Irritations

[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.

[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.)

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.