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

[Robert]

Indexing system? Wozzat?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Monty]

Hello Phil,

Its a shame you felt the need to disassociate yourself from my post, as it wasn't made to name individuals but to show to Dave that the reasons for such is personal and goes beyond mere difference of Jack ideas.

Monty

[PaulB]

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

Tom,
Were you marching in the same band and playing the same tune as Dan Norder? Were you as guilty as he of whatever he was hated for?

If you weren't, if you were close by and got caught in the fallout, if you were damned by association, then what happened to you was wrong and one has every sympathy for you.

But is there anything in your experience which is comparable to what is at issue here, to what you so lightly dismiss as 'Ally rant'?

[Ally]

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.

Right. Absolutely. I do love how you actually think if you don't blatantly INSULT someone, you have the high ground in all you do. What a crock. Actions matter more than words my dear fellow. You can SAY or refuse to say, whatever you want, but your actions will always matter more than your words.

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.

You don't deem certain WORDS appropriate? I don't deem deceptive practice or action appropriate.

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,

I frankly do not CARE what you stated to Admin. You have no more power authority or voice when it comes to deciding what Admin will do than any body else. YOU DON'T CONTROL ADMIN'S DECISIONS. And when you report someone, your wishes don't count for squat and you don't dictate what happens to them. They can be banned, suspended or whatever based on Admin's decisions not your precious wishes. And when you REPORT someone for something so clearly BS and attempt to get them in trouble (and I don't care what you say, that was your goal) you don't then get to claim a high ground and state "oh I told teacher, but I didn't want them to get in trouble." BS.

However, as you gave the go ahead, I did look into and here's what the FACTS are. In regards to the single question of "What action did Phil request in the Report Post?"

Your Report Post said NOTHING regarding having the posts deleted. There is only a single sentence in your Report Post that referenced consequences or what your expectation was for administrative action and it was this: "Recently Admin warned us all to steer clear of personal insults or face severe consequences.". Your initial Report Post said NOTHING regarding no action being taken. It was only AFTER you were told that after investigation no action would be taken that you stated it was not your intention to get anyone in trouble, but merely wanted the posts deleted. Your initial Report Post did not, in any way shape or form request that no penalization occur. In fact, it clearly indicated the opposite and that your expectation, based on Admin's words was that there would be "severe consequences".

So you Reported a Post and indicated a desire for "severe consequences" and when you were told that the facts didn't merit any action being taken, suddenly your wish is not for any action taken, certainly not any "severe consequences", but merely to have the posts deleted.

(It should also be pointed out that he was of course factually incorrect as to what Admin had "recently warned". Not to mention being factually incorrect as I did not, in any way shape or form personally insult him.)

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.

This is, in fact true. So I will state I am 100 percent confident that Phil was not the person being referred to in this specific case.

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.

No. Putting RESPECTFUL in front of your every comment and hanging your argument on word choice doesn't make you respectful and it doesn't put you in the right. You stir up trouble for people and then want to hide behind "I didn't MEAN to", "that wasn't my intent", and "respectful". Sorry no. I call BS. And you can claim what you want now, and no doubt will be believed, you being so polite and all, but the fact is, you decided you didn't like an argument, and rather than arguing it fair, you pulled a dirty trick, and went to the administration in an attempt to have me censured or worse IMO, censored.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,
Were you marching in the same band and playing the same tune as Dan Norder? Were you as guilty as he of whatever he was hated for?

He was hated for various and sundry things, so that depends on who you ask and about what. But for the most part, no, I was not.

If you weren't, if you were close by and got caught in the fallout, if you were damned by association, then what happened to you was wrong and one has every sympathy for you.

I didn't ask for sympathy then, and don't now, but the experience has perhaps made me more conscious of how easy it is to lump people together. As mentioned, I'm as guilty of this as most, and more guilty than many.

But is there anything in your experience which is comparable to what is at issue here, to what you so lightly dismiss as 'Ally rant'?

'Rant' was her word, not mine. See her first post. I didn't use it to 'dismiss' her points, which were primarily about Trevor Marriott. If you read my post again, I'm not really talking about Trevor at all, except to say that I see him more as an 'in your face' kind of guy as opposed to 'behind your back', which is what 99% of the posters on here are. I totally get where Ally's coming from with most of what she says, but the purpose of this thread is solely to take the stigma attached to Trevor's character and cast it upon those who have chosen to be open to Trevor. It was on that which I offered my two cents. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. First time for everything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was one of the posters asked about Ally/Phil - my view was that it wasn't directed at Phil.

What I didn't say to Admin, because no such question was asked, is that it appears Ally is a divisive, antagonistic character who just can't leave things alone.

In any group of people there are those that spoil an otherwise relatively harmonious atmosphere, not because they're pointing out inconsistencies or uncovering 'deception', but because that's what they do - they're divisive - and simply won't leave it alone until everyone is squabbling.

[PaulB]

He was hated for various and sundry things, so that depends on who you ask and about what. But for the most part, no, I was not.

In that case you were a victim by association, which is wrong.

I didn't ask for sympathy then, and don't now, but the experience has perhaps made me more conscious of how easy it is to lump people together. As mentioned, I'm as guilty of this as most, and more guilty than many.

And nobody is saying that you sought sympathy then or since, which does not mean you are undeserving of it. However, your experience might make you predisposed towards others who you perceive to be in the same or a similar situation. So I ask whether those you named are, like you, innocent bystanders, or are they band members espousing the same beliefs and supporting the same causes?

'Rant' was her word, not mine. See her first post. I didn't use it to 'dismiss' her points, which were primarily about Trevor Marriott. If you read my post again, I'm not really talking about Trevor at all, except to say that I see him more as an 'in your face' kind of guy as opposed to 'behind your back', which is what 99% of the posters on here are. I totally get where Ally's coming from with most of what she says, but the purpose of this thread is solely to take the stigma attached to Trevor's character and cast it upon those who have chosen to be open to Trevor. It was on that which I offered my two cents. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. First time for everything.

Yes, it was Ally's word, which you took and used dismissively, as if this was just Ally blowing off steam and not in actuality making a fair and legitimate point. And I'm not sure that Ally was accusing Trevor or anyone else of being anything less that 'in your face'. What was and is her point is that theories are advanced, but when questions are asked the people making the point disappear, or they come back with one liners, sometimes cryptic, other times desperate, or they throw out accusations at others, or they try to play diversionary tactics, as she several times accused Phil of doing. I thought she saw a common trait, a common behaviour, and potentially a common intent and purpose. That's what I thought her point was. I may be wrong.

[Errata]

First off, I need to say that I have no desire to get into the personalities of this debate. I like to think I can get along with anyone (barring one absolutely inexcusable meltdown on my part). And sure, I read this thread because I am human, and therefor prurient by nature but I had no intention of posting.

I cannot testify to the veracity of any claims about the character of others. In one instance, I can say with authority that Ally is not wrong. I am not exactly new anymore, but when I joined up about two years ago I was in an uncomfortable incident within my first month or so of being here. It did take place through PMs and email. As it happens, the only person who was disturbed by the incident was my fiance, who has not seen the things that I have seen. Which incidentally is why I no longer post here when he is in the room.

I was neither damaged nor offended by the interchange. But in retrospect, the reason I wasn't has quite a bit to do with the things I have been exposed to in my life, that not many people have been exposed to. Certainly my fiance was a little damaged, but he has to toughen up anyway. I'm not complaining about it. I'm a big girl, and if I felt uncomfortable about it, I would have said something. I did not feel as though I was being groomed, but I did have a solid knowledge base on the topic going in, so I cannot speculate what it would have felt like to someone without that knowledge. I did feel as though my challenges to the theory were not taken in the spirit in which they were made, but nobody takes criticism well.

It cannot be truthfully said that new people are not being exposed to certain theories in a private setting. They are. I was. And it has never happened since, so I cannot say that the incident in question was not unusual. I thought it was the norm at the time, but I didn't know better. And I cannot speculate as to what the purpose of that exposure is. I was fine with it. Still am. But I can easily see how others might have found it disturbing or somewhat heavy handed. So it happens. I can't say why or what gain there is to be had, but it does happen.

[PaulB]

I was one of the posters asked about Ally/Phil - my view was that it wasn't directed at Phil.

What I didn't say to Admin, because no such question was asked, is that it appears Ally is a divisive, antagonistic character who just can't leave things alone.

In any group of people there are those that spoil an otherwise relatively harmonious atmosphere, not because they're pointing out inconsistencies or uncovering 'deception', but because that's what they do - they're divisive - and simply won't leave it alone until everyone is squabbling.

I didn't notice a relatively harmonious atmosphere.

[Ally]

I didn't notice a relatively harmonious atmosphere.

Thank god. For a minute I thought I had stumbled into an alternate dimension and was frantically searching about for this "harmonious atmosphere" of which he was speaking.

[Ally]

I cannot testify to the veracity of any claims about the character of others. In one instance, I can say with authority that Ally is not wrong. I am not exactly new anymore, but when I joined up about two years ago I was in an uncomfortable incident within my first month or so of being here. It did take place through PMs and email. As it happens, the only person who was disturbed by the incident was my fiance, who has not seen the things that I have seen. Which incidentally is why I no longer post here when he is in the room. .... So it happens. I can't say why or what gain there is to be had, but it does happen.

That sucks and your sounds like a particularly "not good" experience. This is something that I wonder constantly, in regards to newbies. All the behind the scenes crap. I may well be "disharmonious" and "divisive" but I abhor the kind of backroom dealings that goes on by those who put on "polite" faces in public and say absolute dirt and crap behind people's backs where they can "safely" get away with it.

But god forbid you bring it out into the light. Then you are just a sht-stirrer up to no good.

And to be honest this is not a NEW development. It's been going on for years. And the key players might change but the game remains the same.