Ripperologist 109

[Monty]

Ally,

My post was very much tongue in cheek.

However there is new info, from the very title infact.

Monty

[Ally]

The typos are purely an editorial matter and should be addressed to them.

But they get so snotty when I do that.

Ally,

Of course, you failed to pick upon the startling new revelation, in this rehashed and padded edition, that has never been published anywhere else before.

Stiil, when one is insistant on looking for minors (which are inexcusable), one can miss the majors.

Monty

It is entirely possible that somewhere in your article, there was a piece of information that I completely missed that cracked the case wide open. Of course, it could just be that you and I have vastly different definitions for "startling" and "revelation". There was lots of new information in it that I did not previously know. New doesn't mean startling, nor does it equal a major revelation.

But again, I am always happy to be educated on my errors. It's what differentiates me from the droolers of the world who go around saying that just doing anything is sufficient and worthy of praise so therefore mistakes shouldn't be pointed out.

Care to enlighten me further? I have read your article a couple of times now and just failed to exclaim at the revelatory nature of anything in it, but I fully accept that might be due more to my own ignorance than the contents. How about a little hint even? A page number?

[Nurse Sarah]

True Ally, people do pay for the magazine, but I still hold firm to the fact it took me back to my own school report days, though I was no 'average' student; and anyone who has the balls to write for a public audience should be applauded rather than knocked.

[Monty]

Ally,

Many thanks for that.

The typos are purely an editorial matter and should be addressed to them.

Of course, you failed to pick upon the startling new revelation, in this rehashed and padded edition, that has never been published anywhere else before.

Stiil, when one is insistant on looking for minors (which are inexcusable), one can miss the majors.

Monty

[Ally]

It's an article published in a magazine that people spend their hard earned cash on. It oughta be damn well better than your average pupil's homework.

[Nurse Sarah]

That was like reading a report on a pupil's homework!

Ally, will you be giving it a mark out of ten? You must be used to doing that, being a teacher of course.

[Ally]

Well Monty my love, because of the special adoration I hold for both you and Clackster (who frankly I love twice as much as you, don't cry); I decided to put a rush job on your review. I hope that my grammar and thought processes don't suffer too much from my rushing to make deadline.

Here it goes:

My recommendation to you is to always request that your article be mashed in with the lunatic fringe and the recycled pap, because amongst such dreck, your article shines like a diamond tossed on a dung heap. I enjoyed it.

Now because it would not be me if I just let it go with praise, here's my complaints:

P.53 last paragraph: "While we do not know the reason he moved away from his parents, we might speculate that it might have been because of family death, disputes, work or the simple need to move into a less crowded home."

There are no details of the family mentioned in the article that lend credence to this speculation. Without a suitable foundation, you might as well have speculated that he left the family to become a transvestite and dance the hurdy gurdy in a traveling fair. No speculations without adequate foundations, thank you.


p. 60. typo: raised to 3rd pay rate of 32 shillings, then raised to second pay grade of....32 shillings. Hardly a raise, eh?

There were a couple of other bits and bobs, but those were the only ones that niggled, so well done.

What I most enjoyed about this is the long list of minor transgressions that this officer was found to have had, including dereliction of duty and lingering when he ought to be walking his beat.

So much is made of the times PCs had to keep and this is used to argue so much in regards to when the victims were killed and the window in which the killer would have had to do it, all based on the idea that the PCs were machines and kept the beat accordingly. With this PC, clearly involved in the case and having been reprimanded several times for loitering, we can see this is clearly not the case.

People are the sum of their flaws and any theory that hinges on what a person was supposed to have done is always bound to fail.

[Monty]

Always am with you Ally...I find it is worth it.

Monty

[Ally]

I've been reading it. I am wondering at the two big articles from the editors that are not new, but are in fact conference speeches that are recycled. I haven't gotten to your and Clacky's yet, and I am reserving a space all on it's own for Simon Wood's article...ooh that one is going to be fun. There are four articles. Two are conferences speeches, not new. I am wondering about this.

But yes, in fact I am reading it. So just because I haven't shredded your article yet, don't worry, I don't plan to leave you out, your turn is coming you just happened to fall behind the two conference articles and Simon..and well Simon's article needs like a whole 3 days to properly settle because conspiracy nuts make me nuts. Your turn is coming, be patient.

[Monty]

Padded articles from editors and recycled material?

Hi Ally,

Have you read this issue?

Monty

[Ally]

I am retracting my kudos. I strolled over to the Ripper Conference website to find out what the next speeches might be, I had some notion that the reason Paul and Chris's were the first and only ones included was that they were doing it in the order of the speeches given at the conference, which would have made sense, so I decided to see what would be appearing next.

I found instead that the entire conference is already out and available on DVD; the first time that's happened (although in the past there's been DVD plans, they never seemed to come about). With the availability of a DVD, so that people who want to see it the first or the second time can, and other people who don't want to sit through it again don't have to, I don't understand the inclusion of Paul and Chris' conference speeches in the issue of Rip.

This now smacks less of a service to people who didn't attend the conference and more of padding the issue. Now hearken back people to another time and another magazine where issues suddenly started getting padded with articles from its editors and recycled material rather than new contributions and ponder its fate.

I truly hope that's not the case here but I cannot for the life of me figure out why there would be two conference speeches, only from the editors of the magazine, when there is already a DVD out, unless it was padding. And that's not worthy of kudos.

[Ally]

Since I am taking the piss out of the editorial team over on another thread, I thought I'd take a moment to give kudos on this one. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Ripperologist is going to reprint all of the speeches from the recent conference. For those of us who missed it, it's nice to have access to the information we missed. Although I am sure the attendees might grumble a bit, it's invaluable to those of us who were not able to attend.

While as a personal choice, I probably would not have started off the series with the speeches of the two magazine editors as that might open it up to calls of bias, or I would have made one conference edition with all the speeches, this is a niggling complaint and I look forward to reading the rest of the speeches as they appear.