Private sale

[Jenni Shelden]

OMG, why did no one tell me!! (you sods!)

[lynn cates]

Ethical Egoism

Hello Ally.

"Stealing other people's property, lying and deceiving people to get what you want is a-okay. Condemning someone for doing those things is abhorrent."

Strange as it may seem, there is one ethics paradigm which states EXACTLY that. It is called Ethical Egoism.

Good moral action--whatever furthers your pleasure and reduces your pain.

Bad moral action--whatever does NOT increase your pleasure or reduce your pain.

It is a species of consequentialism--along with both Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Hello Ally.

"Stealing other people's property, lying and deceiving people to get what you want is a-okay. Condemning someone for doing those things is abhorrent."

Strange as it may seem, there is one ethics paradigm which states EXACTLY that. It is called Ethical Egoism.

Good moral action--whatever furthers your pleasure and reduces your pain.

Doesn't that mean it's good (not abhorrent) to condemn someone for doing those things - provided that it gives you pleasure?

[Ally]

Hello Ally.

"Stealing other people's property, lying and deceiving people to get what you want is a-okay. Condemning someone for doing those things is abhorrent."

Strange as it may seem, there is one ethics paradigm which states EXACTLY that. It is called Ethical Egoism.

Ethical egoism does not explain Phil's hypocrisy on this matter. He is a third party, not involved. I perfectly understand a narcisstic git stealing material and lying because he's lazy and lacks the work ethic to accomplish work on his own. I don't expect all people to have ethics.

That does not actually explain Phil condemning others for condemning Trevor, while Phil goes about merrily stating that other people have to accept the consequences of their actions.

And ethical egoism does not obligate you to commit crimes in pursuit of your own interests. Ethical egoism does not require that you rape someone because you want sex, or murder someone because you want sex with a dead body. Any sick twisted git can justify doing anything they want and point to any warped "philosophy" taken to its utmost extreme to justify their behavior.

There are people who have a philosophy that justifies pedophilia. You can have any academic freak-philosophy you want, it still means you are degenerate, ethically bankrupt skank.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hello Ally.

"Stealing other people's property, lying and deceiving people to get what you want is a-okay. Condemning someone for doing those things is abhorrent."

Strange as it may seem, there is one ethics paradigm which states EXACTLY that. It is called Ethical Egoism.

Good moral action--whatever furthers your pleasure and reduces your pain.

Bad moral action--whatever does NOT increase your pleasure or reduce your pain.

It is a species of consequentialism--along with both Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,
are you genuinely saying you think it is acceptable to steal and openly admit lying as long as it furthers your pleasure and reduces your pain, damn the consequence to others. In other words f**k the Swansons and the various people Trevor has called morons and the like to get out of things as long as it made him happy?

What about if questioning whether such a person was a suitable candidate as a police officer where does that fit into your definition?

Jenni

[Lechmere]

After going through ten pages of mostly nonsense - and the stuff that wasn't nonsense was barely on topic....
Sally you are dying to say and everyone else is ignoring you. So go on tell.
Why are the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items almost certainly genuine?

If this is good you could have cut this thread short by 1000 posts, and prevented the ruination of several potential friendships.

[Chris]

After going through ten pages of mostly nonsense - and the stuff that wasn't nonsense was barely on topic....

Surely you mean bearly on-topic?

[Lechmere]

Mr Evans

I know you think the Warren Memorandum is genuine. I have read your reasons for holding that opinion on a thread on the other forum and you also kindly produced images of both pages I seem to recall.

I have not ‘proclaimed’ as to the Warren Memorandum’s authenticity.

I have said that if the Marginalia is re-tested and proves to be fake in all or part, then the Warren Memorandum should be discounted as a valid document unless it turns up and can be separately tested.
If that hypothetical scenario arose then I would hope you would also agree to that.

You are certain that the Marginalia s genuine so if it is tested you would be sure that it would pass and accordingly there would be no need to test the Warren Memorandum.

If the Warren Memorandum turned up and there had been a refusal to re-test the Marginalia then I would presume they would similarly refuse to have the Warren Memorandum tested.
That state of affairs would leave me with a bad taste in the mouth and I think it would then be valid to ask questions.

If the Warren Memorandum never turns up and the Marginalia is never re-tested then I would have doubts as to its veracity – even in the face of your certainty that it is genuine, and despite your experience and knowledge.

You also suggested that certain posters might have a vested interest in casting aspersions on the Marginalia as they have their own suspect and the Marginalia is a threat to that suspect.
Firstly I don’t think the Marginalia is a threat to any suspect as whether it is true or false, it does not in my opinion advance the Kosminski theory.

Secondly I could cast aspersions about virtually everyone here. Some of my accusations of ‘vested interest’ may be very wide of the mark – just as Mr Evans’ are!
For example I could say that Stewart Evans has a vested interest in the Marginalia being authentic as it passed through his hands and he didn’t take the opportunity to question Jim Swanson when he was still alive.
I could also argue that Stewart Evans has a vested interest in documents being accepted as genuine without too many questions being asked as he owns the Littlechild Letter (which mentions Tumblety about whom Stewart Evans wrote a suspect book).
I could say that Ally has a vested interest in defending the Marginalia due to her emotional bond with Nevill Swanson
I could claim that Adam Wood has a vested interest in defending the Marginalia because he is writing a book about DS Swanson.
I could claim that Cogidubnus feels special empathy for DS Swanson and his potential tremor because he also has a bad hand.
I could go on and on.

Vested interests are not restricted to rival suspect theorists.
Attacking the imagined motivation of a critic is no answer to their criticism.

So far as books are concerned – I think you make a good point that publishers seem to (regrettably) want authors promoting one suspect to damn rivals.

On these forums I enjoy he cut and thrust of debate with other suspect theorists.

N.B. ‘Suspectologist’ – Someone who advances a suspect theory. Any suspect theory. A name derived in fun from Ripperologist.
It is a poor suspectologist who does not welcome criticism of his theory. I have seen some almost begging to be ‘attacked’. There is only one thing worse than having your pet theory attacked. And that’s not having it attacked!

These debates tend to lead into a myriad of areas and increases understanding of the overall case. I welcome attacks on ‘my’ theory so that flaws can be exposed by a critical (hyper critical) audience. (By ‘my’ I mean the theory I hold, not, that I personally possess it).
In these debates I don’t mind repeating the same point countless times (if asked - not just for the sake of it) as inevitably issues get buried and different people join different threads.
Incidentally I don’t know if the remark about some people saying Tumblety wasn’t a Scotland Yard suspect was aimed at me. My stance is that he was indeed a suspect but only because of his own self promotion of his involvement in the Jack the Ripper case as a cover up for his Gross Indecency charges – but that is for another place.
As an example of suspect debate, there are various things I would dispute that you have suggested about Tumblety, but because you are Stewart Evans and you have been doing this since before I was born doesn’t mean your viewpoint is always going to be right.
You probably will be – and should be – right more times on an issue than most other people will be, but I would not accept you infallibility, and I hope you wouldn’t either.

One other issue came to my mind concerning what is effect a hierarchy of suspects – with the police suspects regarded as being unshakeably at the top of the tree.
The work of authors such as Martin Fido, Paul Begg and yourself obviously lent heavily on the records of the police investigation and in so doing put a factual slant on the re-investigation. This was in contrast to the fictionalised, magical, conspiratorial emphasis that was previously popular.
The new approach made ‘Ripperology’ more academic and more evidence based – rather than word of mouth, hearsay and the stuff of legends.
However I think that there is a shift away from the primacy ‘police suspects’ that came to the fore as a result of the factual investigation as the reports that mention these suspects are so unsatisfying. The suspects are contradicted by other officers who should know. The information on these suspects invariably has glaring inaccuracies. The suspects tend to conform to the prejudices of the age rather than what would now (I hesitate to say this as this implies profiling) regard as a likely suspect for a serial killer.
Hence while the police suspects have held sway, just as in the more distant past it was the Masons and the Royals, I think there is a shift taking place, not back to fantasy, but to what would be regarded as modern day suspects.

But this has nothing to do with the Marginalia or suggestions that it should be re-tested.

[Jenni Shelden]

After going through ten pages of mostly nonsense - and the stuff that wasn't nonsense was barely on topic....
Sally you are dying to say and everyone else is ignoring you. So go on tell.
Why are the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items almost certainly genuine?

If this is good you could have cut this thread short by 1000 posts, and prevented the ruination of several potential friendships.

Nothing could ruin our potential friendship, apart from my jealously of your relationship with Paddington Bear

[Jenni Shelden]

I could say that Ally has a vested interest in defending the Marginalia due to her emotional bond with Nevill Swanson

????????

[Ally]

I could say that Ally has a vested interest in defending the Marginalia due to her emotional bond with Nevill Swanson

I totally do have an emotional bond with Nevill Swanson. True, I've only met the man once but sometimes, once is all it takes. I am attending this conference solely in the desperate hopes that I can seduce him into a mad passion for me, so my as yet unrequited love does not continue to burn in vain.

[Lechmere]

Ally
I understand totally.
It's the same with me and Paddington Bare.
Sorry Jenni and stop misspelling his name.

[Lechmere]

But...were it not for the 'Cross/Lechmere theory' would you, and 'Lechmere', still be here debating at such enormous length something that has been thrashed to death in the past? And what was 'Lechmere's' motive in starting the debate about a private sale of private goods? I guess only he knows that, but his subsequent posts seem to indicate where he was initially headed. As I have pointed out, it can be easily shown that it is in the interest of those with a 'new suspect' of their own to doggedly pursue arguments against established and recognized suspects.

My interest in the Marginalia has nothing to do with the ‘Cross/Lechmere theory’. Hence my involvement here has nothing to do with it. My brain is capable of entertaining more than one ‘interest’.

The enormous length of this thread –in so relatively short space of time –is almost alarming.
Many posts – probably the majority - are no more than short snipes and many others are of the circular-never-give-an-inch variety.
However within the mire, I am not sure that many of the issues discussed here have been done to death previously (even if they have now).

Why did I start the thread?
If I wanted to generate a general purpose discussion on the authenticity of the Marginalia, then I would simply have started a thread for that purpose. It is extremely facile suggesting that I started a thread on the ‘private sale’ as a subterfuge. Why did I need to do that?
It carries with it the implication that discussing the authenticity of the Marginalia is a bit bad and so subterfuge has to be employed to open debate on that topic.
Actually it is quite clear that it is seen to be a ‘bit bad’ to start a thread on the Marginalia’s authenticity, but that wouldn’t have put me off.
I tell a lie, I didn’t actually want to start such a thread as the last time on this forum that I did it ended up in worse acrimony than we have seen here and I was suspended (for a row on another thread that spilt over) and loads of other people were also similarly suspended.

I started the thread because I found out that the Marginalia was being actively offered for sale by people being approached somewhat out of the blue, rather than interested parties taking the initiative to approach the vendors. This seemed to me to be a new development – and despite denials and annoyance at me for bringing the subject up, I think it is a new development.
The sale website invited people to contact them and said they were considering an auction. By approaching people the vendors considered potential buyers, it seemed to me that an actual sale may occur at any time. That again seemed to me to be a development.
Somewhat naively I thought it would be a brief thread on that limited subject.

I certainly did not anticipate getting involved on an all-purpose Marginalia row.
The fact that the owners can do the hell what they like with their private property is of supreme irrelevance. This is an issue of interest for many people in this field of study.
I am interested in this as I believe the Marginalia should be re-tested before sale.
The discussion and the thread was pushed into a full blown argument over all aspects of the Marginalia because at each stage I or another ‘sceptic’ was asked why, then why, then again why and name names etc until we are where we are.

As I have previously pointed out a case can be made that virtually everyone has some sort of vested interest, and they have all doggedly contributed to the length of this thread.
It is in the interest of those protecting an established position to resist intruders at all costs.

I hope this doesn’t lead to another ten pages. Or even one more page.

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Yes.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

obligation

Hello Ally. Thanks.

"And ethical egoism does not obligate you to commit crimes in pursuit of your own interests."

Actually, it does PROVIDED you don't get caught.

Cheers.
LC