Off-Topic from Casebook Examiner thread

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff. I'm surprised to see your post because yesterday on the forums you were calling Ally and the Casebook hierarchy Nazis and said they'd banned you. But I digress...t

Can I just clear this up as it seems to be something a number of people believe. At no point have I ever critisized casebook, Stephen Ryder or it's Admin team. In Fact the exact opposite I am a big fan and use casebook regularly in my work. I think my views on Ally are fairly well documented and I stand by them even if that means being suspended again.

That's a good question. Yes, in the general course of life two people together would be assumed to be walking the same direction. But in the scenario where Pipeman and BS Man are serial killers, I would suggest that it's possible they might not behave like normal every day people. So you see, there's only a contradiction in facts if you first presuppose that Pipeman and BS Man should be expected to behave as you and I would.

But what does this have to do with my essay? I barely mentioned Schwartz and only once. This kind of talk is more suited for a Stride thread. Let me say that I'm not 'hanging my hat' on an accomplice theory. Le Grand may very well have been the Ripper AND worked alone. But Le Grand's criminal history raises the possibility for their having been an accomplice, as does Schwartz's evidence, so I'm sure you'd agree I'd be neglectful not to pursue it. It would also answer alot if not all of the peripheral mysteries that haunt this case. Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Yes interesting, as you may or may not know, the accomplice theory is something I followed quite seriously for some time.

Good luck with your research

Jeff

[Ally]

I am sorry Jeff, did you just say that it was your views on me that got you suspended and not you posting a rant against the administration AFTER they gave you what you wanted?

You say you are not insulting Stephen or the administration but you constantly do by implying that the only reason you got banned is because you insult me, which is flat out crap and you know it. That IS insulting them. And it's slandering them as well. So quit lying.

You were allowed to insult me freely until YOU started complaining about the insults on the thread. A perfect example of someone who dishes it freely, but cannot take it. At which time the mod came in and said, alright, enough with the insults, everyone return to topic and YOU went and posted a thread insulting them for their decision after you were given what you asked for. You are an idiot and a liar.

How about you grow up and learn to accept responsibility for yourself for a change?

[Jeff Leahy]

Strikes me Ally that you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

I asked you a perfectly simple YES or NO question, which you were clearly not prepared to answer.

Did you want the PIRTAE ban? If the answer to this question was YES then there appears to be some justification in my suspicions. If the answer were NO, then there appeared little reason in doing so.

At no point have I ever criticized Casebook Stephen or the Admin. I never said that you had the power to get me ban as you well know. Wanting something and having the power to do it are two completely separate things.

Personally I’d like to see you hang by your mealy toes in a vat of hot custard for several hours, but I’m afraid that culinary delight will have to be forgone until the rules of the Geneva Convention are changed not to include half-witted American ripperologist with an inferiority complex.

As usually you avoided the question.

Pirate.

[Admin]

I think my views on Ally are fairly well documented and I stand by them even if that means being suspended again.

Did you want the PIRTAE ban? If the answer to this question was YES then there appears to be some justification in my suspicions. If the answer were NO, then there appeared little reason in doing so.

Usually we do not discuss a poster's banning in front of the entire membership. However, since Jeff Leahy has decided to misrepresent the circumstances of his recent suspension, and he will likely misrepresent the circumstances of his current banning, we decided to make an exception. On April 12th, partially at his own request, we stepped in and posted the following on a thread:

Enough. This thread is temporarily closed. When it is re-opened, the first person who resorts to a personal insult on it gets a six month ban.

Jeff Leahy then posted the following:

OK so the casebook policy seems to be "contradict Ally Ryder" and we close the thread and ban anyone who disagree's with her?
Is Ally Ryder running casebook?

Some of us woud actually like to debate serious issues on a serious level.

Yet we are stopped from doing so by her mindless interference.

Usually on subjects that she actually doesnt care about!

What does she actually know or care about Sir Robert Anderson Zilch!

We then sent Jeff Leahy this email:

From: Administrator <a*******@casebook.org>
To: j********@********.com
Sent: Monday, 12 April, 2010 22:38:22
Subject: Casebook Forums

How you respond to this email determines the next few months for you in regard to posting on Casebook. I have been informed that you have a reading difficulty that impairs your understanding sometimes, so I ask you to read this email, think about it and then when you have calmed down, reply to it.

In an attempt to end the personal animosity and get the thread back on track, after having received report posts from the membership, I posted this in the Anderson forum: Enough. This thread is temporarily closed. When it is re-opened, the first person who resorts to a personal insult on it gets a six month ban.


You somehow construed that to mean and posted the following:

OK so the casebook policy seems to be "contradict Ally Ryder" and we close the thread and ban anyone who disagree's with her?
Is Ally Ryder running casebook?

Some of us woud actually like to debate serious issues on a serious level.

Yet we are stopped from doing so by her mindless interference.

Usually on subjects that she actually doesnt care about!

What does she actually know or care about Sir Robert Anderson Zilch!

And continued to hurl abuse after all parties involved had been told that the first person to violate would be banned.

As I have said, I have been informed that you do not always read things correctly, so I am offering you this chance to explain yourself and your reasoning before I determine what action to take.

What followed was an exchange where he accepted that his response was rash, however he blamed Ally for the entire chain of events, including five emails where he tried to insist that Ally had started the insults by using the phrase "that's all right (alright)" in this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4332&page=14

It should be noted that the "all right (alright)" part came on the heels of this exchange:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4345&page=3

He insisted that Ally had been insulting him by calling him an 'alright'. At this time, no support or corroboration has been found to back up his assertion that 'alright' is an insult in the East End.

In the exchange of emails, Jeff was told point blank that we were tired of his continually making statements to the effect that he was going to get banned just for having the courage to insult Ally. He was told that we viewed this as both insulting and challenging our administrative decisions and that it would not be tolerated any more:

You are constantly posting insulting comments about the boards administrative decisions. While it is your right to feel any way you wish about Casebook and its administration, we aren’t entirely sure that we need to give you the platform or the opportunity to insult us on the very boards we maintain. You seem to feel that Ally is the agent of all your woes, but as this example has pointed out, Ally has nothing to do with you reading a request by one of the staff, and then flying off the handle insulting our decisions.

If you are allowed back on the boards, it will be with the understanding that this incident was the final straw we are willing to accept and allow to slide.

constantly pointing to Ally as the instigator of all your woes and claiming you are criticizing Ally and not the administration is disingenuous.
You have stated more than a half a dozen times on the boards how the administration is biased against you and you can’t speak for fear of being banned, and yet, you are still allowed to speak and you keep criticizing the administration again and again saying you are not allowed to speak....

Two years of criticizing the boards, complaining about bias and your fear of being banned and yet, you have not been banned. How long precisely does it take for you to recognize that your actions, and only your actions, determine what happens to you on the boards?

Two things should be pointed out at this juncture. The original ban was supposed to be for six months; it has only been two and we allowed him to return. Second, the person mentioned in the original email who suggested checking whether his reading disability had contributed and might be a reason to mitigate the ban was Ally.

It was clearly explained to Jeff precisely what the circumstances of his banning were. It was also made clear that we were tired of the insinuation that insulting Ally is a bannable offense and we were tired of him casting himself in the role of martyr and freedom fighter against our unreasoning bias.

Jeff Leahy was banned for one simple reason: the administration said that the next person who instigated the personal attack wars would be banned and he didn't waste a single second in not only re-igniting the flame war, but insulting our decision in the process. He knew exactly why he was being suspended then, and he knew exactly what we would not accept in the future.

And yet immediately upon returning from a reduced ban, he is claiming there was no reason for him to be banned except Ally doesn't like him. He refuses to accept any accountability for his actions and he is doing the exact thing we told him would no longer be tolerated.

We apologize for disrupting this thread. Please do not respond to this post, or any other off-topic posts as we will soon remove them and hopefully get the thread back on-topic.