Private sale

[Chris]

So sue. And we shall see.

I'm not the one who has been slandered. At least I assume I'm not - there has been an understandable reluctance to identify the people the smears and innuendo are directed at.

[Fisherman]

Nor have I been slandered, Chris. But I dislike the turn the whole discussion has taken. It seems inevitable that this happens whenever the two words marginalia and question appear jointly in a thread.

What I have done is to point to an instance where the discussion has gone wrong, due to a misrepresentation of a statement made. Nothing else, it´s all very basic.

I could go on to say that I think that what you interpret as smears and innuendo may well be nothing of the sort, but since I fear that it would cause other reactions than the ones I would desire, I´ll stop where I´m at.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not the one who has been slandered. At least I assume I'm not - there has been an understandable reluctance to identify the people the smears and innuendo are directed at.

Why dont you get this bee out of you bonnet about smears against people there has been no such thing it simply you interpretation of what has been said.

Everyone has the right to question everything connected to this marginalia which is what they are doing. The trouble is as has been said before you and a small minority of others are hell bent on propping it up as being totally authentic and have accepted everything without question. Is that because you are a personal friend of the Swanson family ?

If Tottys report was looked upon as being conclusive then why was a another test carried out by Dr Davies, and if that first test was carried out by Dr davies was also looked upon as conclusive then why the need for the second test by Dr Davies.

The answers are that those holding the marginalia and those advising them were not certain.

Now following the last examination many others are still not sure so for us to be sure and for those involved with it to be seen to be totally transparent the right and proper course of action would be a new independent examination.

If the Swanson family and those who advise them have no concerns then they should not object to this course of action and put this whole matter to rest. But of course if they have doubts and are fearful that a new examination might adversely effect the value of the marginalia then they will object.

As I see it they are between a rock and a hard place because as has been said as is stands and with the controversy surrounding this it is highly unlikely that anyone will pay a large sum of money for it at this time if they do then they have more money than sense.

[Chris]

Trevor Marriott

You need to explain why you publicly claimed that there was a "conclusive" finding by a handwriting expert that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson, when you knew that statement to be untrue.

Unless you have an explanation for that, why should anyone even bother reading your posts?

[The Good Michael]

The marginalia is so important that someone faked it in order to promote Kosminski, or in order to protect Swanson's beliefs...no, impossible. The Ripper murders are really unimportant in the grand scheme of things. No one outside of this little coven of people give a rat's arse about any of it. Trivial nonsense, all of it. The few (5 or so) people who care that deeply about authenticating the writing cry foul when others tell them to shut up. Guess what. They should shut up. No one cares. No one in the world gives a crap save for the paltry few who really should live a life.

The End,

Mike

[Fisherman]

No one cares.
Mike

Even hundreds of posts ago, I would suspect that you were wrong about that Mike. My conviction is that many people care very much about what the marginalia is - or isn´t.

It´s another thing that all those who care probably are regarded as first class nutters by the outside society - given that there is one.

Is there ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Chris;275707]Trevor Marriott

You need to explain why you publicly claimed that there was a "conclusive" finding by a handwriting expert that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson, when you knew that statement to be untrue.

Unless you have an explanation for that, why should anyone even bother reading your posts?[/QUOTE

Thats is true to form come back with a question thus avoiding answering the original points raised. Thats your favourite trick !

I think you need to think about the present and the future not the past as far as the marginalia is concerned.

What I said previous had the desired effect it caused the marginalia crowd to get it re examined wonderful strategy do you not think ?

[Lechmere]

Mike
Impossible that anyone would fake the marginalia as you see no motive?

I don't think for a second that a potential motive for forging the Marginalia (if that is the case) was to promote Kosminski as a suspect (although with some more unbalanced Marginalia defenders this is clearly the motivation behind their mouth frothing outbursts in attacking and misrepresenting any scepticism shown). Nor to protect Swanson's beliefs.

But try this:
Financial - there is and always was a potential financial motive.
Fame - potentially to add perceived deserved but ungiven lustre to the family name.

I could provide instances of both combining (google Joyce Hatto).

Is it important if it was a forgery?
Not in the scheme of things but few forgeries are important in the scheme of things and they happen - regularly with what are presented as newly discovered - which is why extreme caution is advisable.

The whole Ripper discussion is not important in the scheme of things.
Whether Hutchinson was Toppy is not important -most people don't give a rat's arse about that either (although you do and I do and a handful of others on both sides of the fence do and squabble about it) or probably any topic on these boards. No certainly any topic on these boards. That is a given.

The trouble with the marginalia is that it provokes extreme reactions but only from those who think it is a done deal. Some -not all of course - but the ones who tend to proliferate on marginalia threads - cannot engage in debate and we end up with pages of abuse - and any discussion about any aspect of the marginalia is always immediately dragged by them into a shouting match about its authenticity.
The threads invariably leave a bad taste in the mouth - but the only alternative is to surrender to their attempts at censorship - which I think is their motivation.

If it is claimed that questioning the marginalia involves making accusations against people and this is unfair - then I am afraid in the real world if a new document is presented it must be scrupulously tested and any tests made are open to criticism and review - that unavoidably goes with the territory - shouting down calls for a review are the problem - not the calls for review themselves.

I am also aware that claims are made that this spectacle will be off putting for anyone who has documents in their attic coming forward in the future.
I would suggest that if the pros and cons of a discovery can be debated in a civilised manner then that will not be off putting. It is inevitable - totally inevitable - that any new discovery will be debated and have its supporters and detractors and many who don't care. Some will be passionate on both sides. But hopefully any debate will be conducted in a civilised manner.

[Jenni Shelden]

There is one thing and one thing only to point out here, Jenni. And that is that you claimed that Edward had said that Dr Davies was too close to the Swanson family for his verdict to be reliable.

Edward never said that. He clearly stated that there was a potential risk that Davies was too close.

Pointing to a potential risk is not making an accusation. It is not even saying that there IS a risk. It is recognizing that a risk MAY be at hand.

How you can misconstrue this to say that it´s possible (not proven, thus - just a risk - see the previous text) that I´ve inserted myself into the discussion to discredit you, is beyond me.

To begin with, it is not you as a person that is under scrutiny. It is a claim on your behalf that is demonstrably false. And since it is demonstrably false, I need not do any discrediting at all. You´ve done it yourself.

Now, I suggest that we keep anything else away from the discussion but this little - but important - detail:
You said that Edward had claimed that Davies was too close to the Swansons.
Edward said that there was a risk that this was potentially so, and he has numerous times said that he has nothing to blame the good doctor for as such.
One of the things he is not blaming Davies for is being too close to the Swansons.


Can we keep the discussion to this one detail, please? Can we refrain from conjecturing about sinister motives on my behalf for pointing this out? It does not belong to the discussion. Nor does sarcasms do so.

It is a very straightforward thing, so let´s not pretend it is not.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. I see that there is an ongoing discussion about sobering the debate up and investing more in discussing the issue at hand than in abusing each other. I welcome the intention, but I think I will have to see it before I believe in it...

Hi Fishman,
out of respect for Edward, who as you note, I am trying to engage in a more serious discussion without the use of name calling, I refuse to give you a full answer to this because i already answered it and because me and Edward have moved on.

You place me in a very ackward position of bringing this back up, when me and Edward are in the process of dealing with it ourselves, without the use of patronising language and making strange claims about what I said anyone said. I was asking Edward what he meant, he has now explained it, we now understand each other just fine. Knowing this as you clearly do as regards to your PS you choose to make this post. Why?

When it comes to your entrance to this thread the fact it started as it did as though I am a hysterical child says all it needs to in my mind. Inserting words into my mouth I didnt actually say and intentions I don't have, and when I point out to you that originally, i.e when I first asked the question, no word possibly was used, you ignore that and continue to act as if this isn't the case. Maybe you should re back over the thread? let me tell you something, to me, saying something then refering to that as possible is still implying that very same thing. Nonetheless Ed explained what he meant, which is all I wanted so it is irrelevant. Even saying this makes it seem like I am reigniting something we put to bed yesterday. beleive me I am not - i understand what he is saying just fine.

Its pity I can't respond to his sensible posts until this evening thanks to your unhelpful interuption
Show me some respect if you want the same back in return,
is that too much to ask?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

The real problem, Chris, lies in people ascribing statements to others that have never been made. It´s called misrepresenting, and it´s represented in this thread to a ridiculous degree.

Fisherman

And if you carry on, I will put you on my block list, so don't expect to get a reaction

[The Good Michael]

Mike
Impossible that anyone would fake the marginalia as you see no motive?

I don't think for a second that a potential motive for forging the Marginalia (if that is the case) was to promote Kosminski as a suspect (although with some more unbalanced Marginalia defenders this is clearly the motivation behind their mouth frothing outbursts in attacking and misrepresenting any scepticism shown). Nor to protect Swanson's beliefs.

But try this:
Financial - there is and always was a potential financial motive.
Fame - potentially to add perceived deserved but ungiven lustre to the family name.

I could provide instances of both combining (google Joyce Hatto).

Is it important if it was a forgery?
Not in the scheme of things but few forgeries are important in the scheme of things and they happen - regularly with what are presented as newly discovered - which is why extreme caution is advisable.

The whole Ripper discussion is not important in the scheme of things.
Whether Hutchinson was Toppy is not important -most people don't give a rat's arse about that either (although you do and I do and a handful of others on both sides of the fence do and squabble about it) or probably any topic on these boards. No certainly any topic on these boards. That is a given.

The trouble with the marginalia is that it provokes extreme reactions but only from those who think it is a done deal. Some -not all of course - but the ones who tend to proliferate on marginalia threads - cannot engage in debate and we end up with pages of abuse - and any discussion about any aspect of the marginalia is always immediately dragged by them into a shouting match about its authenticity.
The threads invariably leave a bad taste in the mouth - but the only alternative is to surrender to their attempts at censorship - which I think is their motivation.

If it is claimed that questioning the marginalia involves making accusations against people and this is unfair - then I am afraid in the real world if a new document is presented it must be scrupulously tested and any tests made are open to criticism and review - that unavoidably goes with the territory - shouting down calls for a review are the problem - not the calls for review themselves.

I am also aware that claims are made that this spectacle will be off putting for anyone who has documents in their attic coming forward in the future.
I would suggest that if the pros and cons of a discovery can be debated in a civilised manner then that will not be off putting. It is inevitable - totally inevitable - that any new discovery will be debated and have its supporters and detractors and many who don't care. Some will be passionate on both sides. But hopefully any debate will be conducted in a civilised manner.

The financial gain would be minute compared to the time and effort required to hide the truth. The gain would be small because, as you've said, this whole JTR world is small and unimportant. That is my entire point. We few who enjoy the mystery are interested, but that is we few. Our interest really is insignificant. Only vanity makes it all a big deal to any of us. Think about the diary as an example. It was a huge news item and the financial gain for anyone on any side was very small. yet at least with the diary, potential was there (on the creator's part) to make some good coin. The marginalia isn't in this league and the diary league is akin to the Grapefruit League in American Baseball.

Mike

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
I somewhat doubt you will be forever be known as a ‘Marginalist’, although I will always think of you in that way now.
Just kidding.

I made the term up for this thread, so I guess I can make up what it means…

• In the context of this thread it was someone who does not address any of the points made in criticising the Marginalia and the process of its testing.
• Instead they attack the critics of the Marginalia in a rude and personal manner based on their own pre-loaded prejudices, as exhibited by the repeated asking of the same question even when it had obviously been answered and the wilful misinterpretation of what was said in that answer – again based on their own preconceived and invariably inaccurate notions of what the poster (usually but not always me) meant.
• It means failing to accept that when one of their repetitive questions is answered, that it is answered honestly, again because of their own preconceived notion of what is motivating the other person.
• It means being rude and aggressive without provocation.
• It means the inability to concede a single point, even to the extent of agreeing to disagree.
• It means looking through pages of posts for one stray or clumsily worded expression to somehow prove some obtuse point.
• It means adopting the role of ‘attack dog’ which in internet forum terms does not mean being a dog. It means defending their own standpoint by aggressively attacking anyone who puts forward a contrary notion to drown out their criticisms with personal abuse and misrepresentation.

Some but not all of these things you have been ‘guilty’ of on this thread. In my opinion.
But hey that was then and this is now!

Hi again Ed,
I am really, really, sorry to harp on about this, I really don't think you understand the genuine level of offence I take to this.

I dont think I didnt address any of the points. One of the first things i said was that the tests that were done seemed adequate and the follow on from this was me trying to ascertain why you didnt.

I don't think I did this either. I don't think you answered my question the first time, when you did answer, I stopped asking

I don't think i have been either rude or aggressive without provocation.

I don't think I've made a point that I needed to concede.

i dont think it is an obtuse point to ask what tests should be done or what kind of closeness there was, these are important.

i don't think I have acted as an attack dog either.

Finally marginalist as you admit was a phrase you made up with the intention to poke fun. Yet when I first asked you what you meant you did't mention the above points.

I think it would be fair to apologise, i apologised to you if you percieved me to agressive even though I dont think I have been.

Incidentially, marginalist rather than marginaliaist implies my views are on the outskirts, which i think its clear on this matter they aren't.

Im sorry i havent had time to answer your more in depth post to me, my lunch break is now over!

Jenni

[Fisherman]

You are welcome to any action you choose to take, Jenni. If you and Edward have an understanding, then fine. If you want to put me on a block list, then equally fine.
Just don´t try and point me out as the one who puts words in other people´s mouths. That´s a bit too rich.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Deleted but can't figure out how without comment

[Fisherman]

And there we are, I am no longer only just a poster who put´s words in other people´s mouths, I am now also a troll for pointing out the undesired truth.

Nice going.

Fisherman