Irritations

[Kunochan]

As to the main discussion, I am at a point in my life where I'm trying to not be irritated by anything. But there are a few things I can list:

People who use "media" as a singular or collective noun. "Media" is the plural of "medium." Making it a collective noun is just ignorance—it does not improve the language or make the word more useful. This also goes for the atrocity that is "mediums," as in "psychic mediums." They're "psychic media," and they're not psychic, because psychic powers don't exist.

People who use artificial intelligence to make art, replacing humans. It might be possible for AI to assist a human in making art (maybe), but art is a uniquely human activity. And by the way, those of us who make art do it because we love and enjoy it. It's not drudgery to be done by a machine.

The "Beverly Hills Stop." The California Stop is when you roll through an intersection with a stop sign, slowing down but never stopping. This is annoying enough. In Beverly Hills, people roll through intersections, but so slowly that actually stopping and then going would have been faster. It's annoying and pointless.

Microsoft Word. This bloated piece of trash has negatively affected our world's productivity for decades. Yet it's still considered the standard. There are far better options, several of which are free. I use Pages on my Mac for professional business writing (even though I have to export to Word in order to share documents with colleagues), and Scrivener to write fiction. Word is a dumpster fire and no one should use it.

Charging money for parking. I live in Los Angeles, where public transportation is rarely a realistic option. So I have to pay every time I leave the house, and it's ethically wrong. It's bad enough having to pay for gas, mileage on the car, the car itself, and insurance. Having to pay for parking (or toll roads) adds insult to injury. And having to pay for parking at a hospital or at a school one is attending is vile.

And finally, the mobile internet. Many pages have dozens of ads, and are constantly loading, so content shifts around and the page often crashes and has to reload multiple times. It's impossible to read anything. I recently found a great plugin called uBlock Origin Lite that makes these pages readable.

And finally finally, people who spell "light" as "lite." STOP IT.

[The Rookie Detective]

My problem is with anyone who says "Jack the Ripper is finally solved" period. And it's twice as problematic when someone says they reached their conclusion "scientifically."

It may be possible to solve the identity of someone involved in certain of the Whitechapel Murders—it's not contravened by the Laws of Physics—but the chances are infinitesimal considering the evidence available, most of which is incomplete and anecdotal.

And claiming you've reached a scientific conclusion based on statistical analysis of anecdotal data? Historians and anthropologists analyze anecdotal data, but no responsible researcher would claim scientific certainty.

To me personally, "proving" the identity of Jack the Ripper would involve convincing a majority of academic historians that a suspect was reasonably more likely guilty than not. Science doesn't really enter into it, unless hard evidence with provenance was discovered. The chances of that are infinitesimal, to the point that the possibility can readily be dismissed.

There is nothing wrong with enthusiastically endorsing a suspect. But the moment one uses words like "proven" or "solved," I suspect one is just making a cash grab. There's nothing inherently wrong with making money in Ripperology—I'd like to, but I won't lie or mislead in order to do it.

I don't know enough yet about the Thompson theory to have a firm opinion on his viability as a suspect. But proponents are just harming their case by claiming facts not in evidence. The case is not solved. Barring a miracle, the case will never be solved. To me, solving the case is not the point of Ripperology. Because if that's the goal, then Ripperology has no point.

Completey agree, brilliant post!


The reality is that after 137 years, the case will never be scientifically proven.

The only way to ever be able to achieve this, would be to exhume the victim's bones and use some advanced technique that can trace some kind of forensic data that is currently impossible to science, (but may in the future.)

2 of the victims are buried under the roadway that goes through the memorial Gardens at the COL cemetery, but it would be close to impossible to find them precisely.

There's no authority in the world that would grant a mass exhumation at a cemetery. It just wouldn't happen.

Frustratingly, it's likely DNA evidence that could identify the Ripper, would have been deposited on at least some of the victims, but after all this time, nothing would remain or be viable for scientific purposes of identification.

Essentially, the case can never be scientifically proven, on the basis it's now impossible.

And no amount of BS can change that.

[Kunochan]

Those proclaiming that the Jack the Ripper is finally solved when they are referring to a crap suspect that has very little going for them. And that everyone should just believe the b.s. there peddling. It's happened with Lechmere, Kosminski, Sickert and now Thompson. These people of course disregard more plausible suspects that are atleast violent murderers.

My problem is with anyone who says "Jack the Ripper is finally solved" period. And it's twice as problematic when someone says they reached their conclusion "scientifically."

It may be possible to solve the identity of someone involved in certain of the Whitechapel Murders—it's not contravened by the Laws of Physics—but the chances are infinitesimal considering the evidence available, most of which is incomplete and anecdotal.

And claiming you've reached a scientific conclusion based on statistical analysis of anecdotal data? Historians and anthropologists analyze anecdotal data, but no responsible researcher would claim scientific certainty.

To me personally, "proving" the identity of Jack the Ripper would involve convincing a majority of academic historians that a suspect was reasonably more likely guilty than not. Science doesn't really enter into it, unless hard evidence with provenance was discovered. The chances of that are infinitesimal, to the point that the possibility can readily be dismissed.

There is nothing wrong with enthusiastically endorsing a suspect. But the moment one uses words like "proven" or "solved," I suspect one is just making a cash grab. There's nothing inherently wrong with making money in Ripperology—I'd like to, but I won't lie or mislead in order to do it.

I don't know enough yet about the Thompson theory to have a firm opinion on his viability as a suspect. But proponents are just harming their case by claiming facts not in evidence. The case is not solved. Barring a miracle, the case will never be solved. To me, solving the case is not the point of Ripperology. Because if that's the goal, then Ripperology has no point.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, c.d. I think that "making out" meant (at least in the past) what my parents' generation might have called "necking": just hugging and kissing. (My parents were born in 1917 and '20, so came of age around 1938 or 41.)

It might depend on the age of the American as to whether his information that "making out' equates to "getting it on" is accurate. Language changes over time, and expressions and alter meaning. (Since the line in the movie is "only making out", I think the kissing meaning is more likely.)

Hi, yes, I understand, but I should explain that the word "only" was used as an expression of surprise or disbelief, and not one of restriction. In other words, he more or less said, "You'll never guess what he was doing - he was making out in the library". He wasn't saying he was in the library but "just making out".

Having said that, thanks for making the apparent difference clear. Not that it matters, as I won't be using the words anyway!

[Pcdunn]

Sorry to add to your confusion here, Doctored but I would strongly disagree with what you were told by your American friend. My understanding (and the way I have always used it) is that "making out" is limited to just hugging and kissing. "Getting it on" means uh...doing the deed if you get my drift.

I think you were mislead.

Maybe some other Yanks can weigh in.

c.d.

Yes, c.d. I think that "making out" meant (at least in the past) what my parents' generation might have called "necking": just hugging and kissing. (My parents were born in 1917 and '20, so came of age around 1938 or 41.)

It might depend on the age of the American as to whether his information that "making out' equates to "getting it on" is accurate. Language changes over time, and expressions and alter meaning. (Since the line in the movie is "only making out", I think the kissing meaning is more likely.)

[c.d.]

Sorry to add to your confusion here, Doctored but I would strongly disagree with what you were told by your American friend. My understanding (and the way I have always used it) is that "making out" is limited to just hugging and kissing. "Getting it on" means uh...doing the deed if you get my drift.

I think you were mislead.

Maybe some other Yanks can weigh in.

c.d.

[Richard Patterson]

Thompson lacked the physical strength and prowess to have the capability to almost sever Stride's head with one cut.
He wouldn't have been physically able to dominate in the manner in which the Ripper did.

However, he did have the anatomical knowledge, surgical skill and an understanding of a relatively new surgical technique for heart extraction that was demonstrated by the Ripper.

When we combine this with Thompson's macarbe and rather disturbing writings, and nomadic transient existence, this automatically places Thompson above the likes of Lechmere, Kosminski, Druitt and Maybrick.

The victims are the literal body of evidence that we need to decipher what kind of man the Ripper was, and what he was practically capable of with his knife.

So while it might be irritating, Thompson can't be ignored on the basis that it's unpopular and rocks the Ripperology boat.

It's a boat that's meant to be rocked after all.


Ripperology isn't a luxury river cruise, it's a torrid and windswept channel crossing.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Rookie, I appreciate your thoughtful tone, but let me bring in someone whose lifetime of work cuts through the abstractions we often get stuck in. Dr. Joseph C. Rupp, M.D., former Medical Examiner for Nueces County, Texas, is not a theorist or hobbyist—he is a veteran forensic pathologist who has testified as the State’s expert in multiple homicide trials and published on drug-related fatalities in The American Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology

In the foreword to my book, he stated that over the course of more than fifty years he performed around one autopsy a day—which comes to roughly 9,000 autopsies.

That perspective matters. Dr. Rupp stresses that the Whitechapel mutilations are not something that “anyone with a steady hand” could improvise in darkness. They required not brute strength, but precise surgical familiarity with internal anatomy under pressure—the kind of competence gained only through years of medical dissection and hands-on operating-theatre experience.

Now, set that beside Francis Thompson: six years of medical training at Owens College and Manchester Royal Infirmary, daily compulsory attendance at the dissecting room, hundreds of cadavers personally cut, and direct instruction under Dreschfeld in the new Virchowian autopsy method. His sister Mary herself recalled, “Many a time he asked my father for £3 or £4 for dissecting fees; so often that my father remarked what a number of corpses he was cutting up.” He lived with a prostitute, knew how they vetted clients, carried a scalpel, and after the Kelly murder collapsed into six weeks of institutional care—the murders stopping immediately.

So when critics say, “He was too frail, too poetic, too unpracticed,” they are not arguing against me—they are arguing against the hard testimony of a man who cut open 9,000 bodies and knew exactly what it takes. That is why Thompson cannot be brushed aside. His medical background doesn’t just fit the Ripper—it explains him.

The challenge for skeptics remains simple: if not Thompson, then name one other man in 1888 who (1) trained intensively in surgery, (2) lived rough in Whitechapel, (3) was bound up with prostitutes, (4) collapsed into institutional care at the exact end of the murders, and (5) left a literary “poetic diary” foreshadowing womb-fixated mutilations. That composite exists nowhere else in the record.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I realise that language must evolve to stay relevant, and I may be old-fashioned, but I get irritated by unnecessary changes that are just "dumbing down" of the English language.

One example of this is when "I said" or "I thought" is expressed by "I was like". For example, I was like, "Hi, how are you?" and he was like "great how are you?" Aaaaaarrrrghhhh!!!

A young girl singer was interviewed on TV recently and described meeting a more famous singer, and she said, "I was like wow, you know what I mean!" The interviewer seemed to understand exactly what she meant, but I thought "wow" just indicated some sort of feeling or emotion, but which? Was she excited, overwhelmed, speechless, nervous, adoring, amused, concerned, disappointed ... I don't know! All I can say is that if I had interviewed her I would have been tempted to say, "No, I don't know what you mean, use the words you would have used when you were six years old, and we'll all understand!" I suppose that I'm not very tolerant!

Another example occurred many years ago, perhaps in the 1990s, when I was at one of those business seminars where colleague from around the country get together perhaps to learn some new procedure, or discuss whatever is current. We were all at a hotel for two or three days, and on the first night, after a long drive to get there, I left the others in the bar to have a fairly early night, and turned on the television while I was unpacking and setting things out. Some American TV movie was on, and the first words were spoken by a student, "he was only making out in the library!" I had never heard that expression before, and didn't have the benefit of any context, so I didn't understand it.

By chance, the next evening as we all gathered in the bar, I was introduced to a very friendly American who was on a combined business and golf tour apparently, and I took the opportunity to ask him what the words meant. He was incredulous at my ignorance, so I explained that it seemed to me that our American cousins took everyday words like go or get or make, added a preposition like up, down, on, off, in or out, and bingo it meant whatever you want it to mean. Then he explained, or so he thought, "Making out means getting it on!" He thought that made it crystal clear, and didn't understand why we laughed.

Hopefully I haven't irritated our American friends with this - I certainly don't intend to do so! However, I do understand George Bernard Shaw, who said that UK and USA were two nations separated by their common tongue. Some things never change!

[The Rookie Detective]

Thompson lacked the physical strength and prowess to have the capability to almost sever Stride's head with one cut.
He wouldn't have been physically able to dominate in the manner in which the Ripper did.

However, he did have the anatomical knowledge, surgical skill and an understanding of a relatively new surgical technique for heart extraction that was demonstrated by the Ripper.

When we combine this with Thompson's macarbe and rather disturbing writings, and nomadic transient existence, this automatically places Thompson above the likes of Lechmere, Kosminski, Druitt and Maybrick.


The victims are the literal body of evidence that we need to decipher what kind of man the Ripper was, and what he was practically capable of with his knife.


So while it might be irritating, Thompson can't be ignored on the basis that it's unpopular and rocks the Ripperology boat.

It's a boat that's meant to be rocked after all.


Ripperology isn't a luxury river cruise, it's a torrid and windswept channel crossing.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

[John Wheat]

I can understand your stance on Maybrick as a ''Crap'' suspect , that which we have agreed on in the past . But to lump Thompson in that very same catagory after what can only be described as a mountain of Impressive and as yet shown to be dismissive Evidence ,to me smacks of Bitterness towards the poster and his chosen suspect Imo .

If Thompson was shown to be a viable suspect then I would be only too happy to add him to a small list of viable suspects. However there isn't the evidence to put him in that category. And there have been outlandish claims about Thompson such as it has been scientifically proven he was Jack the Ripper. This is not true at all. None of the so called evidence presented is scientific. So what is there for me to be bitter at?

[GBinOz]

Agreed. At my last eye exam, the man began switching them faster and even said he was doing this because I wasn't answering his question. Sigh... old eyes take a little longer to focus, doctor!

I can empathise. I had a period of dry eye which resulted in every switch resulting in a blurry unreadable chart. His question was - but which is less blurry and unreadable....and here's your bill, I hope you can read it. (that last bit might be a slight exaggeration}.

[FISHY1118]

Bitterness at what?

I can understand your stance on Maybrick as a ''Crap'' suspect , that which we have agreed on in the past . But to lump Thompson in that very same catagory after what can only be described as a mountain of Impressive and as yet shown to be dismissive Evidence ,to me smacks of Bitterness towards the poster and his chosen suspect Imo .

[John Wheat]

Well Said . #646 is just Bitterness

Bitterness at what?

[John Wheat]

Yes, it is irritating but it comes with being on these boards. I am saying this is not the place for it. Richard is entitled to support a particular candidate and you are free to disagree or ignore him. Surely you want to shout your support for Bury from the rooftop. Are you denying that right to others? And please don't respond by saying well Bury is a legitimate suspect and Thompson is not. That is not how it works.

And keep in mind that personal attacks on posters can get you in trouble.

Again, let's just keep this non-Ripper related because nothing good in going to come of it.

c.d.

Fair points. However I wasn't singling anyone out. Also I just find the attitude by some of the quest to frame a suspect brigade off.

[Pcdunn]

When you go for an eye exam and they switch lenses back and forth asking you each time which is better. Well sometimes they seem almost exactly the same to me but telling them that seems to get them upset. I mean it's not like I am trying to be difficult.

c.d.

Agreed. At my last eye exam, the man began switching them faster and even said he was doing this because I wasn't answering his question. Sigh... old eyes take a little longer to focus, doctor!