Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    It's amazing how many people feel compelled to argue something fervently and endlessly when they openly admit they haven't read or educated themselves beyond the limits of their entrenched opinion.
    Yes, and who don't even understand what that means as far as their opinions are concerned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    It's amazing how many people feel compelled to argue something fervently and endlessly when they openly admit they haven't read or educated themselves beyond the limits of their entrenched opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post


    When Harry writes "you can discuss the topic Debra" I am of course more caught up on the condescension and hoping Debra responds with, "Oh do I have your permission? Thanks so much cupcake, now go make me a cup of tea". I mean he totally ignored that her point was she'd already brought up this issue and he dodged it, as is his wont, while continuing to dodge any actual or valid response.

    But your point is valid too.
    I am so used to Harry dodging things, it often slips past unnoticed now. And as you know, Debs is more than capable of telling "Cupcake" where he can insert his permission. Overall, though, Harry probably hasn't the faintest idea what Debs is talking about. He hasn't read The Five, so doesn't know what Rubenhold's argument is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    When Harry writes, "You can discuss the topic Debra.

    When Harry writes "you can discuss the topic Debra" I am of course more caught up on the condescension and hoping Debra responds with, "Oh do I have your permission? Thanks so much cupcake, now go make me a cup of tea". I mean he totally ignored that her point was she'd already brought up this issue and he dodged it, as is his wont, while continuing to dodge any actual or valid response.

    But your point is valid too.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post

    Yes, respect should be shown to them, and it's completely disrespectful to lie about who they were and how they had to survive, because you place your antiquated ideas about morality above the actual reality of their lives. You cheapen them and their memory by whitewashing their experience because you can't accept them for who they were, and what they did.


    But you know this, and you keep arguing stupidity and stupidly because you can't just admit that you're wrong, and this entire argument is sexism at its worst. Because it's the type of sexism that pretends it's virtue and it's not. It's the kind of sexism that treats women as something other than people, because you think you're "being nice" and you are in fact being dismissive, and demeaning.

    This is where if I were a sexist, I'd say "oh well, you're an idiot, but at least you're pretty" and then be bewildered when you didn't think it was a compliment.
    When Harry writes, "You can discuss the topic Debra. How does it impact on the five victims. Remember they were real women, and respect should be shown them", the point Harry is studiously avoiding is that WE are not saying the five were prostitutes. The police of 1888 said that. WE don't have to prove anything. The police of 1888 do. But they're prevented from doing that by the little matter of being dead. So, what we do is look at the evidence that's come down to us to see if there is anything that corroborates what the police said, and there is, there's stuff like what William Nichols or the fellow lodgers said. We also look for evidence that contradicts what the police said, but I'm not aware of any. Rubenhold's case is that there is no evidence that they were prostitutes, but there is evidence, she just ignored it. If Harry wants to challenge our conclusion, he can - with evidence, not silly arguments and degenerating into insults. But you know this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    You can discuss the topic Debra.How does it impact on the five victims.Remember they were real women,and respect should be shown them.
    Yes, respect should be shown to them, and it's completely disrespectful to lie about who they were and how they had to survive, because you place your antiquated ideas about morality above the actual reality of their lives. You cheapen them and their memory by whitewashing their experience because you can't accept them for who they were, and what they did.


    But you know this, and you keep arguing stupidity and stupidly because you can't just admit that you're wrong, and this entire argument is sexism at its worst. Because it's the type of sexism that pretends it's virtue and it's not. It's the kind of sexism that treats women as something other than people, because you think you're "being nice" and you are in fact being dismissive, and demeaning.

    This is where if I were a sexist, I'd say "oh well, you're an idiot, but at least you're pretty" and then be bewildered when you didn't think it was a compliment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    You can discuss the topic Debra.How does it impact on the five victims.Remember they were real women,and respect should be shown them.
    As I thought. You are making a misguided moral judgment, like The Baron. If the evidence points to these women engaging in prostitution, and it does (unless you are intentionally blind) it is not disrespectful to mention it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    I have no issues with anyone Herlock,experts included,but neither am I overawed by them.They haven't solved the case.I look around the internet Herlock and find there are untold numbers that do agree with my view .Ask Rubenhold and her supporters.I look around these boards and notice only a small group expressing dissaproval.I'm satisfied.
    Proof.Evidence that reveals the truth.That is all I am asking for Herlock.In this case evidence that the JTR victims were prostitutes,soliciting the day they were killed.
    Don't you want the truth Herlock?Do you know the truth?
    If there is no point in discussing it with me,why do you persist.You say unfortunate was an euphemism for prostitute.Every unfortunate?Where outside of your claim,is that stated?
    Why do you cite Trevor,in particular.what is it about him that makes his claims more valued than mine.
    You see your fault Herlock.So many claims ,with nohing to support those claims.
    You are the one that is ducking and diving,and by your latest rants,losing the plot.
    Is what Dedra said ,evidence that the five victims were prostitutes?Please do inform us,I'm all agog.
    I eagerly await your next load of rubbish.
    Ok. Let’s try and simplify.

    Do you accept that you made this post?

    Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
    How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
    I'm waiting Herlock
    And do you accept….

    a) that you (Harry) accuse me (just to be clear - Herlock Sholmes) of lying and of misinformation?

    and

    b) that you (Harry) challenged me (Herlock Sholmes) to prove that you (Harry) had said that ‘unfortunate’ didn’t specifically mean ‘prostitute?

    That couldn’t be clearer. I can’t wait to see how you wriggle past this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    You can discuss the topic Debra.How does it impact on the five victims.Remember they were real women,and respect should be shown them.
    Harry, in my view, exploring what the term 'unfortunate' actually meant to both the women described as such, and to the authorities of the era, is important when trying to determine if Rubenhold's conclusions about misogyny, and it's impact on how the crimes were investigated/reported are correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    You can discuss the topic Debra.How does it impact on the five victims.Remember they were real women,and respect should be shown them.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    I have no issues with anyone Herlock,experts included,but neither am I overawed by them.They haven't solved the case.I look around the internet Herlock and find there are untold numbers that do agree with my view .Ask Rubenhold and her supporters.I look around these boards and notice only a small group expressing dissaproval.I'm satisfied.
    Proof.Evidence that reveals the truth.That is all I am asking for Herlock.In this case evidence that the JTR victims were prostitutes,soliciting the day they were killed.
    Don't you want the truth Herlock?Do you know the truth?
    If there is no point in discussing it with me,why do you persist.You say unfortunate was an euphemism for prostitute.Every unfortunate?Where outside of your claim,is that stated?
    Why do you cite Trevor,in particular.what is it about him that makes his claims more valued than mine.
    You see your fault Herlock.So many claims ,with nohing to support those claims.
    You are the one that is ducking and diving,and by your latest rants,losing the plot.
    Is what Dedra said ,evidence that the five victims were prostitutes?Please do inform us,I'm all agog.
    I eagerly await your next load of rubbish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The only thing that’s clear Harry is that you are allergic to evidence. I provided one example which showed the point and Debra added how it was a regular thing for women at Inquests and court proceedings to call themselves ‘unfortunate.’ This was an accepted euphemism for prostitute. Just because you don’t like that doesn’t change the fact. But if you wish to go on with the ludicrous notion that those women were just commenting on their bad luck then your welcome to your delusion.
    I had in fact already commented on the subject of 'unfortunate' as prostitute in post #334, quoting Harry's post about not all unfortunates engaging in prostitution. I assumed Harry wasn't as interested in discussing the topic as me.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    I have read the above Herlock,and I see no reason for an appolgy.Unfortunates were not neccessaily prostitues because they were unfortunates.Fact.You have been answered.
    Now back to my question,which you are avoiding with your distractions.Do you have evidence the victims were prostitutes,or do you merely suspect they were?
    The worst thing you can do Herlock is keep relying on Paul.It shows lack of confidence in yourself,as well as showing poor judgement.
    I chose you ahead of Trevor and Paul for a one on one discussion, because I am of the opinion you would be more honest,and because I felt you had a better knowledge of the subject.Do'nt let posters down.
    So do not give up hope,just choose better advisors.
    Talk about espionage being a wilderness of mirrors; if the security services want to generate real confusion they should recruit Harry. Maybe they did! Trying to unpack what Harry says is an art in itself.

    Harry accused Herlock of lying and spreading misinformation. Herlock rightly and understandably objected to that and demanded an apology. Harry has refused, claiming that he has said nothing for which he should apologise. In this situation, Harry having made the accusation, the onus is on him to prove that Herlock has lied and spread misinformation. Harry has not done that.

    Harry accused Herlock of lying and spreading misinformation when Herlock said that Harry had said that an unfortunate did NOT always mean prostitute. Harry demand that Herlock show where Harry had said this, then went on with the accusation of lying. Herlock showed where Harry had said it and asked for an apology. Harry claims he has nothing to apologise for because, as he expressed it, 'Unfortunates were not neccessaily prostitutes because they were unfortunates. Fact.' What Harry means by that sentence isn't entirely clear, but Harry seems to be defending his statement that 'an unfortunate' didn't always mean prostitute.

    So, here's Harry, upset and calling Herlock a liar, because Herlock said Harry had said something which Harry had indeed said and which Harry believed!

    Is that normal?

    Is it more likely that Harry knew 'an unfortunate' meant a prostitute and, outraged that Herlock had accused him of saying differently, accused Herlock of being a liar and demanded that Herlock show him where he'd said it? When Herlock showed him, Harry switched horses midstream and has started arguing that 'an unfortunate' didn't always mean a prostitute.

    Harry misses the point that he'd called Herlock a liar because Herlock had attributed to him something he didn't say and challenged him to show where Harry had said it. And that Herlock had responded to the challenge and shown him. That's what Harry should apologise for. If he won't, or if he won't show where Herlock has lied and spread misinformation, he should retire from Casebook.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    I have read the above Herlock,and I see no reason for an appolgy.Unfortunates were not neccessaily prostitues because they were unfortunates.Fact.You have been answered.
    Now back to my question,which you are avoiding with your distractions.Do you have evidence the victims were prostitutes,or do you merely suspect they were?
    The worst thing you can do Herlock is keep relying on Paul.It shows lack of confidence in yourself,as well as showing poor judgement.
    I chose you ahead of Trevor and Paul for a one on one discussion, because I am of the opinion you would be more honest,and because I felt you had a better knowledge of the subject.Do'nt let posters down.
    So do not give up hope,just choose better advisors.
    You obviously have some kind of issue with Paul. The only one showing poor judgment Harry is you. In fact I’d say a complete lack of judgment. I rely on no one but you seem to have the arrogant view that it’s somehow belittling to agree with a man who is considered one of the foremost experts on the case in the world.

    The ‘argument’ was won ages ago Harry because it only existed in the minds of 2 people bloody-minded posters who’s egos wouldn’t let them admit that they are wrong. Perhaps you should look around you Harry and realise that no one is agreeing with you. Why is that? Even The Baron has scarpered. You appear to respect Trevor’s opinion….yet he knows that you’re wrong too and has told you so.

    There’s no point discussing this with you Harry. You just keep ducking and diving. It’s disappointed that you’ve taken this approach but if that’s how you debate then there’s simply no point.



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    I have read the above Herlock,and I see no reason for an appolgy.Unfortunates were not neccessaily prostitues because they were unfortunates.Fact..
    The only thing that’s clear Harry is that you are allergic to evidence. I provided one example which showed the point and Debra added how it was a regular thing for women at Inquests and court proceedings to call themselves ‘unfortunate.’ This was an accepted euphemism for prostitute. Just because you don’t like that doesn’t change the fact. But if you wish to go on with the ludicrous notion that those women were just commenting on their bad luck then your welcome to your delusion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X