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

[Tom_Wescott]

There is no one here, or anyone else on this planet, with 'the truth', on any subject, sat in his/her lap.

This is true. You have to first wait for Debra Arif to find it and post it or e-mail it to you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridie O'Reilly]

??

Hi All.

As a so called manipulated newbie - can someone please explain the point of this arguement? You are all just fighting against each other. Brilliant. I thought we had moved on from Uni politics, where everyone argues for the sake of it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bridie. Keep posting. You have to have so many posts to get the PM capability so that we can PM you and recruit...errr...welcome you to our cabal....err....forum. And not all of us are arguing, mainly just Ally. The rest of us are just stirring the pot until more interesting threads for discussion pop up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridie O'Reilly]

??

Stirring doesn't get anyone one anywhere. Apart from in a cauldron of trouble. I really do not see the point of slinging arrows at people when we can make our own minds up?

[Magpie]

It's been ages since I've been recruited into a cabal

I remember when I was originally driven from the boards for expressing the view that the Maybrick Diary was a forgery (wtf? Yep--anyone remember those days?). Then I was part of the Paul Begg cabal for suggesting that an old forgery is still plausible.

I remember Whitechapel Student following me from thread to thread, trashing everything I posted, however minor. I remember Omlor descending like a starving pitbull on a pork chop whenever I appeared in Diaryland. I remember being co-opted into the Dan Norder Cabal because despite hundreds of posts calling me every kind of idiot under the sun, he was kind enough to praise my Rip article.

I've had Spiros call me a Tom Wescott flunkie because apparently I don't hate Tom with the heat of a thousand suns. I've similarly been criticized for saying nice things about Spiros's book. Tom has denounced me for being part of the Howard Brown cabal (although it was a very polite and short-lived denunciation, to be fair)

Allie's called me an idiot, AP Wolf called me several variants on "scum" and DVV's called me a bastard. All have also been extraordinarily kind to me on other occasions.

I've even been indirectly accused of being a pedophile supporter for being a Druittist in the wake of aspalleck's appalling behaviour. And of course according to Trenouth I am the biggest danger to world democracy since the formation of the illuminati.

I guess if all this can be directed at someone who is largely irrelevant to the world of Ripperology and is usually blissfully unaware of the offence I've cause d (most of the time), I can only imagine the crap that some of the more....forceful...personalities on the board must attract.

But it does seem to be somewhat cyclical--everything old becomes briefly new before becoming old again.

[Tom_Wescott]

Stirring doesn't get anyone one anywhere. Apart from in a cauldron of trouble. I really do not see the point of slinging arrows at people when we can make our own minds up?

Then by all means...stop.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Interesting that both of your posts are post #1.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Magpie. Yes, all those things have happened to you, and I have no idea why. You're certainly one of the more friendly old-timers around here. But I still believe I trumped everyone when Karen Trenouth accused me of being one and the same as Ivor Edwards and then blogged about it. It wasn't funny at the time...especially when a long lost family member went looking for me and found me through her blog, where she had posted a random photo of a guy's arse and said it was mine. The family member asked me what a Ripper cartel was, why I was in one, and why there's a photo of my arse on the web.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Yeah seriously. What is it with people coming on the thread to argue that we shouldn't argue. Are they deaf, dumb and blind to their own rampaging stupidity and hypocrisy?

Bridie dear, if you don't like arguments, QUIT PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM.

And Tom her posts are number 1 because pub talk posts don't count towards your totals. Check your total next time you post here.

[Simon Wood]

So Ally . . .

Deceit was your choice of word.

I was thinking more of you leaping to spiteful conclusions without first bothering to engage your brain, and later not having the grace to apologize.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

And Tom her posts are number 1 because pub talk posts don't count towards your totals. Check your total next time you post here.

I didn't notice it had been moved from General Discussions.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Ah that's fine then Simon. I am absolutely completely spiteful, and do sometimes leap to conclusions. Can't argue with that. In reading back over your comments, I can see as how I allowed my anger at the time to mistake what you said.

As for apologizing, why should I? I don't believe I've harmed you in any way on this matter. I asked you repeatedly to clarify what you meant which is hardly injurious. Now, you've done so. If I had reported you and tried to get you banned after you explained what you meant, why THEN I'd definitely have something to apologize for.

Cheers.

[Archaic]

And of course according to Trenouth I am the biggest danger to world democracy since the formation of the illuminati.

I always kinda liked that about you, Magpie. (Besides, it looks so cool on your résumé!)


While reading these posts I was thinking about the fact that I've met a number of really wonderful people on Casebook, some of whom have become good friends.

So I just want to say thanks, Stephen.

Best regards,
Archaic

[PaulB]

The problem here is that reason is subjective, as is interpretation.

There is no one here, or anyone else on this planet, with 'the truth', on any subject, sat in his/her lap.

In the event Trevor follows a different path - so what. In the event he chooses not to answer questions - so what. Who knows? Perhaps he sees something you don't - and perhaps he's right. It is possible that people who think they're right actually aren't. In the grand scheme of things he may lose some credibility among the establishment - but, a thread setting the lunatics in one corner and the 'truth' advocates in another?

And while everyone is here arguing on Ally's thread, not many are posting on the subject.

Actually, in all meaningful senses reason is not subjective. By definition it is objective, thought out, a weighing of the pros and cons. And nobody says Trevor can't follow his own path or that in doing so he may be right. What is being said is that he doesn't answer the challenges to his thinking, which is okay too, if that's what he wants to do; there are people who continue to believe the world is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary. But Trevor also tries to destroy people's reputations. He tries to make out that he's a great new age thinker, a Ripperological new broom, a David challenging the Goliath of outmoded thinking. And he's none of that. He hasn't read the books by those whose theories he challenges, he doesn't actually understand what their theories are, and his stage shows are littered with inaccuracies... No, it isn't about Trevor traveling down a different road of thinking. That, within reason, would be welcomed.

[Magpie]

I always kinda liked that about you, Magpie.

Why thank you!

(Besides, it looks so cool on your résumé!)

You'd think such a position would carry a few perks, wouldn't you?

[PaulB]

This is an example of what I'm saying.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Eddowes did indeed use the apron for such purposes. You may disagree; I disagree. But, no real problem.

Simply because something is within the realms of possibility doesn't mean it is probable or likely or worth a second of serious consideration. But if someone thinks it's worth investigating, no problem. Although I do care about facts and probabilities, so I have an instinctive aversion to people peddling highly improbable possibilities as if they were probable and likely and true. Which is what Trevor does.

Trevor may not have answered the post for a variety of reasons. One maybe time; the other maybe he has been through it before. I do recall a thread where Trevor debated the issue. Again, no problem.

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe he hasn't answered the objections at all. Or maybe his answers were countered by other objections. I really don't know; you know what the boards are like!

I just don't see how Trevor or anyone else should be beholden to the rules of: must accept the established wisdom, or when doing otherwise must reply to other people's requests without fail. I'd imagine that were you to look back through the threads all posters will have declined to reply to a counter-argument for one reason or another.

Again, I think you are missing the point. Nobody is expecting anyone to 'accept the established wisdom'. In fact, that is Trevor's argument: that he is challenging 'accepted wisdom' and as a consequence is being ganged up on by a bunch of people (which he called a cartel) anxious to preserve their way of thinking, their theories, their book sales, or whatever. That's tosh. Trevor and anyone else can challenge 'accepted thinking'. It's welcomed by everybody. It's what keeps this subject from stagnating.

And nobody says he has to answer other people, but that's how reasoned debate goes isn't it? But, yes, Trevor does have to answer his critics in this instance because in amongst it all is a man who sees himself or wants other to see him as challenging accepted thinking, as tearing down the pillars of received wisdom, as pitting himself against an enemy, and who comes out with phrases such as 'to the victor go the spoils'. And in so doing he hurts people, calls them a thief, suggests that their father tampered with documents, tries to ridicule people whose books he's never read...