Casebook Examiner Number 5

[corey123]

I also look foward to Toms article, as I have enjoyed all of them so far. Yes, I agree, we should be in for a treat.Also, the article on Hutchinson seesm to be very interesting as well, seems to be a very interesting issue.

[caz]

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

Blimey Tom, how much longer are you going to be sporting your bruises over this small thing? I'd wear sackcloth and ashes for you if I thought they would suit me.

You describe the teeniest weeniest bit of leg-pulling over one silly spelling mistake as a 'hard critique' (ah, poor boy), while conveniently forgetting all the positive or constructive comments I made about your article and the research that went into it. So if mountains are being made out of molehills here, it ain't my doing. Strap a pair on or keep reminding people every other month that Caz once gave you a hard time.

Hi Dave,

I'm shocked and saddened to hear that you of all people have been given a hard time by anyone in this field for the work you have produced. I'm not asking for names, although I'm quite curious. As you know, I have very much admired your research and your pluck in pointing out a few longstanding myths about life and crime in the East End in the 1880s. Your article in the Examiner was excellent and gave me a very easy time. So if you want me to punch anyone on the nose for you, just let me know.

Incidentally, everyone will be relieved to hear that I could not help with the editing of Number 5 due to other commitments, personal and professional. Despite what some people seem to think, it is a very tiring and time-consuming exercise, and an absolutely essential one to handle with care, and I admire Don and his team no end for having taken on a project like this. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to lighten their load more.

I'm sure this one will be a cracker, and I'll be enjoying the freedom to sit back and absorb the fruits of other people's labours.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I think you may have put a spell on Tom, Caz ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Caz wrote:
You describe the teeniest weeniest bit of leg-pulling over one silly spelling mistake as a 'hard critique' (ah, poor boy), while conveniently forgetting all the positive or constructive comments I made about your article and the research that went into it.
Actually I vividly recall post #375 from the Casebook Examiner 2 thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott
This is a thread for the latest Casebook Examiner. Do you have it? Have you read my essay? Caz certainly hasn't, yet feels compelled to critique.
Caz wrote:
Yeah, I have to hold my hand up there Tom. I just saw your ‘stationary shop’ and various other howlers and laughed so hard my eyeballs fell out and I was unable to read the essay itself.

[caz]

Indeed, Maria. But why stir the pot?

When someone like Tom brings my name up and says something untrue because he can't take a little 'critique', I am quite likely to respond with a little heavy sarcasm at their expense. I'm sure he knows this by now, after a decade of posting.

You didn't really think my eyeballs fell out, or that Tom was right and I didn't read his essay - did you?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I just checked that post, Maria, and it's a shame you didn't 'vividly recall' for your readers my very next words, which were:

Seriously though...

Context can be rather crucial, don't you agree?

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz wrote:
You didn't really think my eyeballs fell out, or that Tom was right and I didn't read his essay - did you?
I seem to recall that at a much later point you ended up reading the article in question. But the point I'm trying to make does not pertain to the article in question or to “Tom being right“ (quoting you from above). This pertains directly to a specific approach to Ripperological publications as very accurately addressed by Dave in his posts #4 and #15 on this thread:
Protohistorian wrote:
Protohistorian wrote:
I can't wait for another rousing grammar and spelling debate! Screw those researchers, spelling and grammar are more important than factual content and research!

[caz]

"I seem to recall that at a much later point you ended up reading the article in question."

How would you know when I read it, Maria??

I read the whole thing - most carefully - before I posted a word about its content. Tom was just being contrary when he said I 'certainly' hadn't read it when we were all discussing his article. I can assure you I'm not psychic or in the habit of expressing an opinion on articles I have yet to read!

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz wrote:
"I seem to recall that at a much later point you ended up reading the article in question."
How would you know when I read it, Maria??
Caz, most obviously it's not my job nor do I have time or interest to monitor whenever anyone in casebook reads their Rip lit. I just happen to recall that your comments on the Le Grant hypothesis initially (as documented in the Examiner 2 and Examiner 3 threads) demonstrated that you haven't read the recent articles about recent research on this matter, while at some point during the more recent Dear Boss thread your comments illustrate that you finally got the time to sit down and read the Examiner 2 article.
I'm only using this specific article as an example because it happened in front of my eyes and it perfectly illustrates a tendency by some to concentrate on grammar more than on matter in Ripperological publications. Had I joined casebook a little bit earlier or later, no doubt I would have chosen another example.

[caz]

Hi Maria,

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4663&page=17

See posts #168-186. You posted immediately after this - 188 - so I'm surprised to see your chronology concerning my reading and responding to Tom's article so badly wrong.

And actually, you will also find from reading those posts again that in no way did I 'concentrate' on Tom's 'grammar' rather than the content of his article. It shows you how the memory can play tricks. What actually happened in front of your eyes was that Tom raised the issue of typos etc on that thread and made a big deal out of it, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz wrote:
Hi Maria,
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4663&page=17
See posts #168-186. You posted immediately after this - 188 - so I'm surprised to see your chronology concerning my reading and responding to Tom's article so badly wrong.
Yes, I remember this part of the thread very well. It was my first month on casebook. I don't see what I'm supposed to “have gotten wrong" in there, and again, repeating myself, I'm not commenting on when anyone decides or finds the time to read the articles in the Rip mags they subscribe to. I'm commenting on the grammar vs. content thing.

[caz]

Maria,

You partially quote me from #375 of the Examiner Number 2 thread, and 'seem to recall' that I didn't actually read 'the article in question' until 'a much later point'. You got it wrong. Very wrong.

From a quick read of posts #168-186 in that same thread it should be obvious to anyone that I had read 'the article in question' by that point and was commenting directly on its content. Tom was the one who raised the subject of a typo which he hadn't even made and I was certainly not discussing.

I have looked at the Dear Boss thread and cannot see a single comment of mine that illustrates that I 'finally got the time to sit down and read' the article. I have no idea what you are on about but I do not appreciate this distortion of my position and the time it has taken me to defend myself. It's unfair and you should check more carefully before posting.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz,
the Examiner 3 thread and the last pages of the Dear Boss thread show you discussing details from the research conducted on Le Grand for the very first time, and before that, in the Examiner 3 thread, asking the author of the article in question about where he wrote which specific part in the article in question.
I would suggest that you not take this personally as it most definitely was not intended in any such fashion, but I consider a comment like below, even in jest, unacceptable for scholarship (which Ripperology most certain is or should be).
Quote:
I just saw your ‘stationary shop’ and various other howlers and laughed so hard my eyeballs fell out and I was unable to read the essay itself.
I completely understand your concerns about orthography and I agree that grammar and orthography are very important, but they must come as third – after content (which pertains also to research results) and form (which includes style and grammar).

[caz]

Maria,

How could I have been discussing details for 'the very first time' on the two threads you mention, when I had been discussing details on the earlier Examiner 2 thread?

Once again, I have said far, far more about the content of Tom's article than about his language skills. He is the one who keeps bringing the subject up, when he must know (from all his Examiner work, as published) that there is very little wrong with his English.

I've already tried to explain my 'eyeballs' comment, which was in direct response to a silly, obviously false accusation by Tom that I 'certainly' hadn't read his article, when I most certainly had. (Clue: how else do you think I knew about his 'stationary shop'? )

You can consider whatever you like as 'unacceptable for scholarship'. Tom and I were exchanging sarcastic quips on a message board at the time, so I wasn't overly concerned about trying to impress anyone with a scholarship I have never claimed to possess.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz,
I meant “scholarship“ in the sense of historical/social research, not in any fancy, haughty fashion. Being strong in orthography is a very crucial skill for an editor, for which Examiner 4 most certainly benefitted from your contribution, and hopefully Examiner 6 and so on will keep benefitting.
Perhaps I'm wrong for having been rubbed the wrong way by your jesting comment, as I have to confess that I don't often post on internet boards besides casebook, and JTRForums, and the Paris Surf Club.
Now, don't you agree that we should drop this? It must be getting boring to death for all.
Have a nice afternoon, and I'll go back to vacuum cleaning this place.