Private sale

[Ally]

Once it becomes the funder´s privilege to have the final say, THEN we have a major moral and ethical issue!

What world do you live in where the funder DOESN'T have the final say? Your boss doesn't have the final say in how his business is run? He must bow to the employee or the client? A homeowner doesn't have a final say in what is allowed in their home? He must do whatever the decorator or visitor demands? A car owner doesn't have final say in who rides in his vehicle? He is obligated to give rides to anyone who wants one, regardless of whether they pay for gas?

So answer my question, a direct question: Do you believe someone has the right to come in your house and behave however they want in complete disregard to your rules and you are required to leave the door open for them?

Once one part lays down the rules, the discussion is no longer an equal one. And that in itself is ethically and morally contestable. I do, however, suspect that Americans and Swedes see these things differently.

So in Sweden, your house is not your own, your car is not your own, your property is not your own?? Anyone has equal access to take and use your property as they will, grafitti it, damage it and you are supposed to be quiet and accept that as freedom of expression? Sweden doesn't have personal property laws?

[Fisherman]

What world do you live in where the funder DOESN'T have the final say? Your boss doesn't have the final say in how his business is run? He must bow to the employee or the client? A homeowner doesn't have a final say in what is allowed in their home? He must do whatever the decorator or visitor demands? A car owner doesn't have final say in who rides in his vehicle? He is obligated to give rides to anyone who wants one, regardless of whether they pay for gas?

So answer my question, a direct question: Do you believe someone has the right to come in your house and behave however they want in complete disregard to your rules and you are required to leave the door open for them?

So in Sweden, your house is not your own, your car is not your own, your property is not your own?? Anyone has equal access to take and use your property as they will, grafitti it, damage it and you are supposed to be quiet and accept that as freedom of expression? Sweden doesn't have personal property laws?

Only I was not speaking of cars and houses, was I Ally?

I was speaking of debates on equal terms. And I did so because you could not see the moral and ethical implications of paying your way into getting the final word.

Over and out,
Fisherman

[Ally]

No you were saying we didn't have the right to close a forum because we were morally obligated to give you the right to say whatever you wanted on our dime.

And you still haven't answered my very direct question directly.

So I ask again: do you believe someone else has the right to come into your home or business, rant and rave and scream and yell their opinions and you don't have the right to show them the door and lock it behind them?

Are you obligated to allow anyone to say whatever they want within the walls of YOUR personal property?

[Monty]

Personal property?

Unlike the Swanson Marginalia which is.....oh, wait...

Monty

[Ally]

Hey I said five years ago that the Swansons could burn the darn thing if they wanted to. That it was entirely theirs to do with as they pleased. So don't look at me for that one.

[Robert]

From the wording of Anderson's 1905 letter, he seems to have sent Swanson one of his own books. So, if all the Anderson books are going into the sale, I wonder if, before that happens, the Swansons could let us know whether any were published in 1905.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob, I'm fine thanks, hope you are too. It was Martin Fido (not Paul Begg) who in 1987 first identified in print Anderson's poor Polish Jew as 'Kosminski' and not Pizer. Thus he was the first to publish this fact and takes the credit. However, in 1976, when Don's first Ripper book came out, there was no 'Ripper community' such as we know today, only a few enthusiasts and authors who were in touch and matters were not generally discussed in the way they are today.

For my part I bought Cullen's book in 1965 and was thus aware of 'Kosminski' as named as the Polish Jew suspect by Macnaghten and I presumed that this Polish Jew was one and the same as Anderson's Polish Jew. This was eleven years before Don's book was published. Even Don thought that it was 'a remarkable assertion' for Anderson to make (that Pizer was his suspect) and I had no reason to change my presumption that 'Kosminski' was Anderson's Polish Jew, although I read Don's book. But, obviously, I didn't publish my thoughts anywhere.

With no forums, no meetings and no internet, the study of the Ripper crimes was a pretty lonely occupation until the latter half of the 1980s and the centenary in 1988 when people really started to get together. So despite Don's book being influential, which it undoubtedly was, there was no known forum, prior to 1988 where opinions on the subject could be assessed, even then it was amongst core enthusiasts and authors only.

Both Cullen's, and Odell's, 1965 books were, like Don's, hugely influential for those reading about the Ripper crimes. And 'Kosminki' was established as the police Polish Jew suspect in 1965 with the publication of Macnaghten's three named suspects. Therefore we simply cannot assume that anyone faking a reference to Anderson's suspect around 1981-1987 would select Pizer and not Kosminski.

Hi Stewart,

I'm good thank you.

Yes the good old days of pre internet. I remember them well. It was Stephen Knight that got me interested back in 84 and it would be shortly after that when read Don's book and that was a big influence on me as well as his tour which I took in 94 so am using my own personal experiences.
Paul Begg's Kosminski chapter stood out for me when I mentioned the Pizer/Anderson suspect in my initial post as he made a big thing of it and I forgot about Fido's book.
So while I wouldn't say a forger would definitely say Pizer was the suspect I would say it was a possibility. How big or small a possibility is open to interpretation but its a mute point really as there is no possibility in my opinion that the marginallia was forged.

Regards

Rob

[Fisherman]

No you were saying we didn't have the right to close a forum because we were morally obligated to give you the right to say whatever you wanted on our dime.

And you still haven't answered my very direct question directly.

So I ask again: do you believe someone else has the right to come into your home or business, rant and rave and scream and yell their opinions and you don't have the right to show them the door and lock it behind them?

Are you obligated to allow anyone to say whatever they want within the walls of YOUR personal property?

Sigh ... Ally, I am a Swede. You are an American. Typically, Swedes and Americans do not understand each other on moral-related topics. But I don´t mind answering your question, and I will try to make my point one more time.

I do not believe that anybody but myself and people I allow to do so have the right to come into my home or business, rant, rave and scream and yell their opinions. If anybody should do so, I reserve the right to throw them out.

In that respect, we don´t differ.

As for the first statement you made, I did not say that you don´t have the right to close your forum since you are morally obliged to give me the right to have my say on your dime. It is your forum, and you are entitled to do what you wish with it.

What I said was something else.

I said that any discussion where one part reserves himself/herself the right to have the final say because he or she funds the forum on which the discussion is held, is bound to be a discussion on unequal terms. As such, that raises fundamental moral and ethical discussions as to the worth of the discussion.

The distinction is not a fine one, at least not the way I see things. But I am painfully aware that - as I said - you and me may well be different in how we perceive these things. You seemingly tend to think that one can earn the right to have the upper hand in a debate, due to the ownership of the boards. I acknowledge that you are in your full and legal right to do whatever you wish to do with the boards, but I very much question that a truly equal debate can be had on such premises. And if a truly equal debate cannot be had, then I´m afraid moral and ethics come into play. It´s rather like colonialism, if you take my meaning - nobody could legally fault the colonialists for claiming the right to decide which way Africas countries should take. But it wasn´t a morally correct thing to do, nevertheless.

All the best, Ally!
Fisherman

[Ally]

I said that any discussion where one part reserves himself/herself the right to have the final say because he or she funds the forum on which the discussion is held, is bound to be a discussion on unequal terms. As such, that raises fundamental moral and ethical discussions as to the worth of the discussion.

Do tell me the distinction. Why do you reserve the right to decide and eject anyone from your personal property that you wish but state that for us to do so is be morally objectionable.

You reserve the right to hold dominion in your domain, but consider others doing the same in theirs to be morally objectionable.

The distinction is not a fine one, at least not the way I see things. But I am painfully aware that - as I said - you and me may well be different in how we perceive these things. You seemingly tend to think that one can earn the right to have the upper hand in a debate, due to the ownership of the boards.

An upper hand in a debate is not what is under discussion. Whether to allow a debate to continue or to eject offending parties is. If you have that right in your personal property, why do feel it is morally questionable for me to have that right in mine?? What precisely is the difference between you holding the "upper hand" in your private property and having final say in what occurs there and me holding the upper hand and having final say in my private property?

What's the considerable difference you see?

Other than of course, the difference between how you value your property and how you value mine.

[Fisherman]

Ally: Do tell me the distinction. Why do you reserve the right to decide and eject anyone from your personal property that you wish but state that for us to do so is be morally objectionable.

You reserve the right to hold dominion in your domain, but consider others doing the same in theirs to be morally objectionable.

You compare different matters. In one case, Ally, it is a question of property. What we own, we safeguard.

In the other case, it´s a question of ideas and thoughts. And in that realm, I consider everybody´s ideas and thoughts equal. Just as I have a right to have an opinion, so do you.

I don´t share your opinions at all times, but that does not give me the right to predispose that they are inferior.

Not all things translate into money in this world, luckily. Not all things can be owned. Not all things are open to investments.

That´s the distinction I see here.

Of course, you own the boards, and as such, it represents property to you. To me, however, your owning the boards does not mean that I enter my views and thoughts with an acceptance that what you say has the upper hand. It would be ridiculous, and - once more - it would be ethically and morally wrong for you to take that stance.

An upper hand in a debate is not what is under discussion.

Oh yes, it is. To me, that is EXACTLY what is under discussion, up til the point I am guaranteed that I discuss on equal terms in every respect.

Whether to allow a debate to continue or to eject offending parties is.

Once the two clusters of things are intertwined, it spells trouble.

If you have that right in your personal property, why do feel it is morally questionable for me to have that right in mine?

I have no ethical or moral problems with you owning the boards, Ally. That is not up for discussion. The boards belong to you, you pay for them, you run them, and you have graciously allowed people to discuss on them. You have reserved yourself the right to throw out offensive people or people who do not abide by your rules, and that´s fine.
But the moment you say that you may shut a thread down "on a whim", you enter another field of discussion that is not money related (yep, such things exist in this world!).

What precisely is the difference between you holding the "upper hand" in your private property and having final say in what occurs there and me holding the upper hand and having final say in my private property?

None whatsoever. The difference only appears if you choose to take advantage of your property to throw a debate off balance in the equality department. You can own the boards but you can never morally own the right to disable a person to voice his opinion on equal terms with you. Economically based, you can do just that, though. But I always advice against taking advantage of economical factors when discussing matters with somebody. It is - yes, correct! - ethically and morally wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I do believe you are part surprised, part disgusted and part fascinated by my way of seeing things, Ally. Remember: I warned you that you would not be able to understand a Swede´s view on these matters...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

In the other case, it's a question of ideas and thoughts. And in that realm, I consider everybody´s ideas and thoughts equal.

Unless they are in YOUR house and then you don't hold them equal, you hold yours above as you acknowledge you have the right to eject them if you find their ideas and thoughts offensive. Once again, when it's YOUR personal property, your ideas have priority and that's perfectly acceptable to you. When you are in someone else's personal property, you still seem to think your opinions should have if not priority, an equal status, and other property owner's aren't allowed the same privilege you admit you hold.

Of course, you own the boards, and as such, it represents property to you. To me, however, your owning the boards does not mean that I enter my views and thoughts with an acceptance that what you say has the upper hand. It would be ridiculous, and - once more - it would be ethically and morally wrong for you to take that stance.

And once again, no one except you has said anything about my having "the upper hand". The discussion is about stopping a discussion on my private property or the right to eject those as seen fit. You are the only one who is discussing "upper hand" whatever the hell that means in terms of this discussion, and that was not the premise under discussion.

What was under discussion is whether the property owner has the right to close the door on a discussion. You grant that privilege to yourself, while stating it's morally questionable for others to have the same right.

Oh yes, it is. To me, that is EXACTLY what is under discussion, up til the point I am guaranteed that I discuss on equal terms in every respect.

You aren't on equal terms in any respect. Any more than I have equal terms in your house. Nobody has "equal terms" in someone else's establishment.

Once the two clusters of things are intertwined, it spells trouble.

Unless once again, it's in your house, and you are the one doing the ejecting. You reserve the right in your own property that you don't grant to others.

Once again, you are elevating YOUR personal property rights above those of mine.

But the moment you say that you may shut a thread down "on a whim", you enter another field of discussion that is not money related (yep, such things exist in this world!).[/B]

Nobody who owns a business owes their customers anything. If they want to close their doors on a whim, they can. If they want to sell only blue shag rug on a whim, they can. If they want to ban the color blue on a whim, they can. If they want to say donkey caps must be worn to get service on Tuesdays, purely on a whim, they can.

A business can decide on a whim anything they want in regards to their business. It is THEIRS. They don't owe you anything.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
In his first examination, Dr Davis used a notebook or ledger as his control sample.
According to the ‘Ripperologist’ article by Adam Wood, in his second examination Dr Davis was provided with access to some newly discovered letters (from 1909, 1918 and 1923 ), DS Swanson’s address book, the same notebook/ledger and all of Jim Swanson’s correspondence file.
However if the report is read Dr Davis states that he was provided with the three letters, the address book and a photocopy of one of Jim Swanson’s letters.
He specifically refers to the 1923 letter as being comparable to the Set 2 entries (the shaky writing).
He does not mention using the 1918 letter at all.
He also mentions looking at what he thought would be the later entries in the address book.

That is why the Set 2 Marginalia entries must have been made around 1923. Certainly after 1918.

Incidentally Dr Davis accepted these control items as known writing by DS Swanson without question.

I may have lost you in that post to Ally as I foolishly typed it on my phone and a few words came out wrong due to the corrective text feature.

This
That's one of the few posts by Ally that I can find s large degree if truth in.
I think Jim Swanson brought s kit if thus on himself also by regularly gilding the Lily.

Should read
That's one of the few posts by Ally that I can find a large degree of truth in.
I think Jim Swanson brought a lot of this on himself also by regularly gilding the lily.

Incidentally Stewart Evan’s posts set out exactly what I already understood his position to be. I don’t think anyone has misrepresented his views on here.

Ally
I have spelt out very clearly many times that the ‘work’ can only be done by a qualified professional – so that counts me (and you for that matter) out. I have very strongly suggested that the best outcome would for the Marginalia to be tested as part of a sale by a reputable auction house, which I understand is one of the options. I have said I would be satisfied with whatever they decided.
So far as I have seen all the other critics or sceptics would also be satisfied with that and most have openly stated this.
So I don’t know what you mean by:
til it's proved to your satisfaction right?

[Lechmere]

Adam

Pardon me for mistakenly calling him Douglas instead of Donald.
It must have been the cause of major confusion all round.

It’s a pity you have refused to put up that letter to Charles Nevin, where Jim Swanson claimed he had just found some more of his grandfather’s papers – apparently the Warren memorandum and the list of victims.
Rather annoyingly these two potentially valuable documents – that would be much sought after by collectors – seem to have been misplaced.
Be that as it may, Charles Sandell went into some detail about these two documents in his memo and unused article from ‘1981’.

So the 1987 letter to Charles Nevin is either further evidence of Jim Swanson gilding the lily or it demonstrates that the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items were not written in 1981.
Or I suppose it could be claimed that Jim Swanson just got muddled up.

We will have to leave that speculation hanging.

Has anyone suggested that Jim Swanson:
‘went around with his hands shaking permanently, like some gospel minister from the deep south.’

A curious choice of words, but whatever you mean I don’t think anyone has suggested anything like it.

The nearest was probably Dr Davis in his first report where he suggested that based on the Set 2 entries, there was:
‘evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism’.
That is probably the closest to anyone has come to claiming that DS Swanson has a serious affliction with regards to his hands.
Of course the only affliction Dr Davis suggested was Parkinsonism and I very much doubt that he plucked that out of thin air – and he is an expert.
Actually to be specific Dr Davis wasn’t saying that DS Swanson’s writing was showing signs that were similar to that of individuals with a neurological condition such as parkinsonism.
He said the sample of writing showed that.

Photograph evidence tends to suggest that DS Swanson did not have a problem. His fly threading hobby suggests he didn’t have a problem. His grandson’s recollections suggests he didn’t have any problems.

The 1923 letter seems to have better provenance than some items involved in this debacle but hasn’t been subjected to any sort of scrutiny that I am aware of.

It seems that you only want to put documents up in order to be congratulated for proving the authenticity of the Marginalia and you take it badly if a document’s usefulness in that regard is questioned or dismissed (heaven forbid).
So be it – you have the images.

[Chris]

I may have lost you in that post to Ally as I foolishly typed it on my phone and a few words came out wrong due to the corrective text feature.

This
That's one of the few posts by Ally that I can find s large degree if truth in.
I think Jim Swanson brought s kit if thus on himself also by regularly gilding the Lily.

Should read
That's one of the few posts by Ally that I can find a large degree of truth in.
I think Jim Swanson brought a lot of this on himself also by regularly gilding the lily.

I think you should definitely post more from your phone. It makes about the same amount of sense as the corrected version, and it's a lot more entertaining.