25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[David Orsam]

posted in wrong thread!

[Kaz]

Has anyone heard from Mike? Last I heard he was doing some detective work.

I've taken the time to email the cricket club, to inquire about any possible member-registers or match-listings from the year 1888.

[David Orsam]

David,

I've been searching for your accusation of my 'cowardice', as reported by Abby Normal. Can you point me in the right direction?

Gary

Gary, I find it bizarre that you quote my entire post and then ask me a question about something that someone else has supposedly posted!

All I can say is that in all your posts in this thread you haven't discussed a single issue about Robert Smith's book or about anything to do with the Diary.

[Admin]

Oh no Jonathan, I am enjoying the exchange immensely.

I find it especially amusing that the "warning" he posted was from January 2015. Yes, there's so much censorship on this site that he had to go searching back almost three years to find.. a warning, not even an infraction ...to post how oppressed his speech has been here. Oh the great oppression and censorship experienced, all these many years. I don't know how he's borne the strain.

But in any case, yes, this is actually off topic. If you want to bash sites, this isn't the thread for it.

[jmenges]

No, they don't. Nor do they censor posts in the way that this site does.

I don't know first hand of the Casebook Admin censoring posts unless they contain personal attacks -and leave the rest if the remainder of the post has merit. I do know however what occurs with posts and whole threads over at JtR Forums, so don't try to claim otherwise. But, I also know one of the perhaps unwritten rules of Casebook is that we don't engage in bashing JtRForums, even if their active members come over here and bash Casebook, so I'm afraid if you'd like to debate the merits of the two site's respective admins, as fun as that would be, that too is against the rules.

You've missed the point, dear boy.

It is not allowed to respond, however politely, to personal insults that are not germane to the thread.

[ATTACH]18338[/ATTACH]

Responding to someone's personal attack with a personal attack of your own will still earn you an infraction. "S/he started it" is not an excuse.

I know there are a lot of rules to read.

I suggest this thread return to its topic before Admin arrives and starts censoring us all over the place.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Oh, that's a shame. Does JtRForums now allow personal attacks to just fly back and forth? How uncivilized.
Anyway, rules are rules, and I didn't write them as this is not 'my site'. I do enjoy reading your posts though and I suggest you try using the 'report' button to alert Admin that you've been attacked.

JM

You've missed the point, dear boy.

It is not allowed to respond, however politely, to personal insults that are not germane to the thread.

[MrBarnett]

Oh, that's a shame. Does JtRForums now allow personal attacks to just fly back and forth? How uncivilized.
Anyway, rules are rules, and I didn't write them as this is not 'my site'. I do enjoy reading your posts though and I suggest you try using the 'report' button to alert Admin that you've been attacked.

JM

No, they don't. Nor do they censor posts in the way that this site does.

[jmenges]

But the rules of your site prevent people from responding to non-relevant attacks.

Oh, that's a shame. Does JtRForums now allow personal attacks to just fly back and forth? How uncivilized.
Anyway, rules are rules, and I didn't write them as this is not 'my site'. I do enjoy reading your posts though and I suggest you try using the 'report' button to alert Admin that you've been attacked.

JM

[Abby Normal]

Not quite an anagram of 'I did' but we all know what you mean. Good to get it off your chest I imagine.

If you read the reason why I edited you’ll get the real answer.

And yes, I’m done with you.

[MrBarnett]

deleted.

Not quite an anagram of 'I did' but we all know what you mean. Good to get it off your chest I imagine.

[Abby Normal]

deleted.

[MrBarnett]

Hey Muppet

I didn’t say David accused you of cowardice. I said you cowardly refuse to engage him on the substance of his article.

Oh and gee is that quotation marks I see around the word your attributing to me??LOL!!! So you are not only misrepresenting what I said, but also misquoting me?!? And all in just one sentence! Congrats!!!

THis coming from someone who just accused me of misrepresenting and misquoting someone. Not only that you also accused me off being hypocritical!!! Who’s the misquoting misrepresenting hypocrite now?



You really aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

Oh dear. ??LOL!!!! etc...

By the way, did you misrepresent Gareth or not?

I think you did.

[Abby Normal]

David,

I've been searching for your accusation of my 'cowardice', as reported by Abby Normal. Can you point me in the right direction?

Gary

Hey Muppet

I didn’t say David accused you of cowardice. I said you cowardly refuse to engage him on the substance of his article.

Oh and gee is that quotation marks I see around the word your attributing to me??LOL!!! So you are not only misrepresenting what I said, but also misquoting me?!? And all in just one sentence! Congrats!!!

THis coming from someone who just falsely accused me of misrepresenting and misquoting someone. Not only that you also accused me off being hypocritical!!! Who’s the misquoting misrepresenting hypocrite now?

You really aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

[DirectorDave]

What we have here is a bunch of eminent people who through hubris thought they were too intelligent to be ripped off by a scouser pretending to be a scouser ripping people up.

It would be deliciously funny if it were not for the fact the Mike Barrett photo album has taken the field of ripperology down a rabbit hole for quarter of a century.

[MrBarnett]

I explain at length in the sub-article to which the main article links why I referred to that group of posters as muppets. I would say it was a perfectly apt description in the circumstances given the comical display of muppetry seen in the response on JTR Forums to my "one-off" post in this forum. I don't believe it can be fairly described as unpleasant and is certainly not absurd.

Your comment about my motives, on the other hand, Gary, was, indeed, unpleasant and absurd, as well as outrageous, and I note that you make no attempt to deny that or defend it.

The irony is that when Tom questioned your own motive in challenging his use of a hospital record, and suggested you were doing so because you were "jealous", I was one of the few people, if not the only person, to step forward and call him out on it. Because it's ridiculous to twist motivation in that way. It would have been equally ridiculous if Tom had accused you of trying to show how clever you were.

What I was doing was challenging Robert Smith's book and, in particular, his claim that he has conclusively established the provenance of the Diary. Perhaps you might want to start discussing that book, which is the subject of this thread, rather than amusing yourself with daft comments about me.

David,

I've been searching for your accusation of my 'cowardice', as reported by Abby Normal. Can you point me in the right direction?

Gary