10 Weeks in Whitechapel Audio Series

[Steadmund Brand]

Sample:

"Dear Boss. You can stick your job up your.... oh, ****! Sorry, Jon! OK, I'm ready now...

Dear Boss. Having a lovely time here in.... Crap! I've done it again! Deep breaths, deep breaths...

Dear Mudda, Dear Fadda...

aaaaargggggh!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Sorry Ally... I can so hear that "Dear Boss. Having a lovely time here in.... Crap! I've done it again! Deep breaths, deep breaths..."

Steadmund Brand

[Joshua Rogan]

Dear Mudda, Dear Fadda...

Wow, was that an Allan Sherman reference?

[Sam Flynn]

I am still dying to hear those outtakes!!!

Sample:

"Dear Boss. You can stick your job up your.... oh, ****! Sorry, Jon! OK, I'm ready now...

Dear Boss. Having a lovely time here in.... Crap! I've done it again! Deep breaths, deep breaths...

Dear Mudda, Dear Fadda...

aaaaargggggh!"

[Steadmund Brand]

I am still dying to hear those outtakes!!!

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

I really think he should have let Jack be a redneck. I mean those were some works of linguistic art.

[Steadmund Brand]

OH one thing is for sure.... the Ripper Letters casting was so bad.... until we hear the directors cut with the drawl

I for one thought it was a great series on the topic from the view of a newbie...as I said... if I was new and heard this it would inspire me to go read as much as I could....the same way Barlow and Watt, and the Michael Caine movie made me go out and read all I could....talk about things being filled with inaccuracies... yet... it made me want to learn....I fell this blog and now podcast could be this new generation of Ripperologists starting point and I applaud it

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

I am posting this under Ally, instead of the Admin account because I want it to be abundantly clear that it is a person with ovaries typing this response. It is a blend of both a personal response and an Administrative response, so take it as such.

I find it especially ironic that Helena is having a high-dudgeon rant about the facts being the only thing that matters considering she once called me racist for pointing out that a meme she was posting regarding the Iraq war was factually inaccurate and she accused me of “not caring when brown people died” and told me that it was the spirit that mattered, not the actual facts. So please forgive me if I am rolling my eyes slightly at her outrage over the facts that are important to *her* being overlooked and the fit she is currently throwing over the importance of facts in a podcast that took pains to state it was what it was. (That’s the personal response).

Here’s the official:
Jonathan, don’t call people ******* crazy. Even if they have provoked you and accused you of libelous, vile things.

Helena, do not ever, ever again call anyone on this forum racist or sexist. You have lost that right. Every single author who has ever written a book on Jack the Ripper has had a contribution overlooked by someone, has had some piece of researched ignored, and some research that they have done dismissed by someone in another work. Most of them are able to point out the omission without resorting to libelous name-calling. You are not special in the fact of having some contribution of yours overlooked. It has happened to literally everyone who has ever published. You are not special and it has nothing to do with you being a woman. Not everyone in the world is going to read your book. It is an absolute cop-out to assume that sexism had anything to do with this omission. Your hysterical ranting is an insult to MY gender. So again: do not ever call anyone on this forum sexist. As a woman, your pulling that card in any situation where you are being argued with is an insult to women who actually are experiencing sexism. There is actual sexism that exists in this field. You don’t get to cheapen the real issues by imagining slurs and calling every man who disagrees with you a sexist. Karl didn’t read your book. The podcast didn’t include your research. You had the right to point that out. You didn’t have the right to call a man a sexist because they didn’t give you the honor you feel you deserve. I am sure there’s other suspect research that got overlooked in the podcast. I’m sure it’s happened in other podcasts and it will happen in others to come. I believe in the facts. I am the first person to call people out when the facts don't align, even on podcasts I have appeared on (Tumblety, hello). I have called Jonathan out when I felt something was misrepresented. I have no problem with facts being established and when something is wrong, having the record set straight. I relish setting the record straight. If Jonathan had ever displayed the slightest hint of sexism in his dealings with me, I would not work with him, as I refuse to work with people I do believe are sexist and actively boycott and ban certain industries in this field that I feel are run by misogynists. You calling him a sexist is an insult to me, who wouldn't work with him if I felt he was in anyway sexist. People are going to overlook your research again. There are more than 400 books currently published on Jack the Ripper. Not everyone's going to read every single one. Shocking, but true. If you can't accept that, without going on a rant, and can't deal with it in a professional, respectful manner, don't post here.


The topic of Chapman is closed on this thread. People are welcome to comment on anything regarding 10 Weeks, except Chapman.

As for my comments on 10 Weeks, I have yet to listen to it. Currently on the road trip where I plan to listen to it, and so far, as the rules are whomever is driving gets to control the podcast listening, and as I haven't yet driven, I haven't gotten a chance to hear it. I will be sure to comment brutally on all the horrendousness starting tomorrow. I heard the ripper letters are especially horrible. Terrible casting that.

[John G]

I haven't sworn at you. I haven't called you names. I didn't print lies because I had no idea about you or your book. I won't be reading your book because I'm not a massive fan about being publically attacked for being an amateur.

I have nothing to explain so I'm opting out. Happy to close my account here too if that helps. I'll just walk my own Ripper path.

I second what Steve has said. Please don't leave the sure over this. And your perfectly entitled to voice your opinions, and of course you can't be expected to have read every book on the subject.

[Elamarna]

I haven't sworn at you. I haven't called you names. I didn't print lies because I had no idea about you or your book. I won't be reading your book because I'm not a massive fan about being publically attacked for being an amateur.

I have nothing to explain so I'm opting out. Happy to close my account here too if that helps. I'll just walk my own Ripper path.

karl,
sure there were mistakes, such was freely admitted was it not.

it was clear the series was aimed at those looking to get a grounding in the issues, its said several times in part 10.

so one Author is upset, it happens. don't leave the site over this please.


Steve

[jmenges]

Why would anyone now want to listen to any of your podcasts when you have publicly announced that:

accuracy doesn't matter

correct facts don't matter

getting names right doesn't matter

And that your attitude to authors and historians who think it does is that they can f___ off?

I'm signing off, disgusted at the "I don't-care-what-the-facts-are" attitude.

Of course I haven't announced any of those four things. I have repeatedly stated that we produced an audio show of a blog that the author himself admits in the introduction, and a few places elsewhere, might contain some errors. And those that accuse me of being a sexist can f-uck off.

Bye bye,

JM

[HelenaWojtczak]

Why would anyone now want to listen to any of your podcasts when you have publicly announced that:

accuracy doesn't matter

correct facts don't matter

getting names right doesn't matter

And that your attitude to authors and historians who think it does is that they can f___ off?

I'm signing off, disgusted at the "I don't-care-what-the-facts-are" attitude.

[jmenges]

To respond to this by swearing at me and calling me names, or saying "Right, I will now NEVER read your book -- so there"" is childish in the extreme.

You accused me of having a sexist prejudice, as you accuse everyone whom you feel has intentionally, personally slighted you when most of the time you're imagining things. Sometimes you accuse people of much worse. Its incredibly bizarre behavior. I'm through responding to you.

JM

[The Cenci]

I haven't sworn at you. I haven't called you names. I didn't print lies because I had no idea about you or your book. I won't be reading your book because I'm not a massive fan about being publically attacked for being an amateur.

I have nothing to explain so I'm opting out. Happy to close my account here too if that helps. I'll just walk my own Ripper path.

[John G]

So calling me "******* crazy" isn't slander, then? (PS I think you mean libel).

Do you call all the male historians "******* crazy" when they want the true facts and not lies to be podcasted?

Absolutely correct Helena. I remember tbis from my law degree days-seems like eons ago now. Slander is spoken, whereas libel is defamatory comments made in permanent form.

[HelenaWojtczak]

anyone who is a serious student of Chapman - and my audience were not - will have already have read your book.

So you are saying the podcast was for people who haven't read my book, and therefore would not know you were giving the wrong info? And that's OK because they don't know the facts?

I put a huge amount of work into researching Chapman's life and I think that gives me the right to point out when info is being broadcast that is incorrect.

To respond to this by swearing at me and calling me names, or saying "Right, I will now NEVER read your book -- so there"" is childish in the extreme.