judgement, especially since this was specifically framed in such a way as to admit that the entire question is based off of wild speculation.

And now they are both leaving.

...huh?

First of all, Ripperology is to social science what chiropractors are to doctors. Which is to say that it isn't. Ripperology is not a social science. In fact it's not even an -ology. It's an -ography. This is not a niche that gets any kind of respect from Historians or social scientists. Nor should it. It is far too specific. There is no Napoleonology, nor Bundyology, nor even Falklandology. Which does not mean people don't do excellent work on this topic. But it's not a field of study. God forbid anyone should be able to major in it in college.

We have three choices. We can treat this like what it is, which is frankly more investigative journalism/possibility bombing than academia, we can elevate it to the level of academia, or we can accept that both exist and simply ignore the bits you don't like. And I don't have a horse in the race, so whatever. But what we can't do is swear that that it is only one thing and throw a fit when the other way crops up. It's like a Jew and Christian arguing over whose god is better. You can do it, but then everyone gets offended and no one ends up benefiting.

For example, I don't especially engage in suspect discussion unless it involves Jews or the mentally ill, and the reason for suspicion depends on one of those two conditions. Why? Because I'm Jewish and mentally ill. No grand reason. Just enlightened self interest. It's to my benefit to educate people on both of those things, because it makes my life easier. What I don't do is hop into every suspect discussion and tell people they are tilting at windmills because it's been 125 years and we will never know. I may feel that way, but that is not productive to any discussion, and what do I care what other people are interested in?

Raven Darkendale was spit-balling. Why that isn't fine I have no idea, but apparently it drew some fire. And Phil is not wrong. Tossing out random what ifs does not make this a more respectable field of study. My argument would be that it isn't a respectable field of study as it is. It's like ripping on the actors in a high school play for not being believable.

And then add to the mix that this is not a forum for serious social scientists trying to understand this 6 month span of history. It's a forum for people who are interested in the Ripper. Some are serious historians and social scientists. Most are people who just got into this topic somewhere along the way. And some are learning about this through this site. I mean, I should hope none of us are the kind of people who criticize the literary style of facebook posts, we should not criticize the posts of people who may not be as serious about this as others, or as knowledgeable of others, or who see this mystery with a different goal in mind. We certain should not criticize people who treat this as an internet forum for people who like to throw out ideas and ask questions. Because that's what it is. If you want a forum for serious scholars who are only focused of certain aspects of the case, go find one. Or go make one.

For god's sake people. It's the internet. It isn't a thesis review panel. If I find pleasure in the intellectual exercise of building a case against the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant and I want to show that off, who cares? If I want to submit a PhD level thesis on the psychological markers of mutilation and cannibalism in the LVP, who cares? You don't have to read it. You're not trapped in a crappy hotel conference room forced to listen to me drone on about something. Click on something else.

If your objection stems from the idea that you don't want to be judged by what other people say about the Ripper on the internet, then you lost that battle a long time ago. There's really no recovering from that. And if you find something personally offensive, but are pretty sure that the person did not present it solely to offend you, what's wrong with a private message? Perspective people. That's all I'm asking.

[The Good Michael]

... [ Edward had no children by his mistresses]

You can't know this.

Mike

[Sally]

I hope neither of you decides to leave.

We've all been shot down on the boards - comes with the territory, peer-reviewed forum and all that.

And none of us always behave perfectly - whatever our good intentions.

But at the end of the day, we all have the same interest at heart - otherwise we wouldn't have come here and participated in the forum to begin with.

Please reconsider, both of you.

[Phil H]

Well, I doubt you'll read this Dale, but I too am now leaving Casebook for the foreseeable future as a result of this thread.

My apologies if my remarks offended, but I do feel strongly on this issue. Certainly, I cannot remain if what I said directly caused another member to leave.

So goodbye from me too.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Wow yall, wow. Well, I hope neither of you decide to leave, as I have enjoyed both of your inputs and takes on many different things. Many blessings to all of you. Except for Van Gogh and Sickert supporters. That's my 99 cents worth.