Colony

[Natalie Severn]

thankyou kindly sir she said

Thanks Harry,

[Doctor X]

If Ally had not stopped me, I would have gone on to link the crimes of the Whitechapel Murderer to that of modern terrorists, . . .

Why bother? You had contemporary terrorist attacks to compare it with. Incidentally, the modern examples of such are used to scare particular people--usually the family members of the body left in pieces on their doorstep. It does not appear your analogy holds.

. . . who are very much conditioned by social signals within their very restrictive social circle. But if I had dared to link modern terrorism with an Islamic culture I probably would have been banned as well.

What? For committing the sin of argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam? You are neither the first nor the last to render that particular violation to logical reasoning.

First, you fail to demonstrate the killings as a "terrorist act" analogous to modern or even contemporary terrorist acts. Noting that people were scared by them does not justify the comparison. Should we make serial killers BTK, John Wayne Gacy, and Celine Dion members of Hamas?

Second, you fail to demonstrate the existence of this "very restrictive social circle" that would stoop to terrorist attacks.

Third, you appear to be making the critical mistake of interpreting rejection of your theory with validity--that people reject it makes it worth rejecting which makes it valid. Sorry, it does not work that way, but it is a common mistake in Holocaust Denial, JFK Conspiracies, Illuminati Conspiracies, Creationists, and MFY Fans: everyone rejecting me makes me a prophet!

Variations of this is the "They Laughed at Edison!" fallacy. The best response to that is "they laughed at Bozo too!" In fact, Edison came up with a number of laughable ideas such as cement homes--with cement furniture--and "gravity shields." That someone was right about something in the past while being considered wrong about other things does not make a current theory any more or less valid.

Fourth, you appear to be equating rejection of the basis of some of your claims with censorship. That you are HERE and posting rather contradicts that.

Unsavory motives may create ridiculous theories certainly, but they may be separated and crushed separately. Seeking to provide an example that will not [CENSORED--Ed.] half the board I will point to one offered by a MFY fan--and roundly rejected by fellow MFY fans.

*Offers everyone to have a seat. Instructs Seed to pass out cocoa and muffins*

In the 2007 MLB division series betwix the Cleveland Indians and the MFYs, whilst "Jabba-the-Butt" was on the mound trying to save the season, there descended a swarm of "midges." Wee insect beasties that drove the pitcher and players nuts. The MFYs lost that game. They lost the series. It has become sort of legendary--with jokes that various sports teams would unleash vermin during critical periods of games in the future!

Right, an angry fan claimed it was . . . a consPIRACY!!!1!! He claimed--and apologies to those offended--that since insects were attracted to light, and the MFY pitcher was white . . . and many of the Cleveland Indians were not . . . the wee beasties were more attracted to the white player as intended by the Cleveland Indians.

A number of fans crushed this idiot. Now [ZZzzzzzZZZZzzz.--Ed.], to my point: this stupidity may be attacked on a number of levels:

1. Racism: and I will just leave it at that. The idiot's racism fueled his theory. He wanted to find someway to "blame" people for his sports team's failure in the playoffs. He has "racial issues." He put one and one together . . . got eleven . . . voila!! One can destroy his theory based on just those assumptions.

2. Facts: the Wee Beasties bothered everyone. Reality does not fit his claims. Period. I could blather on for pages--such as whether or not the Cleveland Indians can "train" insects to attack opposing teams--something they failed to do to the Glorious Red Sox to whether or not the Wee Beasties distinguish between race, color, and creed.

Thus [ZZZzzZZZzz--Ed.] one can attack your theory from both directions--your prejudices and your facts.

In a dedicated board--one interested in promoting interest and research into the Jack the Ripper killings, one can understand why the Powers that Be wish to concentrate on the second.

It is his board. He does not advertise it as a "free-thought, free-speech" board where "everything goes." I am sure there are Anti-Semites out there who would love to attach Jack to "t3h Jooz" and make wild speculations to further their bigotry--such may not be tolerated HERE. It is not research, it is prejudice. It is cherry-picking data to support a preconceived prejudice. It is worse than those who pick a suspect and analyze the data to support only that suspect.

So, on the bases of Facts, your theory does not hold dihydrogenous oxide. Regarding the first, you may wish to open it in the Pub or on a board that tolerates such explorations. I would be happy to unpack such at those places. It is not appropriate HERE.

The Whitechapel Murders had just as much impact on the ordinary lifes of Londoners in 1888 as did the recent bombings by terrorists in exactly the same venue. And I mean exactly.

No they did not. Yet, even if they did that would not create evidence for your "Colony" and other speculations. You are arguing in a circle based on false analogies.

--J.D.

[Ally]

Oh don't bother people. As you can tell by simple virtue of the fact that AP has not bothered to respond to a single point raised by anyone regarding his "model" he is perfectly aware that his model is crap. His only purpose for this thread is to tilt at his latest windmill which appears to me. I am in happy and august company and proud to take my place amongs Ripper luminaries like Stewart Evans, who was also a victim of AP's hyperbolic and insane theories.

Let it be known people: My life's work is to utterly destroy AP WOLF! I will bring him down! I will bring him low! I will not rest until he is banned from every internet outlet in the world and his voice is silenced forever more.

Oh no wait, there's outlets for lunatic fringes who need a place to whine about their mistreatment. He'll always have a home somewhere.

[Doctor X]

I am willing to give someone a chance regarding a subject upon which I am a neophyte.

That being granted, it all reminds me of various conspiracy theories I have the misfortune of wadding through, particularly the reaction to rebuttal.

Not the worse theory: that I still give to the Mossad-Nazi-9/11 Conspiracy. Almost as good as the "Invisible UFO-9/11" conspiracy.

Not making either of them up.

The problem is that one can remove "homosexual" from this one and basically insert any artificial group to justify Jack belonging to any of them.

--J.D.

[Cap'n Jack]

I am merely responding to claims that I am homophobic, and that my work reflected a form of homophobia.
The subject matter of 'Colony' was discussed in a rational and sensible manner many years ago, that is until Ally arrived on the scene and tipped the whole lot down a drain.
One needs to read the text in its entirety before making swift judgement about the state of my mental health.
I never got to write the bit providing linkage between modern day terrorist behaviour and the Whitechapel Murders, so it's a tad harsh to condemn me for something that has not even been written yet.

[Doctor X]

I am merely responding to claims that I am homophobic, and that my work reflected a form of homophobia.

Your posts do not address either--your possible homophobia and whether or not your work is derived from homophobia.

The subject matter of 'Colony' was discussed in a rational and sensible manner many years ago, that is until Ally arrived on the scene and tipped the whole lot down a drain.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam apparently; nevertheless, it should prove quite easy to condense. Given that Ally presents a far different version to the events, provided a link, and you are still HERE, methinks it would prove better to simply drop the subject. It is irrelevant to whether or not your theory has any merit.

Evidence.

Evidence.

Evidence.

Start with the evidence. That is what is lacking in your theory presented hithertofore.

One needs to read the text in its entirety before making swift judgement about the state of my mental health.

I am unaware of where I rendered a judgment regarding your mental health. Nevertheless, I have read your posts in their entirety and rendered the criticism.

You need to provide something else.

I never got to write the bit providing linkage between modern day terrorist behaviour and the Whitechapel Murders, so it's a tad harsh to condemn me for something that has not even been written yet.

Nothing has prevented you from providing that linkage. Indeed, you could have presented it in your post rather than complaining about Ally and your reception. I will grant that since the murders and "modern day terrorism" are utterly different you have quite the task. I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise, but that will require . . .

. . .

. . . wait for it . . .

Evidence.

--J.D.

[Ally]

Give it up Doc. AP loves me more than you. In fact, even though I've said nothing of value whatsoever in this post, I imagine in 30 minutes or less, he'll be back on here with another love song about how I destroyed his life.


Come on AP, tell me one more time how I destroyed you...it makes me feel all tingly.

[JSchmidt]

Come on AP, tell me one more time how I destroyed you...it makes me feel all tingly.

THAT'S ALL WE EVIDENCE WE NEEDED!!!!!11111oneeleven





Well, seriously, we should just ignore this topic as long as there is no shred of evidence here. Or anything linking the change of attitude (if it really happened...) towards homosexuals with the killer of poor women in 1888.
Do modern theories and studies of sociology or communication studies show evidence of this "colony" construct? Or any field of modern psychology? If not, I'm rather unwilling to ponder the other theories based on it.

[Cap'n Jack]

Go back Dr Clever Clog and read the heading for the thread I posted 'Colony' under. It states quite clearly 'Fiction'.
It is a work of poetic fiction.
If you want to read my non-fiction I would suggest you do it here on-site by reading the revised edition of the 'Myth'.
You'll find plenty of what you term 'evidence' in there.
Am I really grappling with a group of people here who fail to recognise the distinction between poetic fiction and non fiction?

[Robert]

I was on the thread when the trouble started. AP isn't homophobic, and nor am I. Nor did we say anything homophobic. However it's Stephen's call, because it's his site.

I thought the Colony was an interesting piece of experimentation.

Robert

[spryder]

Unfortunately I don't recall the exact circumstances surrounding the initial thread, but if AP wants to post his "Colony" piece in full either on the Casebook proper, or on his own blog, or elsewhere on the site I'd be happy to host it. If I remember correctly (and I may not be) the problem that arose originally had to do more with the responses surrounding the initial posting than with the posting itself. Either way, I don't see anything particularly terrible in what's been posted here.

And for what its worth, the word "homophobic" isn't something I'd ever even think of applying to either AP or Robert.

Anyway, the offer stands - I'm happy to host the completed Colony manuscript in its entirety on the Casebook, or to set AP up with his own blog so that he can post his material and allow for comments/responses in an environment that is entirely under his control. Otherwise he's free to continue posting here on the forums.

[Robert]

Thanks for that, Stephen!

[Cap'n Jack]

Thank you, Robert, and thank you, Stephen.
Robert's entrance is timely here, as it reminds me that the 'Colony' model was very much an evolving creation, written in response to direct discussion, and much solid criticism, from mostly Robert, but others were involved as well.
As each chapter was posted, it was then discussed and bashed about until I often rewrote it and resubmitted it, with alterations suggested by the discussion.
As Robert suggests, the 'Colony' was a very experimental experience, which drew in many different individuals with their own unique insights and talents.
It was a good time actually, and I remember the spirited discussions with a great deal of pleasure.
With Stephen's gracious, and kind offer, I would like to restart the 'Colony' experiment, but feel it is better kept to the fictional side of things, to ensure that misunderstandings do not arise as they have done so here.
I'll review the chapters and then begin posting them, one by one, and I would welcome constructive, or even destructive, comment and discussion from any and all.
Perhaps we might even get it finished off this time.

[JSchmidt]

I'd either suggest a disclaimer then or moving it to the creative writing section to keep it from fooling people.
The present state combined with posting it in General Discussion makes it look like it were an attempt at a valid, nonfictional theory.
And interpreted as that it certainly is open for the above mentioned critique.
The most problematic thing in its whole discussion was that at no point before the last posting was any mention of work in progress or it being a piece of fiction.
If you want to set it up as that you really need to mark it thus.

[Cap'n Jack]

'Colony' was posted on the 'Creative Writing & Expression' thread where it is stipulated:
'An area to post short stories, poems, artwork or any other creative expression with reference to the Ripper Murders.'
It cannot be any clearer than that.