Cross The Ripper?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

Maybe Cross just had the wrong day?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sally]

Hi Sally, I meant you've been supportive of his efforts, not necessarily of his conclusions.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

New research is always valuable - its just that I think the conclusions should be informed by the facts and not the other way around.

What can I say? I'm an idealist.

[Sally]

Indeed, Sally.

I expected one or two people to throw a few toys out of the pram once the unpopularity of their theory is brought home to them, but that far from invalidate your thread and the wholly anticipated results it contains.

All the best,
Ben

Ben

Before I posted this poll I looked at other similar past polls created by others. They were my inspiration and my model. I gave very careful consideration to the poll options so that we could see a range of valid opinions. Its important to get these things right, y'know.

[Wickerman]

As there was no choice for "uncertain" (for those waiting for the theory to develope), I chose "Possible", simply because it is not "Improbable", nor "Highly Unlikely".

Though I don't see anything compelling so far.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

As there was no choice for "uncertain" (for those waiting for the theory to develope), I chose "Possible", simply because it is not "Improbable", nor "Highly Unlikely".

Though I don't see anything compelling so far.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

If 'uncertain' had been an option, then virtually everybody would've gone for that; simply because there is no certainty. 'Possible' is techically correct, but this is an opinion poll, and all opinion is based on a value judgement.

Hence a range of options.

Thanks for voting.

[Fisherman]

Sally!

I am afraid that I cannot discredit a poll that has taken care of it itself.

This is how to do it correctly: You make a scale with one top bid and one bottom bid, and leave the bids inbetween unnamed. For instance, use 1 for very low credibility and 5 for very high ditto. Then leave 2-4 semantically unnamed, just use the numbers. That way, you will not offer any confusing alternatives, the way you managed to do here.

It may be good to know if you are to prolong your carreer as queen of the polls. Not that I will vote anyway, but there you are!

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Please stop trying to stack the deck in your favour.

It does you no service.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Here are the results of the Bridewell Jury

Hi All,

Just got in after a busy day. I've voted the same way as Wickerman, and for the same reasons.
I'm a bit surprised at the opposition to this poll to be honest, firstly because it's not a big deal (if you don't like it, don't bother); secondly because it tells Fisherman et al, in graphic form, what the overall state of thinking is with regard to Cross/Lechmere as a suspect. There's no harm in that, I wouldn't have thought.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Sally

Thanks for setting this up, I'm going to follow the results with interest.

I believe that Cross did indeed kill Polly, but I will have to stick with my previous descriptions of my own theory and state that it is both 'bizarre' and 'highly improbable'. Therefore I'm not sure where I should be voting myself, perhaps half a vote in option one and half a vote in option three.

Best Wishes

[lynn cates]

voting

Hello Colin.

"it tells Fisherman et al, in graphic form, what the overall state of thinking is with regard to Cross/Lechmere as a suspect."

Perhaps not. Possibly, it tells Christer and Lechmere how Ripper students WHO ALSO VOTE IN POLLS think about Cross. To do otherwise would require a 100% response. And even editing out the inactive members, it is not likely one can achieve that.

Of course, statistics can do something with a proper sample GIVEN a proper sample selection. Not sure we have that.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"I'm a bit surprised at the opposition to this poll to be honest, firstly because it's not a big deal (if you don't like it, don't bother); secondly because it tells Fisherman et al, in graphic form, what the overall state of thinking is with regard to Cross/Lechmere as a suspect. There's no harm in that, I wouldn't have thought."

I am not opposed to polls as such, Colin. They may be useful at times .- if intelligibly shaped. But I think that a poll that offers muddled answer alternatives is a bad poll, and this is such a poll. When the "worst" alternative (highly improbable) does not rule out the "second best" alternative (possible), then you have seriously goofed up in your efforts to present a useful poll. Otherwise, poll away, by all means, as long as you remember that it is not the poll that governs history ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

If 'uncertain' had been an option, then virtually everybody would've gone for that; simply because there is no certainty. 'Possible' is techically correct, but this is an opinion poll, and all opinion is based on a value judgement.

Hence a range of options.

Thanks for voting.

Ayy, ah was nay complaining lassy, jus' 'splaining what I's a thinkin....

[Sally]

Hi Sally

Thanks for setting this up, I'm going to follow the results with interest.

I believe that Cross did indeed kill Polly, but I will have to stick with my previous descriptions of my own theory and state that it is both 'bizarre' and 'highly improbable'. Therefore I'm not sure where I should be voting myself, perhaps half a vote in option one and half a vote in option three.

Best Wishes

Hi Mr Lucky

Thanks. Of course you are correct in that whether it is 'bizarre' or 'highly improbable' if Cross killed Nichols or not; it has no bearing on whether he actually did or not.

The poll was simply to canvass opinion as it stands now. I haven't seen your theory, I don't think, so I'll reserve judgement. As I said earlier, the poll is open, so if and when our state of knowledge regarding Cross alters, the poll results may also alter accordingly.

[Sally]

Sally!

I am afraid that I cannot discredit a poll that has taken care of it itself.

This is how to do it correctly: You make a scale with one top bid and one bottom bid, and leave the bids inbetween unnamed. For instance, use 1 for very low credibility and 5 for very high ditto. Then leave 2-4 semantically unnamed, just use the numbers. That way, you will not offer any confusing alternatives, the way you managed to do here.

It may be good to know if you are to prolong your carreer as queen of the polls. Not that I will vote anyway, but there you are!

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman

I'm simply interested in the results. There is no call whatever for you to take the poll as a personal affront (and the same goes for Lechmere). All that does is suggest an egocentric perspective on your part.

It has nothing to do with you (or anybody) personally - if you don't like it, don't feel obliged to comment.

As I said earlier, its just a poll. A bit of fun. Whether you vote or not is entirely up to you.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I'm simply interested in the results. There is no call whatever for you to take the poll as a personal affront (and the same goes for Lechmere). All that does is suggest an egocentric perspective on your part. "

To begin with, Sally, I donīt think that I have given voice to any position that speaks of any personal affront on my behalf. What I HAVE done is to point out to you how a poll should be done in order to avoid mistakes and confusion. Normally, such things are described as helpfulness, not personal affront. And, taken aboard, it would enhance your possibilities to interpret the result you claim is your only interest in a useful manner.

My personal stance involves staying away from polls like this. Polls do not govern history, and they have a nasty habit of getting interpretated as if they were.

So, Sally, please do not speak of any personal affront until you have something to speak about. Just go on polling to your heartīs delight instead!

The best,
Fisherman