No announcement yet.

The One on One--The Sidelines

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The One on One--The Sidelines

    Forum for discussing ongoing debates between participants here on JTRForums.

    To Join JTR Forums :

  • #2
    So why are Stan Russo and Paul Begg the only ones restricted to the Hove Seaside Home debate? I'm as qualified as Mr. Russo, if not more so, to discuss this event.


    • #3
      You almost got it right, Howard. Having a one-on-one discussion thread is fine, but you ought to make it solely for two people who agree with each other. Not disagree. Now that would be perfect. Two guys can click into this thread knowing full well that their viewpoints nicely coincide. How relaxing! And the best part of it is that they both can take comfort in the fact that some two-bit 3rd party instigator won't even be allowed to come along and disturb their peace and tranquility.

      Just think of it. No contradictions. No cheap antagonistic garbage. No A.P. Wolf, heh heh. What more could a mellow Whitechapel researcher want?

      I'd have a fabulous time with Roger, JM, or Robert on a one-on-one thread knowing that all the obnoxious wanna-be's will be denied the opportunity to "make a name for themselves" by disrupting the enjoyment of our amiable discussions. It brings a peaceful smile to my face just thinking about it. I'd be able to cheerfully type up a post with my right hand, while happily munching on a cheeseburger with my left.

      A debate thread. Geez! Everybody want to argue and criticize each other's efforts. Fighting takes up a lot of time and energy. It ruins appetites too. Being a part of a friendly and agreeable one-on-one thread is a lot less work and it improves one's nourishment.


      • #4
        Dear Scott...

        You, as well as anyone else on the site, may institute a thread ( as an example...lets take the GSG ) where pro-GSG believers can engage in discussion...or where, if you prefer, anti-GSG believers can share their views. You never have to ask whether or not this is a kosher thing to do. You can just do it without any hesitation.

        When threads on the Forums are set up, they usually contain comments from each side of the argument...whether the GSG is evidentiary or whether it is not....or occasionally, comments from neutral parties.

        With a "pro-Hove" thread...which again you can establish without my fat head getting can discuss the Hove identification with like minded individuals with those who feel as you do. The same goes for "anti-Maybrick", "pro-D'onston", "anti-Macnaghten 5", or "pro-Tabram" threads.

        The main threads...those without the expressed bias ( pro or anti ) are for general consumption.

        By delineating concepts or aspects of the Case into three types of threads....general,pro,or can decide which is best suited for them....and may participate in any one of them as long as they understand the premise of the thread. We know,having "been around" as long as we have, that threads invariably get derailed since Internet discussion is quite different than "real life" discussion. The continuity and flow of an internet discussion is far more difficult to perpetuate.

        If you wish to engage with Mr. Begg or anyone in a "one on one", that would be great,Scott...I think we hear too little from you,to be frank,on your views of the Case. I think its safe to say that you are safely nestled within the higher echelon of the Andersonian researchers and a thread where you and others ( say, John Malcom or Mr. Begg ) would like to engage in pro-Hove discussion would benefit the site.

        Some will feel that setting up biased threads ( pro or anti ) and locking out dissent is counterproductive to examination of the Case....but I strongly allow me to explain.

        If a thread...a general established on an aspect or suspect...without expressed bias as to the direction of the thread...then anyone, everyone, may or rather, should express their position on what is being analyzed. This is the arena for someone who is either pro or contra to express their views ...and let the chips fall where they may.

        Since most Ripperologists are thread-followers or thread-critics and not threadmakers....this way someone, say you or Joe Chetcuti, may set up threads for likeminded people without the distractions.

        So,by all means,Scott...ask Mr. Begg to throw up his dukes. By all means,set up a pro-Hove thread or I will gladly do that for you.

        Joltin' Joe...

        First of all,tell David C. I got the g and the keyring will be sent Monday.

        If you want a "Buddy System" thread set up for Tumbelty, whether the Mackenzie murder should be considered a Ripper murder, or why WT.Stead was a schnook....then I will do so now.

        We already have "The Argument Against" and the "Argument For" threads set up for this "Buddy System" idea will be set up shortly.

        I'll get on it right now Joe.

        Thanks to both of you men for your comments.
        To Join JTR Forums :


        • #5

          I am sure there are people out there who believe the opposite of what you believe - feel free to have a one-on-one debate or as Howard said, post your opinions in a newly created thread of your choosing.

          To argue that you should be the one discussing the issue, obviously substituting for me rather than Paul, is just plain silly. If you feel you have something more to offer than me, put it in the sidelines discussion, which will have opinions on Paul and my debate.

          I am not sure why you would want to substitute for me in the first place, considering we differ on this position, so you would ostensibly be arguing with Paul over agreement on this same issue. This appears to be along the lines of what Joe proposed, yet the debate of two people who agreed would be pretty pointless. I believe Mr. Begg and myself, while disagreeing on many issues, can have a civil and productive debate. To tell you the truth, I hope he, as they say in the South, 'learns me somthin', although I do believe I am correct on the issue at hand - that is why we are debating.


          • #6
            Thanks Howard, I'll tell David the news. You ought to meet him some day. The guy is a professor in workman's compensation law. So if Sir Robert injures his finger while typing for the Jtrforums, David can instruct Sir Robert on how to take Howard to the cleaners!

            Stan is correct that a debate between two people who see eye to eye is pointless, but a friendly discussion wouldn't be. I bet the two participants would be more willing to share their private material if they are in a nice public chat with a buddy. And this would also be to the benefit of all who tuned in. (Right now Palmer is thinking that old Joe is setting him up for a trap!)

            A perfect tandem for the friendly one-on-one thread would be Coral and the descendant of John McCarthy. Like so many others, I was interested in hearing the comments of this descendant when she started posting on the Casebook last November. But her experience on the message boards was cut short due to the chicken antics of a couple of cheap "wanna-be debunkers" who disrupted her testimony by implying that she was a fraud. That was so damn typical of the rude idiocy that stinks up the Ripper World. A couple of boneheads, who didn't even know this lady nor did they ever read one published sentence of her material, screwed it all up for everyone.

            I didn't blame the elderly woman for walking out of there. And I'm just hoping that Coral can woo her to return to this field. I can't think of a better neighborhood to welcome her back in than right here at the Jtrforums. And if we have a thread set up for those two that is exclusively one-on-one, we'd have a situation where every decent Ripperologist can click in and quietly listen to what they both have to say. And we can take comfort in the fact that while we're listening, no useless dolt will be allowed to butt into the thread and pollute it with half-ass accusations.

            A clown who behaves in this manner reminds me of a moron in the crowd who runs out onto the playing field during a sporting event. The only difference is that here in the Ripper World, we see more of them. Big-talking wanna-be debunkers. They come a-dime-a-dozen in Ripperology. More than half of them couldn't even find their own public library without a compass. They just sit at their keyboards, read other people's research, think up derisive comments in their heads, then they post them up for the sake of contradiction and self-advertisement. And they cling to the falsehood that they're providing everyone with a "service."

            Now we've got a chance to create a one-on-one thread where these idiots are banned and Ripper researchers can peacefully tune into a friendly and informative discussion. I say go for it.


            • #7

              Not only are these one on one threads set up as they are to allow a solid debate....but even those whom you may feel are counterproductive ( in your post before this one ) have every opportunity to set up a thread of their own to counter what you or anyone else says in their own thread.

              Theoretically, we could have a dozen or more singular,individual debate threads going at one time. Its all up to the membership....even if they want to bring in those who aren't currently message board members or Forums members.

              By all means,ask Coral once more and assure her that should her friend desire her own Forum to use for whatever purpose ( thats what the Individual Forums are for ), she is more than welcome to it.
              To Join JTR Forums :


              • #8
                Well, I see all this as being a result of Paul being banged into a corner from which he had no exit. Thereby he has found one.
                The eventual outcome being that I could be offered an exclusive one on one with myself where I could blow hot air out of my asp for the next twenty years or so.
                I know, How, that you gotta brush ego in this business, but hell when petticoats get in the way of honest and open debate then I'm outta 'ere.


                • #9
                  Well I spent every day for a month or so debating with Paul Begg and a few others, on aspects of Robert Anderson"s statements about his" Polish Jew theory".I couldnt quite understand why I couldnt get to see the thread unless I "signed in"----but now I find I have been "sidelined"-
                  Oh Well-like AP ,maybe I"m best outta here!


                  • #10
                    Dear A.P. & Nats:

                    The idea for the "one on one" has nothing to do with the already existing "Anderson Up or Anderson Down" thread.

                    The idea, in fact, was Stan' idea which I accomodated in the same manner that I would have accomodated one for either of you. There was no motivation to initiate the thread based on anyone else's desires or wishes, nor was it an attempt to limit who would discuss what.

                    I'm sorry if either of you or both of you feel "sidelined", when that was not the intent at all on my part. The "Anderson Up or Down" thread is still in operation.

                    In addition, anyone who wishes to participate in the "Anderson" thread can do so at any time.

                    To Join JTR Forums :


                    • #11
                      Dear How, what does 'forum' mean?


                      • #12
                        Dear A.P.

                        The "One on One" wasn't intended to be a forum, rather a venue for Stan to debate Paul ( and once more, the Anderson Up or Down is still operational and that is an open forum ) based on a request that was made and granted.

                        Stan felt that ( and I am not dumping the establishment of the thread in his lap, but giving credit where its due...since I sort of like this diversion to see where it goes ) if he could debate Paul one on one, it might be interesting. Thats all.

                        I was not aware of Mr. Begg "pulling stakes" on the Anderson thread permanently....if thats being implied here. I certainly hope not, since that thread was developing very nicely and I had hoped we could segue into other parts of the Anderson saga.
                        To Join JTR Forums :


                        • #13

                          I'll take full blame for this thread.

                          The problem with what happened on the Anderson up or down thread was that three people were essentially challenging one on a certain aspect of the case, so it was becoming counter-productive and nothing was actually getting done.

                          Nats should not feel "sidelined", as the Anderson up or down thread is still open and she has the right to challenge anyone, including Paul, to a debate on Anderson from what interests her.

                          With regards to AP's comments about Paul, perhaps you should re-read your own posts, specifically the one where you came as close to possible of accusing Paul of anti-Semitism and or endorsing anti-Semitic remarks. If I were Paul, I would have bowed out of anything more to do with you after that as well.

                          I challenged Paul to a debate on this issue for a number of reasons, most notably that I knew our debate would not be volatile and I believe that there is a lot of information out there that we can challenge each other with.

                          This may be the worst idea in history, but then again, it may not.

                          I'd accept your challenge Nats, although I agree with your assessment of the issue, so it wouldn't be much of a debate.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
                            Well, I see all this as being a result of Paul being banged into a corner from which he had no exit. Thereby he has found one.
                            The eventual outcome being that I could be offered an exclusive one on one with myself where I could blow hot air out of my asp for the next twenty years or so.
                            I know, How, that you gotta brush ego in this business, but hell when petticoats get in the way of honest and open debate then I'm outta 'ere.
                            I was not banged into a corner from which I had no escape. You accused me of having racially extremist view - you wrote, 'Perhaps Paul could tell us who shares his extremist views...' - and I take exception to that sort of moronic nonsense and decline to debate further with you. No petticoats, no ego brushing, just a plain and simple refusal to discuss further with someone who resorts to personal attacks of that kind. So get your facts right and stop putting your own peculiar spin on things.


                            • #15
                              Hey all,

                              How, what about sending a group PM to all members of the forum to give an explanation of the who, what, where, why and when of this new idea? It seems that a lot of people are confused about it and feel left out of issues that they'd like to discuss, so I think a bit of an explanation might be the way to go. Obviously a lot of people have missed the threads about it earlier - with a group PM, everyone will know exactly what the go is. That way, members reaction can also be gauged which will give an idea of how successful this idea will be, and it might attract more members who don't post that frequently. Just a thought - it's never a good thing when an idea is plagued with issues right from the start.