Ripperologist 113

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr. Roger Baynton,

You're a powerful and attractive man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

So Rog, I thought you didn't post on Casebook because it was so contentious and terrifying and had you trembling in a corner afraid to venture forth an opinion? This was supposedly your reason for posting your opinions on the DVD in the Rip, along with a two paragraph swipe at Casebook; ( and I am STILL trying to figure out precisely how Casebook comments are germane or belong in a review about a DVD), leading to yet a second article taking swipes at the Casebook appearing in the Rip because you all are too afraid to post your opinions where they can be challenged, and yet, apparently, despite you saying you wouldn't partake, here you are partaking.

So color me confused. By posting on the boards to defend what you said, you are basically wiping out all your alleged reasons published in the Rip about why the boards were such an awful place and you wouldn't post there. So what was the point of publishing it in the first place if you were just going to turn around and prove your ownself wrong?

[rbaynton]

Hi Folks, Oh dear here we go again

Thank you Tom for your helpful comment which takes us forward considerably.

Ally, Setting aside your slightly uncalled for sarcasm, you are of course quite correct. If I stuck to my principles I really shouldn’t post here. But to compound my villainy perhaps I may take up a modest smidgen of cyber space to explain, and forgive me if I repeat some stuff that I have said elsewhere, but people dip in and out who may not have had the inclination (and who can blame them for that!!) to follow the whole saga

I have an immense and long standing interest in the case. It is one of many interests so I am nowhere near being an expert

I am a big fan of Casebook. It is one of the few major sources of reliable and accessible info on the case. Stephen Ryder is an innovator in the field

I am a major user of message boards in other hobbies; they have the significant advantage over other media of immediacy

My view, and it is here that, I suspect, that we will begin to diverge, is that message board debate should be conducted politely and with respect. A minority, and a minority only, on the Casebook message boards obviously do not share that view As I said in the DVD piece “Healthy debate and disagreement is of course to be welcomed and, indeed inevitable in a field with as many ‘don’t knows’ as ripperology.”

Others disagree with this view (of politeness and respect), and that is fine. I was simply explaining why I bought the DVD in the first place i.e. as a sampler of other aspects of ripperology. I thought (as presumably did the editor) that people may be interested. You were not and that is fine too.

I still read the message boards. As I said the majority of posters are quite reasonable in their views and, at the end of the day I have a massive interest in the subject (that is why we are all here after all I hope). I saw my name in Mr Wescott’s typically succinct post (#22) and reacted. You are quite correct, if I had the courage of my convictions I shouldn’t have done so but, lets be honest, when you are accused of being “completely insincere” it is actually difficult not to

I suspect that most of the readers here are totally bored by all this. Personally I would rather let it rest there, I have my views about standards of debate and further exchanges here are not going to change them. However I am quite happy to continue this debate with either or both of you through the Casebook’s email system if you like. You never know you may even find that I am quite a nice person really and not like the mental picture you have at all.

Best wishes (honestly – I love a spat!) to all

So Rog, I thought you didn't post on Casebook because it was so contentious and terrifying and had you trembling in a corner afraid to venture forth an opinion? This was supposedly your reason for posting your opinions on the DVD in the Rip, along with a two paragraph swipe at Casebook; ( and I am STILL trying to figure out precisely how Casebook comments are germane or belong in a review about a DVD), leading to yet a second article taking swipes at the Casebook appearing in the Rip because you all are too afraid to post your opinions where they can be challenged, and yet, apparently, despite you saying you wouldn't partake, here you are partaking.

So color me confused. By posting on the boards to defend what you said, you are basically wiping out all your alleged reasons published in the Rip about why the boards were such an awful place and you wouldn't post there. So what was the point of publishing it in the first place if you were just going to turn around and prove your ownself wrong?

[tnb]

Roger,

This is not my battle but please allow me to add my tuppence worth to the 'debate'. If you choose not to reply that is of course your prerogative, but I would hope that you would at least be good enough to read what I have to say. Sometimes an 'outside' opinion can be useful.

Casebook, as you acknowledge - both in your original piece and now in your reply to Ally, IS an outstanding resource. Quite frankly, a whole lot of us would be quite literally lost without it. I can see where Ally is coming from asking whether what did scan a little like an attack was entirely necessary (especially to that length) in the conference DVD 'review', but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe it has ever been your intention to destroy the Casebook or its reputation. However I do believe the comments, when looked at in the context of what you are now saying, were a little misguided. Naive even.

I have to give voice to both sides of the coin here; and yes, the boards do have their issues. Sometimes certain debates, even including very eminent people, can end up being pretty unfriendly and, to be honest, quite embarrassing at times. In an article to be included in the London Job book, I wrote of this site 'now Casebook has had its criticisms; some of them are even valid'. You may find that a little sarcastic, but I would suggest that it is the closest you are likely to get to support on here.

However, in your original piece, did you say how, as you now state, you regularly visit Casebook, and even the boards, and rate Steven Ryder's work so highly? No. You said 'I could access fine resources like Stephen Ryder's Casebook site. I realised that I actually knew a fair bit about the case.' 22 words, which actually sound a little dismissive. You then spend two whole paragraphs detailing the horrors of Casebook, using words like 'aggressive,' ,abusive' and even 'violent'. At no point do you suggest you still frequent the site. Your opinion in your last 2 posts has come across as quite balanced - however this all important first impression was, you must admit, anything but.

Message boards, much like life, are what you make them. If you choose not to post, that is fine - there are probably hundreds of people who make the same decision, for all sorts of reasons. You can, of course, learn a great amount about the case, including new information almost every week, that way. There are others who very carefully pick and choose where they become involved. I myself have spoken to some respected people in the field who have become pretty disillusioned with the boards for precisely the same reasons as you. But what do they do? It is simple - they either pack up their metaphorical bags and go, to JTR forums or wherever, or they stay and grin and bear it, like I said perhaps with a little extra caution. None of them have felt the need to write into Ripperologist about it. This is where that naivety I mentioned comes in; at least, I hope that is what it was. Otherwise, you come to look a little passive-aggressive. When you came onto Casebook you were 'put...off' (your own words, Rip112). Did you address the issues by posting in whatever thread so offended you, seeing as you state - no sarcasm intended - that you are quite knowledgeable about the case? Did you attempt to wrestle the debates back on track? If you saw anything genuinely offensive, did you report it, via the procedures very clearly laid out on the first screen you see? No. You chose to withdraw from being an active participant, which is absolutely your choice, and like I said not an unusual tactic. However, you then, having made no attempt to raise your concerns with the people involved, either in the debates or in site management, decide to write a letter which seems - and only you can answer this Roger - to have been written with the first intention being to give vent to your feelings about Casebook and with a review of the DVD as something of an excuse.

You then turn up on the boards which, as Ally pointed out, you claim to have such an issue with, and respond as if personally wounded to the first comment about your letters. Could Tom have chosen his words better? Probably. But what did you really expect? Did you think you could write criticising a site and the people on it and no-one would take offence? People like Tom - right or wrong - and Ally have the right to defend themselves. As you did not see fit to give them that courtesy in the first place (before writing your first letter), this is the only recourse they have. It is interesting how you feel able to stand up to the ''bullying'' of Casebook now that you have seen your words in print. As I say, I hope it is merely naivety.

Like you Roger I am a member of other messageboards too, although perhaps not as many as yourself. And to be honest with you, unless your other memberships are to 'saintly.com', I find it hard to believe that the level of arguments you are so offended by on Casebook are any worse than you see on others. I apologise if that is an unfair opinion, but may I suggest you widen your research a little if it really is the case. In fact, pop along to a West Ham United messageboard at the minute if you want to see real anger and frustration. You may just come to see Casebook in a slightly rosier light.

Of course, the difference with Casebook is that it is, and should always be, first and foremost a scholarly resource. Debate should be held to the highest standards - more so than arguing about the managerial qualities of Gianfranco Zola or the advantages of a digital SLR, or the best spots for fly fishing, or whatever. To that end, I actually believe the moderation on here to be pretty strict - and so it should be. Ally and myself, if fact, were involved in a debate a while back about how high we should set the bar for spelling, grammar etc, compared to more 'social' internet conventions. Now, this may be a stick-in-the-mud English graduate talking, but I believe that respect for language is akin to respect for the subject of your conversation and the person you are speaking to. That is important precisely because of the nature of the debates we have. Respect is key, in language, in forms of address, in everything. That ethic IS there, you see.

However, at the same time, the powers that be have to allow enough 'rope' for debates to take place which may bring out new information, even if they get a little heated. Sometimes, as I pointed out above, the debates go too far. But do we really want 'this debate is finished in case of offence to others' splashed all over the place? If the people in the debates feel they are being unfairly treated they have recourse to action which can and just recently has been taken. As for the rest of us, we are all adults and dare I suggest that if we don't like something then we can be grown up enough to simply not read it anymore? When I first started out on the boards I had my fair amount of criticism, although 'ridicule' would be a bit rich. I got on with it. I did not display the attitude of the child in the playground who stands at the fence refusing to go over to the group playing a game and then goes home and complains he wasn't invited.

Best wishes,

Trevor.

[Tom_Wescott]

Roger Baynton wrote the following in his most recent Rip letter:

"Since the write e-mailed me privately (through Casebook), it would be unfair of me to name him; suffice it to say that the name is a well-known one to most of us and he obviously subscribes to Ripperologist, so it is surprising that he did not lodge his concerns with my review in the journal in which it appeared!"

This is a very strange observation since one might ask why he did not first lodge his complaints about the Casebook with its webmaster, instead of choosing to publicly lambast it.

According to Roger and the editorial staff at Rip, there's a small band of "inexplicably hostile" posters on the Casebook. But who are these people? What threads are they hiding out on? I can't think of any regular posters who are vicious, violent, and cut-throat, except, of course, for Robert Charles Linford.

My question to Roger is this - since your scandalous public display against a website that you say has proved invaluable to your understanding of a topic you hold much interest in, have you personally experienced what you might call 'violence' or 'abuse'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Since others have already pointed out the serious lack of logic in Roger's "defense", and that posting a one line compliment amidst two paragraphs of insults is not in anyway derogatory, ( That Roger he's a real nice fellow, but he's such an arrogant, whiny, mealy mouthed little weasel it's hard to take him seriously...but I've said he's a real nice guy so that's what you should focus on!)...

Anyway I'll just ask directly: What is a several paragraph criticism of Casebook doing in the review of a DVD anyway? How about I review the movie From Hell on here and then throw in a two paragraph criticism of Ripperologist as to why I am not posting it there and call it germane?

[Scott Nelson]

According to Roger and the editorial staff at Rip, there's a small band of "inexplicably hostile" posters on the Casebook. But who are these people? What threads are they hiding out on? I can't think of any regular posters who are vicious, violent, and cut-throat, except, of course, for Robert Charles Linford.

Linford - no. Me, yes.

[Tom_Wescott]

Anyway I'll just ask directly: What is a several paragraph criticism of Casebook doing in the review of a DVD anyway?

Perhaps because he was encouraged to criticise the Casebook in his review.

It's interesting that two letters were published with responses from an editor, but only the response to Roger's letter (echoing his sentiment that there's meanies running the Casebook boards) went unsigned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[rbaynton]

Thanks Trevor,
That is a very well considered response.
You are right it was certainly NOT my intention to destroy the Casebook or its reputation. Indeed I would hate to think that my comments went any way towards that
I have the highest regard for it and probably pop into it at least two or three times a week. The only problem, which I have with it, is the rude and immature comments of some (a minority) of its message board users. As you say, some “can end up being pretty unfriendly and, to be honest, quite embarrassing at times”
To be honest what was in my mind was that when I put the DVD review together there was a thread going from someone who linked the killings with some satanic thing linked to the alphabet (victims names or locations I forget which). Now, for those of us who have followed the case for some time this was probably not the most logical or well thought out solution. But the guy or girl was clearly a newby and at least was having a go.
I wish I could find the posts now, it must have been about four months ago maybe.
I was disappointed that this poor chap (I think it was a ‘he’) took a fair bit of stick for his views – misguided as they may have been (who know he may even turn out to be right). That was the case, which I had in mind and I took the view that the response which he received was likely to deter interest which as I said I think would be a shame
I’ll try again to trace the thread and post a link & perhaps this will help
But you ARE right I could have said so at that point on the boards, to be honest it never occurred to me at the time not being an active poster here
I didn’t appreciate that you had had a debate about the standard of English. I would agree that compared with others it IS very high here, probably because a lot of us are into ‘serious’ research. But I wouldn’t have a problem with it if there were a few apostrophe mis-places. What I do have a problem with is aggression and abuse.
However if the comebacks here were all as constructive, well argued and lacking invective as your post I would have absolutely no problem with the boards. The problem is that they are not and you will see examples of it within recent posts here. You will not see it in any of my posts anywhere. Incidentally as a massive Chelsea fan I dread to look on the West Ham boards! – I’m sure Gianfranco Zola is indeed taking stick which would make this lot look like a kndergarten!
Regards
R

Roger,

This is not my battle but please allow me to add my tuppence worth to the 'debate'. If you choose not to reply that is of course your prerogative, but I would hope that you would at least be good enough to read what I have to say. Sometimes an 'outside' opinion can be useful.

Casebook, as you acknowledge - both in your original piece and now in your reply to Ally, IS an outstanding resource. Quite frankly, a whole lot of us would be quite literally lost without it. I can see where Ally is coming from asking whether what did scan a little like an attack was entirely necessary (especially to that length) in the conference DVD 'review', but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe it has ever been your intention to destroy the Casebook or its reputation. However I do believe the comments, when looked at in the context of what you are now saying, were a little misguided. Naive even.

I have to give voice to both sides of the coin here; and yes, the boards do have their issues. Sometimes certain debates, even including very eminent people, can end up being pretty unfriendly and, to be honest, quite embarrassing at times. In an article to be included in the London Job book, I wrote of this site 'now Casebook has had its criticisms; some of them are even valid'. You may find that a little sarcastic, but I would suggest that it is the closest you are likely to get to support on here.

However, in your original piece, did you say how, as you now state, you regularly visit Casebook, and even the boards, and rate Steven Ryder's work so highly? No. You said 'I could access fine resources like Stephen Ryder's Casebook site. I realised that I actually knew a fair bit about the case.' 22 words, which actually sound a little dismissive. You then spend two whole paragraphs detailing the horrors of Casebook, using words like 'aggressive,' ,abusive' and even 'violent'. At no point do you suggest you still frequent the site. Your opinion in your last 2 posts has come across as quite balanced - however this all important first impression was, you must admit, anything but.

Message boards, much like life, are what you make them. If you choose not to post, that is fine - there are probably hundreds of people who make the same decision, for all sorts of reasons. You can, of course, learn a great amount about the case, including new information almost every week, that way. There are others who very carefully pick and choose where they become involved. I myself have spoken to some respected people in the field who have become pretty disillusioned with the boards for precisely the same reasons as you. But what do they do? It is simple - they either pack up their metaphorical bags and go, to JTR forums or wherever, or they stay and grin and bear it, like I said perhaps with a little extra caution. None of them have felt the need to write into Ripperologist about it. This is where that naivety I mentioned comes in; at least, I hope that is what it was. Otherwise, you come to look a little passive-aggressive. When you came onto Casebook you were 'put...off' (your own words, Rip112). Did you address the issues by posting in whatever thread so offended you, seeing as you state - no sarcasm intended - that you are quite knowledgeable about the case? Did you attempt to wrestle the debates back on track? If you saw anything genuinely offensive, did you report it, via the procedures very clearly laid out on the first screen you see? No. You chose to withdraw from being an active participant, which is absolutely your choice, and like I said not an unusual tactic. However, you then, having made no attempt to raise your concerns with the people involved, either in the debates or in site management, decide to write a letter which seems - and only you can answer this Roger - to have been written with the first intention being to give vent to your feelings about Casebook and with a review of the DVD as something of an excuse.

You then turn up on the boards which, as Ally pointed out, you claim to have such an issue with, and respond as if personally wounded to the first comment about your letters. Could Tom have chosen his words better? Probably. But what did you really expect? Did you think you could write criticising a site and the people on it and no-one would take offence? People like Tom - right or wrong - and Ally have the right to defend themselves. As you did not see fit to give them that courtesy in the first place (before writing your first letter), this is the only recourse they have. It is interesting how you feel able to stand up to the ''bullying'' of Casebook now that you have seen your words in print. As I say, I hope it is merely naivety.

Like you Roger I am a member of other messageboards too, although perhaps not as many as yourself. And to be honest with you, unless your other memberships are to 'saintly.com', I find it hard to believe that the level of arguments you are so offended by on Casebook are any worse than you see on others. I apologise if that is an unfair opinion, but may I suggest you widen your research a little if it really is the case. In fact, pop along to a West Ham United messageboard at the minute if you want to see real anger and frustration. You may just come to see Casebook in a slightly rosier light.

Of course, the difference with Casebook is that it is, and should always be, first and foremost a scholarly resource. Debate should be held to the highest standards - more so than arguing about the managerial qualities of Gianfranco Zola or the advantages of a digital SLR, or the best spots for fly fishing, or whatever. To that end, I actually believe the moderation on here to be pretty strict - and so it should be. Ally and myself, if fact, were involved in a debate a while back about how high we should set the bar for spelling, grammar etc, compared to more 'social' internet conventions. Now, this may be a stick-in-the-mud English graduate talking, but I believe that respect for language is akin to respect for the subject of your conversation and the person you are speaking to. That is important precisely because of the nature of the debates we have. Respect is key, in language, in forms of address, in everything. That ethic IS there, you see.

However, at the same time, the powers that be have to allow enough 'rope' for debates to take place which may bring out new information, even if they get a little heated. Sometimes, as I pointed out above, the debates go too far. But do we really want 'this debate is finished in case of offence to others' splashed all over the place? If the people in the debates feel they are being unfairly treated they have recourse to action which can and just recently has been taken. As for the rest of us, we are all adults and dare I suggest that if we don't like something then we can be grown up enough to simply not read it anymore? When I first started out on the boards I had my fair amount of criticism, although 'ridicule' would be a bit rich. I got on with it. I did not display the attitude of the child in the playground who stands at the fence refusing to go over to the group playing a game and then goes home and complains he wasn't invited.

Best wishes,

Trevor.

[rbaynton]

“According to Roger and the editorial staff at Rip, there's a small band of "inexplicably hostile" posters on the Casebook”
Where did I say this? I know I say things I can’t remember after a few pints of Stella but this one really escapes me!
Q. “My question to Roger is this - since your scandalous public display against a website that you say has proved invaluable to your understanding of a topic you hold much interest in, have you personally experienced what you might call 'violence' or 'abuse'?
A. ‘Violence’, no ‘Abuse’, depends on how you define it really I suppose. If you think that being accused of being “completely insincere” or “an arrogant, whiny, mealy mouthed little weasel” are not abusive then ‘no’ also

Roger Baynton wrote the following in his most recent Rip letter:

"Since the write e-mailed me privately (through Casebook), it would be unfair of me to name him; suffice it to say that the name is a well-known one to most of us and he obviously subscribes to Ripperologist, so it is surprising that he did not lodge his concerns with my review in the journal in which it appeared!"

This is a very strange observation since one might ask why he did not first lodge his complaints about the Casebook with its webmaster, instead of choosing to publicly lambast it.

According to Roger and the editorial staff at Rip, there's a small band of "inexplicably hostile" posters on the Casebook. But who are these people? What threads are they hiding out on? I can't think of any regular posters who are vicious, violent, and cut-throat, except, of course, for Robert Charles Linford.

My question to Roger is this - since your scandalous public display against a website that you say has proved invaluable to your understanding of a topic you hold much interest in, have you personally experienced what you might call 'violence' or 'abuse'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[rbaynton]

Hey you guys are right. This really is rather fun
I’m now on third beer and quite getting into the swing of things
I’m beginning to mellow towards the old casebook boards
I don’t think I’ve got anything new to say to your questions though ‘cause I’ve answered the why include it in a DVD review thing up above where I said “I was simply explaining why I bought the DVD in the first place “ and so on blah blah. You may not agree with it but hey ho that’s the fact of the matter
Looking forward to the next one!
R

Since others have already pointed out the serious lack of logic in Roger's "defense", and that posting a one line compliment amidst two paragraphs of insults is not in anyway derogatory, ( That Roger he's a real nice fellow, but he's such an arrogant, whiny, mealy mouthed little weasel it's hard to take him seriously...but I've said he's a real nice guy so that's what you should focus on!)...

Anyway I'll just ask directly: What is a several paragraph criticism of Casebook doing in the review of a DVD anyway? How about I review the movie From Hell on here and then throw in a two paragraph criticism of Ripperologist as to why I am not posting it there and call it germane?

[rbaynton]

Ooh a conspiracy theory now!:idea3:
That’s a new twist
Perhaps I was taking a bung to say nasty things
This is great here – I’m having the time of my life (saddo – I know)

Perhaps because he was encouraged to criticise the Casebook in his review.

It's interesting that two letters were published with responses from an editor, but only the response to Roger's letter (echoing his sentiment that there's meanies running the Casebook boards) went unsigned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Conspiracy?

I've received a report that Roger Baynton was seen riding in a coach with Paul Begg and Chris George. Jeff Leahy was the driver.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[rbaynton]

OK - its a fair cop. I'll come quietly Mr Aberline!
Friends?
On my 4th beer now - I love everyone

I've received a report that Roger Baynton was seen riding in a coach with Paul Begg and Chris George. Jeff Leahy was the driver.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Only after Rip publishes a letter from you stating that both the Casebook and Tom Wescott rule. Though bear in mind that such a letter mind lead to the immediate cancellation of your subscription!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott