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

[Tom_Wescott]

Get real Tom. You don't have the power to ban people. Everyone knows, that power lies solely in my hands.

This is true, and you are positively horrible at it. They keep coming back!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

A Trip Down Memory Lane

The new members may not get it, Ally, so for their benefit I looked up the first use of Cabal here on the Casebook Message Board.

It was way back in March of 2008, in a thread called The New Vogue featuring:

the Suspended Gideon Fell
the Banned Cap'n Jack
the Inactive Aspallek
along with Smiling Dan Norder
and a few survivors like Robert, Mike & Howie.

But yes the poster who first spoke of the Cabal was .............drumroll...................

... the Suspended Mr Poster. Here is the post that launched a thousand tickets to nowhere when in reply to Dan he said:

an academic journal could publish any crap and see which information sinks of swims as judged by the audience and call itself peer reviewed? A bizarre concept but hardly unexpected from someone who thinks that editorial checking by some kind of cabal also equates with peer review.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=4806#post4806

[Ally]

Heya Roy, not at all to diminish your fine research, but I think it's worth reminding that the boards crashed in February 2008 and that post took place in March 2008. The old boards were archived at that point, and there was a huge chunk lost, so it can't be stated definitively that was the first mention of cabal..in fact, I am pretty sure it's not, but I cannot claim that with any certainty. For that we'd have to check the archived boards, and there's unfortunately no way to key word search just the old locked boards pre-2008.

But thanks for reminding me that this cabal crap has been going on for years. And years. And years. And years...........

[Tom_Wescott]

the Inactive Aspallek

Three squares and an hour in the yard. Sadly, I'm not sure that qualifies as 'inactive' by the standards of Ripperologists.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Yeah, I am pretty sure incarcerated is not an actual forum state (maybe it should be). In did-you-know news, he'll be out in approx 6 months.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yep, and probably posting here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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