Tweet
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.
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.
Comment