As it turns out, the Ripper Cabal is real...it's just not who you thought it was

[lynn cates]

things and stuff

Hello Tom. Thanks for posting this. For the record:

1. The chaps mentioned are indeed on friendly terms with me and I hope to keep it so. Our views are different, but that's OK.

I'd like to think I'm on friendly terms with nearly everyone, and that irrespective of opinion about the WCM. I have shared research with and benefited from a good many posters of various points of view.

2. New people, I try to greet warmly and encourage. I don't--so far as I know--foist my opinions on others. I consider posters as adults and, after explaining my point of view, leave it with them. (Greg Baron will give reference here, I think.)

3. I did greet Mike. As I recall, Mike was the first person who was nice to me on the boards a few years ago. [I think my first respondent was Jeff Leahy--after I had the effrontery to refer to AK as a poor fit for "Jack." Need I say more? (heh-heh)]

At the end of the day, ALL of us will need to get along and share resources so that the WCM will be solved and everyone can redirect.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

As Monty's posting, above does not name an individual, readers who are not in the 'know' like myself, can associate ANY of the 5 names Tom Wescott listed to be responsible for such actions. This is grossly misleading.

Since today is apparently all about back-pedaling, let me say that when I wrote my 'three-tier' post, most of the drama had not yet occurred and I was just having fun on yet another Ally rant thread. However, I think my tier rather accurately represents those that are currently being accused of being in league together, though I'd be surprised to learn that Trevor, Simon, Lynn, or Phil engage in much 'grooming' of new people, especially in private and by PM. Also, based on what I know of them personally, which admittedly is very little, I must say I think this foursome is far LESS likely than most of the people on this board to engage in private smack-talking.

I think it's obvious that most of Ally's vitriol is directed towards Trevor, so let me add that I would be surprised (not shocked, but surprised) if Trevor was guilty of reporting her, or Monty, or anyone else to Admin. He seems like a get as good as he gives kind of guy. He doesn't seem to be as easily offended as, say, a Phil or a Cog.

Back in the day, I used to catch a LOT of flack...and I mean a LOT...because of my association with Dan Norder. Once people hated him, they seemed to hate me by default, and I was very annoyed by this. I knew a different Dan, and liked him, and was literally punished for this. I must say that I think Simon and Lynn (and to a lesser extent, Phil) are being chastized/shunned/punished for their association with Trevor. I was quite annoyed recently by the warm welcome offered by Lynn to returning poster, Michael Richards, who is well-known to have a particular Jones for me. I took it as a personal affront that someone so known for personal attacks, horrible research, etc., would be so encouraged, but then I realized this is how others must have felt when they saw me being friends with their enemy, Dan Norder, so shame on me. I'm just as guilty as everyone else here, and not casting any stones. But I think that if any group is going to be accused of 'grooming' newbies, or pall mall behind the back smack-talking, Trevor/Simon/Lynn/Phil should probably be towards of the bottom of that list.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

Indexing system? Wozzat?

It's a thing that works brilliantly when it is created and soon after becomes an un-indexed pile of papers in the corner that eventually get lost or thrown out in an uncommon and generally unexpected fit of tidiness.

[PaulB]

Sometimes I feel like Stewart and pine for the days of pre-internet research, even though I was never part of it. I recently had the privilege of making the acquaintance of a fantastic old boy, now sadly deceased, who was of the old school - everything on foot, with pencil and paper. I know there are still people who do that, when they're away from the boards, and I salute them. But I don't think this old boy would have liked modern Ripperology.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with 'modern Ripperology'. I think it's great. Access to assorted electronic databases, newspaper archives, web sites, message boards, and so on, with reference books like the [I]Ultimate[I], the magazines and some absolutely top-notch articles, and the quick and easy exchange of information with some of the best researchers I have ever known, kicks the old days into a cocked hat. The only difference is that if you want to call somebody a thief or insinuate that someone has tampered with source documents, or claiming that you are challenging hidebound orthodox thinking by asking questions that came out of the Ark, you can reach a much bigger audience than you used to. And whilst I didn't much like Melvin Harris, I was right beside him in his abhorrence of those who muddied the waters of history.

[Robert]

Indexing system? Wozzat?

[Phil Carter]

Dave,

When you have had your integrity questioned, been accused of falsity, been the subject of intimitatory posts and threats, AND had your private life raked over (to the extent of harrassing people who know me for photographs) then you may understand why this isnt a simple case of Ripperological disagreement.

However, if thats what takes for some to operate then so be it. I wont be wasting sleep over them.

Its called karma.

Monty

Hello Monty,


I would like to state that I know nothing about this and wish it be made crystal clear that as my name has been mentioned in this thread the above has nothing to do with me.

i wish to make the following statement. It will be the only thing I say on this thread and will not be discussing this further.

I refuse to argue in any way nor discuss with anyone using a level of derogatory language as has been displayed here. Far from 'sitting in a gutter' I will talk and write with composure and refuse to be goaded into any form of public slanging match. Far from being repeatedly branded a part of a lunatic fringe', I count myself fortunate to be part of a genre that encompasses differing opinions.
I take offence that I am, by insinuation or otherwise, have 'groomed' any person. The terminology itself I associate with a form of human nature that is repugnant to my nature. Even accepting that word, which I dont, in any sense, I dont pm newbies and take offence that I deliberately indroctrinate anyone with my opiniös within the genre.
I have to say that I stay silent in the face of rudeness. NOT because I 'run away' but my nature, and the way I was brought up tells me. I will NOT discuss or answer ANY person that deems such form of language appropriate. I do not deem it so. And that is that. Period.

I would like to make something CRYSTAL CLEAR to Ally. I wrote to Admin in VERY CLEAR WORDS that all I wished for was certain posts removed from a thread. I SPECIFICALLY WROTE that I didnt want ANY individual to 'get into trouble' and SPECIFICALLY WROTE that it wasnt my intention or wish to cause anyone to lose the pleasure of their involvement here. All I wanted was certain posts removed. If you wish to ask Admin he has my permission to confirm the above, without revealing my pm,

This thread, in my opinion is unsuitable for further gainful discussion at the present level. I refuse to answer any more accusation made either directly to me by name or by any form of association. As Monty's posting, above does not name an individual, readers who are not in the 'know' like myself, can associate ANY of the 5 names Tom Wescott listed to be responsible for such actions. This is grossly misleading.

If any person wishes further to discuss with me, I kindly ask them to ure email. Further comment to or about me, directly or by association will be pointless as I will not be reading the thread further. Any attempt by any person to wind me up, for fun or seriously, are wasting their time. So I hope NOBODY bothers responding to me here. Email, yes. But be warned I will stay silent on that channel if I encounter the same level of communicative language form I have been witness to here. Otherwise a respectful reply will await. Thank you

Therefore I RESPECTFULLY ask that this statement is not a subject for further public discussion either for or against. I sincerely hope my request is adhered to. Thank you.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Sometimes I feel like Stewart and pine for the days of pre-internet research, even though I was never part of it. I recently had the privilege of making the acquaintance of a fantastic old boy, now sadly deceased, who was of the old school - everything on foot, with pencil and paper. I know there are still people who do that, when they're away from the boards, and I salute them. But I don't think this old boy would have liked modern Ripperology.

Thats how Rob and I work for quite a big percentage of the time. JB too. We get out and look for the stuff.

You should have seen our indexing system. Cardboard strips and tea stirrers.

Monty

[Robert]

Sometimes I feel like Stewart and pine for the days of pre-internet research, even though I was never part of it. I recently had the privilege of making the acquaintance of a fantastic old boy, now sadly deceased, who was of the old school - everything on foot, with pencil and paper. I know there are still people who do that, when they're away from the boards, and I salute them. But I don't think this old boy would have liked modern Ripperology.

[Monty]

Dave,

When you have had your integrity questioned, been accused of falsity, been the subject of intimitatory posts and threats, AND had your private life raked over (to the extent of harrassing people who know me for photographs) then you may understand why this isnt a simple case of Ripperological disagreement.

However, if thats what takes for some to operate then so be it. I wont be wasting sleep over them.

Its called karma.

Monty

[Ally]

Briefly (I have work to go to), but do you really feel it's ok to have a thread under General Discussions (it'd be bad enough under Pub Talk fercrissake!)which is set up for no other apparent purpose than to mock? I personally don't think so...

And you are welcome to your opinion. If i had thought it shouldn't go in General discussion, I wouldn't have put it there. But this is about the general state of Ripperology. It's about dirty tricks that are happening in Ripperology. It's germane, to Ripperology.

How do you feel Ripperology is served by a thread such as this which doesn't have any object other than to mock? It's certainly against the spirit of the Casebook rules (as I understand them) if it isn't specifically in contradiction of them...

I believe Ripperology is served by warning newcomers to the boards and subject that there is a lunatic fringe out there who will out and out lie to them, who will distort the facts and who will therefore hopefully take a more careful eye when they start to receive the PMs and the whispers and the grooming warning them about the "conspiracy" to "suppress the truth".

just this ethos that it's ok to make personal attacks on CERTAIN people...and "they started it sir" doesn't really wash does it?

To put it into the sort of language we heard when we were kids "just because they behave like they come from the guttter, you don't have to"
Can't we all be a bit better than this?

It absolutely, one hundred percent is completely, totally acceptable to make personal attacks on certain people, and not for any "they started it" reason, but because they DESERVE it. Their actions deserve it, and call for it, and one hundred percent NEED to be called out. And to forestall the question of "who decides who deserves it", I do. You do. Everyone has their limit. And when people are willfully slandering other people, their actions DESERVE a "personal attack", not because "they started it" but because it's the right thing to do. Not every person is sacred. Some are beneath contempt by their words and their deeds.

Look at this thread. I stand on one point of pride - I don't lie. I always behave with honesty and stand on it as a point of personal integrity. Simon came in with an insinuating comment. I asked him to provide proof and *poof* he's disappeared. Which to be honest, amuses the heck out of me, because it's a PERFECT illustration of what this thread is about, and why this thread needs to be here.

They make insinuations and then when asked to back those insinuations up, they are gone in the freaking wind and the insinuation just gets left there, leaving some people to go, well gee he must have something...

It's deceitful, it's underhanded and it's dishonest. I have had a major row in the past with posters on this very thread who are now in agreement with me on certain issues. I've been brutal and I've been "mean" and I've used FAR WORSE language than has been used here. But I never once lied, and I never once ran and hid or refused to back up a gauntlet hurled down.

I have never claimed to be nice. And sometimes, you need to get down in the gutter, because that's where the sniper fire is coming from. I don't stand on phony principles of modest, decent or proper behavior. I don't believe in letting the bastards win because I refuse to fight a dirty fight. I behave as I feel is *right* even if it's not *proper*. Big difference. And what's right, isn't always sweet and nice.

[Ally]

Yep, and probably posting here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well there's nothing to prevent him from signing up under a new screen name, but he definitely won't be posting under his own. Although, given the nature, he might not be allowed computer access as terms of his parole/release. I don't know how that works though if he has served his complete sentence. I guess it's possible there won't be any restrictions at all.... shrug, dunno.

[PaulB]

Briefly (I have work to go to), but do you really feel it's ok to have a thread under General Discussions (it'd be bad enough under Pub Talk fercrissake!)which is set up for no other apparent purpose than to mock? I personally don't think so...

How do you feel Ripperology is served by a thread such as this which doesn't have any object other than to mock? It's certainly against the spirit of the Casebook rules (as I understand them) if it isn't specifically in contradiction of them...

OK enough of the rhetoric...I'm not trying to be "holier than thou", nor intentionally seeking to set up any nazi comparison (the Niemoller reference just seemed apt for it's content alone)....and no Ally/Tom this isn't directed specifically against either of you, (For what it's worth I like you fine as you are!)...just this ethos that it's ok to make personal attacks on CERTAIN people...and "they started it sir" doesn't really wash does it?

To put it into the sort of language we heard when we were kids "just because they behave like they come from the guttter, you don't have to"
Can't we all be a bit better than this?

Sorry if this comes off sounding wrong...like I said I'm in a rush for work!

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,
I'd just like to make one small observation: your earlier Neimoller reference is obviously about speaking out against injustice.

How would you do that?

Isn't that what Ally is doing?

[jason_c]

There has been an accusation of a "Ripper Cabal" floating around out there for a couple of years. When pressed on these accusations, the accusers generally turn tail and flee, or begin a song and dance routine, blustering and capering to deflect.

As it turns out, there is a Cabal, and the very people who have been making the accusations appear to be the ringleaders.

Take a look around. Sensible posters have thrown up their hands and walked off when confronted with these dancing fools. New posters are greeted and groomed by the fringe element, encouraged and led with promises of "new theories" and "new research" and fighting the "stodgy old guard" (who doesn't like a revolution).

Whenever there is reasoned dissent of their lunacy, whenever flaws are pointed out, they either go silent, attempt to get the person making the argument in trouble, or send in the clown to do a caper and dance routine to distract from such petty little things like, oh, fact.

Who knew? Turns out there was a cabal after all. Welcome to a new decade in Ripperology, where any sort of outright stupidity is cherished, as long as it directly contradicts established fact. Because a new idea, no matter how idiotic, is always better than what's always been.

/rant

As someone who admittedly has sympathies with the "old guard" I largely agree. As far as the highlighted part goes I hope this is not true.

[Cogidubnus]

Briefly (I have work to go to), but do you really feel it's ok to have a thread under General Discussions (it'd be bad enough under Pub Talk fercrissake!)which is set up for no other apparent purpose than to mock? I personally don't think so...

How do you feel Ripperology is served by a thread such as this which doesn't have any object other than to mock? It's certainly against the spirit of the Casebook rules (as I understand them) if it isn't specifically in contradiction of them...

OK enough of the rhetoric...I'm not trying to be "holier than thou", nor intentionally seeking to set up any nazi comparison (the Niemoller reference just seemed apt for it's content alone)....and no Ally/Tom this isn't directed specifically against either of you, (For what it's worth I like you fine as you are!)...just this ethos that it's ok to make personal attacks on CERTAIN people...and "they started it sir" doesn't really wash does it?

To put it into the sort of language we heard when we were kids "just because they behave like they come from the guttter, you don't have to"
Can't we all be a bit better than this?

Sorry if this comes off sounding wrong...like I said I'm in a rush for work!

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Yep, and probably posting here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott