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

[PaulB]

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.

You mean you're not the biggest danger to world democracy since the formation of the illuminati? Well, that revelation has spoiled the day.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Actually, in all meaningful senses reason is not subjective. By definition it is objective, thought out, a weighing of the pros and cons.

Assuming we see the world based upon our personal experiences, and we channel information through these personal experiences - then how can reason, in relation to this particular subject, be anything other than subjective. This isn't a science, where a proposition can be verified.

And, I think this is at the heart of my contention with all of this. Trevor's apron theory isn't as ridiculous as what some seem to think. It would seem Trevor has weighed up the pros and the cons and simply arrived at an alternative conclusion.

This 'deceptive with the facts' argument is simply nonsense. Firstly, it doesn't actually mean anything - it's garbled, abstract nonsense; secondly, if there is an ounce of meaning in there then I think it implies Trevor has used the 'facts' to suit his story - who would have thought it eh? Someone using the facts as they see fit to arrive at his/her conclusion.

Anyway, my last post on the subject. In sum: a shambles of a thread started for what purpose.

[Ally]

It never ceases to amaze me that people try to make this about Trevor and his "courageous battle" against the stodgy old Rippersaurs and their clinging to their outmoded thinking. Goodness knows I wasn't the one who originally started calling the "old guard" Rippersaurs. Because goodness knows, Paul Begg and I agree on everything. Goodness knows, I've never questioned the Swanson Marginalia. Goodness knows, I've never questioned the number of victims, the goulston street graffito. Goodness knows, EVERY new poster who comes on here doesn't come on here with some wild theory or misinformation or lack of knowledge of the facts.

No Trevor is alone. He is the sole person who has ever dared to question or challenge established fact, and that is solely where the problem lies.

Give me a break.

[harry]

Now Trevor is not alone.Ma ny years ago a poster came up with a story about who wrote the diary.I accepted his beliefs as being honest.I w as the only one who did.W ho led the chorus of us being labbeled akin to morons and worse, Well it was dear angelic ally.Now I am perhaps the only person on this earth who is now in possession of information of a plan to kill the actor Paul Robeson w ay back in 1948.Let the bitch scream about that.Why should I justify anything to her.Why should Trevor.Let the person he has labelled a liar,respond.

[Magpie]

You mean you're not the biggest danger to world democracy since the formation of the illuminati? Well, that revelation has spoiled the day.

I like to think I can still rise to the level of moderate threat when the occasion calls for it...

[PaulB]

Assuming we see the world based upon our personal experiences, and we channel information through these personal experiences - then how can reason, in relation to this particular subject, be anything other than subjective. This isn't a science, where a proposition can be verified.

And, I think this is at the heart of my contention with all of this. Trevor's apron theory isn't as ridiculous as what some seem to think. It would seem Trevor has weighed up the pros and the cons and simply arrived at an alternative conclusion.

This 'deceptive with the facts' argument is simply nonsense. Firstly, it doesn't actually mean anything - it's garbled, abstract nonsense; secondly, if there is an ounce of meaning in there then I think it implies Trevor has used the 'facts' to suit his story - who would have thought it eh? Someone using the facts as they see fit to arrive at his/her conclusion.

Anyway, my last post on the subject. In sum: a shambles of a thread started for what purpose.

A reasoned argument may not be entirely free from personal bias, but that does not make it subjective. Some arguments are based on a careful and considered assessment of the evidence, which in turn is based on years of study and the acquisition of knowledge and experience about the time and place.

Sadly, this really isn't about whether or not Trevor's apron theory is ridiculous or not. As it happens it is ridiculous. There are so many good and solid objections to it that it doesn't even merit serious consideration - unless those objections are greeted with equally good and solid answers, which, the complaint is, they're not. Which, the complaint is, are greeted with silly one-liners, accusations about Rippersaurs protecting pet theories, cartels, thievery, and so on.

I don't think I have ever said 'deceptive with the truth'. I have said Trevor's theatre shows are littered with errors. I have said that he has time and again revealed his ignorance of the subject and his lack of knowledge about the theories he is challenging. And ignorance and error - which one might say when offered up under the self-clam to be an acknowledged authority is deceiving people - is a little bit different than how you are defining it.

[lynn cates]

theoretical and applied

Hello Mr. Begg, Mac. What if one were to claim that reason, whilst itself objective, admits of many subjective applications?

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Now Trevor is not alone.Ma ny years ago a poster came up with a story about who wrote the diary.I accepted his beliefs as being honest.I w as the only one who did.W ho led the chorus of us being labbeled akin to morons and worse, Well it was dear angelic ally.Now I am perhaps the only person on this earth who is now in possession of information of a plan to kill the actor Paul Robeson w ay back in 1948.Let the bitch scream about that.Why should I justify anything to her.Why should Trevor.Let the person he has labelled a liar,respond.

Harry,
I don't think this is about whether Trevor should answer her or not, it's about whether or not he should answer his critics per se. Whether he should answer the objections to his thinking and his theories.

[Ally]

Now Trevor is not alone.Ma ny years ago a poster came up with a story about who wrote the diary.I accepted his beliefs as being honest.I w as the only one who did.W ho led the chorus of us being labbeled akin to morons and worse, Well it was dear angelic ally.Now I am perhaps the only person on this earth who is now in possession of information of a plan to kill the actor Paul Robeson w ay back in 1948.Let the bitch scream about that.Why should I justify anything to her.Why should Trevor.Let the person he has labelled a liar,respond.

ROFlMAO. Okay after re-reading this four times to try and figure out what this rambling mess was talking about, I think I have almost figured it out. First I have to say it does my heart good to see Trevor lumped with the likes of Stephen Powell. That's just first, because boy is that comparison apt. Let's see, what did Powell do, came on the boards, accused a specific individual of forging the diary, and every time the facts didn't fit his story, the story changed. So yeah, I'll absolutely grant that's a genuine and apt comparison there. Second, why in the world would I scream because you have knowledge of a plot to kill Paul Robeson 70 years ago? Third, who the hell is Paul Robeson? Fourth, why do I care again? Oh that's right I don't.

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg, Mac. What if one were to claim that reason, whilst itself objective, admits of many subjective applications?

Cheers.
LC

Can you expand on that?

[PaulB]

ROFlMAO. Okay after re-reading this four times to try and figure out what this rambling mess was talking about, I think I have almost figured it out. First I have to say it does my heart good to see Trevor lumped with the likes of Stephen Powell. That's just first, because boy is that comparison apt. Let's see, what did Powell do, came on the boards, accused a specific individual of forging the diary, and every time the facts didn't fit his story, the story changed. So yeah, I'll absolutely grant that's a genuine and apt comparison there. Second, why in the world would I scream because you have knowledge of a plot to kill Paul Robeson 70 years ago? Third, who the hell is Paul Robeson? Fourth, why do I care again? Oh that's right I don't.

Ol' Man River... Deep voice... Loved and respected singer... also an actor.

Stephen Powell... yes, well...

[Ally]

Ol' Man River... Deep voice... Loved and respected singer... also an actor.

Oh I have heard of him then! I like that song. Still don't care a fig if someone wanted to kill him 70 years ago though. I imagine there's a conspiracy to kill half the actors around now (and if anyone's involved in one for the Kartrashians, jump me in).

Stephen Powell... yes, well...

Dont you dare think a mean thought against him! He was a saint! A martyred saint, he was.

[lynn cates]

Reason, Inference and Subjectivity--towards putting a reader to sleep.

Hello Mr. Begg. Delighted so to do.

Reason, itself, is objective. It admits of certain deductive inferences (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Disjunctive Syllogism, etc); ways of calculating inductive inferences, and so on. Moreover, this canon of rationality is open to all, and able to be applied uniformly. In a word, it is "objective."

Unfortunately, we, as human beings, ofttimes misapply reason. When forging a chain of, say, inductive reasoning, we allow weak links, redundant ones, and so on, to make up that chain. With this human element, the way that "reason" is applied is now tweaked to fit an individual in a specific set of circumstances. Hence, "subjective."

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Subjective reason cannot be used as a blanket term to excuse fallacy.

Two people can look at the same items and come to different conclusions and both can be valid conclusions. But the key component is that in order for them both to be considered valid and merely the result of subjective difference, the two people must have both actually examined the facts in evidence. You cannot dismiss outright error as being merely subjective differences. Who was it recently on the Mizen thread that said two people can look at the same thing and the same behavior can point to guilt or innocence if a person's minds already made up. THAT'S subjective. Failing to actually look at the evidence and then making up one's mind, or just hurling accusations without acquainting oneself with the facts is not just variances in thinking.

[lynn cates]

subjectivity

Hello Ally. Thanks.

"Subjective reason cannot be used as a blanket term to excuse fallacy."

Quite. Provided, of course, you mean the "subjective application of reason." For, if it results in a fallacy, one may claim that reason was MISapplied.

"Two people can look at the same items and come to different conclusions and both can be valid conclusions."

Perhaps "good" or "acceptable" conclusions? Technically, "validity" applies only to deductive arguments.

"But the key component is that in order for them both to be considered valid and merely the result of subjective difference, the two people must have both actually examined the facts in evidence."

Yes. And now we are discussing induction. And I agree.

"You cannot dismiss outright error as being merely subjective differences."

Nor would I try. I noted merely that Mr. Begg and Mac were having a difference of opinion vis-a-vis the status of "reason"--objective vs subjective. I offered a linguistic compromise.

"Who was it recently on the Mizen thread who said two people can look at the same thing and the same behavior can point to guilt or innocence if a person's mind is already made up."

I'll bite. Whom? But I would agree with that. Our minds are frequently "made up" concerning many things. And yes, we "filter" the external material world (if there IS one--perhaps I should say, "our perceptions") through what Kant referred to as the 12 categories. But ahead of them all, he noted that both time and space were posited by the mind. (Is time/space real? Descartes accepted them as so--based on faith. Can it be proven? Of course not.)

But, more to the point, do we filter lesser "circumstances" through our personalities, proclivities, etc? Indeed we do.

"THAT'S subjective."

No objection there. (Umm, no pun intended.)

"Failing to actually look at the evidence and then making up one's mind, or just hurling accusations without acquainting oneself with the facts is not just variances in thinking."

Again, agreed. But Mr. Begg had asked me to expand on my suggested compromise. I did. But in so doing I had Mr. Begg and Mac in mind. I was not thinking about Trevor. That is a further issue.

Cheers.
LC