Casebook Examiner Number 5

[mariab]

Care to be more specific about these offenders, Dave? (Just kidding. I wouldn't want to initiate a new conflict here on casebook. On second thoughts...it could end up being entertaining, as usual.) With many apologies to Don Souden for initiating a conflict in this thread.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave. Frankly, I don't see why you'd become a target for insult as you're not a bad writer and you correctly used the word 'impetus' in a sentence, which here in the states would place you in the top 10% linguistically!

When my article came out, the only person to give me a hard critique on my spelling was Caz, and Don hired her on immediately as an editor, because he figured she must be amazing to have found any flaws in my writing. Another smart move by Don, in my opinion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[protohistorian]

Not me personally Tom, like I said I could care less. When it comes to drawing in new research oriented people this corrosive attitude should be born in mind. We have already seen 'seasoned' Ripper researchers leave this environment because of the toxic atmosphere, how much more so when it comes to new people? There have been threads announcing people leaving because they are not comfortable here. How much more evidence is required before the community realizes that they face a choice between form and function? I, me personally, find the vitriol amusing as it usually amounts to the pot calling the kettle black or the blind leading the blind, but to new people, I can imagine it is not amusing, and not worth the effort to fight. I would like to see a much broader base of new people doing research and expanding the understanding, but this cannot happen in the environment that now exists. Since the nature of historical study is that material vanishes over time, what we have here is a community that would rather act five than expend the minimal effort needed to salvage what we can. On that note, expecting someone to know the entire corpus of Ripper material before they share is ridiculous and ignorant. Any historian will tell you that dealing with redundancy is an a given. To ridicule a redundancy is as delusional as a historian can be. It is far easier to disregard the redundant than to replace the lost. This issue is particularly acute as the easy work in Ripper studies has been done and the larger understandings have been neglected in favor of the hope that the Ripper will fall out of someones arse. Even the most inept cop of the day did not expect that sitting behind his desk and hurling bullshite criticism was an effective method of case advancement! Dave

[mariab]

Protohistorian wrote:
To ridicule a redundancy is as delusional as a historian can be.
I've witnessed some fair amount of ridiculing on casebook (justified or not), but redundancy is an issue which has not been addressed very often. Despite it constituting a very definite trait of the threads.

[Supe]

Tom and anyone else,

No one can question Chris Scott's status as a researcher par excellence in this field, so who cares if the guy isn't a writer?

I must come to Chris' defense here. A few years ago I edited an article he did for Rip and I was quite pleased with it. Enough so that i wrote him personally, using words like "erudite" and 'urbane" to describe his writing style and suggesting he write more articles.

That assessment still stands, though of course now i would hope that any further articles he might write would be directed to Examiner.

As for myself, i most enjoy writing, fictional and factual, followed by editing and research last on my list. That may be conditioned, to a great extent, by my having paid "dues" years ago by wading through 17th C wills and deeds for my doctoral work. As it is, the one negative to the Examiner so far is not having enough time to write--either more novels or just further JtR studies--as much as I would like.

Anyway, I repeat (despite certain denials) let us not get too rancorous.

Don.

[protohistorian]

I am now drinking vinegar to spite Supe! That is so I will be full of piss AND vinegar! Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave and Maria. It's easy to criticize the long-time posters, but I think if the newbies would take the time to actually READ through the site and check out some books before posting endlessly or creating a bunch of threads, they'd find a much warmer reaction from everyone. As it is right now, I don't think we really have any bullies posting on the Casebook, except of course for Robert Charles Linford.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom,
I've never been (seriously) criticized myself, nor have I started any new threads. (Although God knows I've highjacked enough threads in my short tenure on casebook!) I was referring to something else, but it's alright (written together, for the obsessed with editing).
Tom Wescott wrote:
but I think if the newbies would take the time to actually READ through the site
I did this and (a bit of) redundancy was established.

Protohistorian wrote:
I am now drinking vinegar to spite Supe!
Fits with the cockroaches you were mentioning eating in your last signature, Dave.

[Tom_Wescott]

My post was mainly to Dave, Maria.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Kelly

Hello Don.

"I must come to Chris' defense here. A few years ago I edited an article he did for Rip and I was quite pleased with it. Enough so that i wrote him personally, using words like "erudite" and 'urbane" to describe his writing style and suggesting he write more articles."

Right. And let's not forget his excellent book on Mary Kelly. that book is one of a very few that was so logically unbiased as actually to change my mind about some aspect of the Kelly case.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

To Tom Wescott wrote:
My post was mainly to Dave, Maria.
I know, sorry to have interfered.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just so there's no confusion, there isn't a bigger Chris Scott fan than myself. I'm merely referring to his writing prior to editing. I think we can all be grateful not only that Chris researches as he does, but that he makes the effort to publish his research not only through Rip, but through his own publications.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Back story?

One wonders.

Monty

[Supe]

Monty,

One wonders.

Even as an entire nation wonders . . . Michael Beers?

Don.

[Garza]

Looking forward to corey's pyscho analysis of the Ripper, something that I have alot of interest in myself.

Also if Tom's article is like the previous ones he is has written we are in for a real treat. Wescott is fast becoming my favourite ripper writer/researcher, approaches his research with sound logic in my humble opinion.