Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Some folks (Paul Begg most of all) feel it's important that Academia take Ripperology seriously. Why is that important?

    I agree that Jari and Edwards are two different people with two different disciplines who at times and by a few people have been tarred with the same brush. However, I wonder how many scientists debate in the press over who should play them in a Hollywood movie, Johnny Depp or Meatloaf. You have seen that stuff, right? And although it wasn't Jari's book nor his decision when to publish, he hasn't been shy about publicly promoting what everyone seems to agree was half-finished work.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Tom,
    Sure, I'd like academia to take Ripperology seriously, but I'd like Ripperology be taken seriously period.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      Very few of us had the full year advance warning that you and others enjoyed. My book came out in February with an appendix on the shawl. Howard even created a shawl thread about it. How many e-mails did I get telling me it was being tested and was the subject of an upcoming book? Not one. I found out when everyone else did. So then I'm hearing 'Hey Tom, your book says the shawl didn't belong to Eddowes. I guess you were wrong!' Of course I knew I wasn't wrong, but I took it in stride and did what I could to use Edwards' publicity to my advantage. I also restrained my comments primarily to the historical record and the shawl's total absence from it and defended against accusations of fraud. Because I didn't believe Edwards and especially Jari were committing fraud. In fact, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread accused anyone of fraud, did they? It was very few voices who did as I recall. And I doubt many if any of those who screamed 'fraud!' could rightfully call themselves Ripperologists.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott
      You had the same advance warning as everyone else, Tom. The book was up on Amazon a long time before it was published. As for the rest of what you are saying, your book had nothing to do with anything. We're not talking about the people who shouted fraud, but about the people who were rude and childish. You can read the posts for yourself.

      Comment


      • Some folks (Paul Begg most of all) feel it's important that Academia take Ripperology seriously. Why is that important?
        -Tom Wescott-

        I don't think it's important, Tom.
        You have to have passion for this thing of ours...and the academicians I've run across don't seem to have the zeal or tenacity we do.
        I wish everyone or just about everyone was interested enough to 'get involved' in one form or the other....but if academicians couldn't be bothered with Message Board Ripperology...thems the breaks.
        We'll survive.

        Hey...let them set up their very own message board....I'd love to see how they'd operate.
        I'll bet the tolerance level on those threads where a dispute would occur wouldn't be very high.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • Because if they took it seriouly the resources they have or the help they could possibly provide in the future may become available.

          But academics dont like unsolvable problems and hostile environments.

          Especially when much of ripperology wont let a solution be found unless it happens to support their own theory nor does muxh of ripperology welcome newcomers. Especially if they happen to have written something or gotten more publicity/attention than ripperologists feel they deserve. Or feel that themselves should have gotten.

          Nothing more abhorrent to many ripperologists than a newspaper interview where they themselves havent been consulted.

          P

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paul View Post
            Tom,
            Sure, I'd like academia to take Ripperology seriously, but I'd like Ripperology be taken seriously period.
            By who though, Paul?
            Who doesn't take things seriously?
            I don't understand what you and MR P are asking for.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paul View Post
              You had the same advance warning as everyone else, Tom. The book was up on Amazon a long time before it was published. As for the rest of what you are saying, your book had nothing to do with anything. We're not talking about the people who shouted fraud, but about the people who were rude and childish. You can read the posts for yourself.
              Hi Paul, the book 'Hunting JTR' was listed, but I don't recall it mentioning a DNA solution in the blurbs. As for comments made after the fact, I would think accusations of fraud would be of paramount concern. What is 'rude and childish' is a matter of perspective.

              And I'm not saying my book had anything to do with it, but as the only writer who has published about the shawl recently, I looked a bit foolish to some proclaiming it irrelevant only for the next book to say science had proved it Ripperology's most relevant artifact. No doubt some readers took the rest of my book a little less seriously because they believed Edwards' claims over mine. And why shouldn't they? They evoked the god of Science whereby little ol' me was just talking history. Now that might not mean a hill of beans to you, but forgive me if I couldn't give a rat's ass if Jari and Edwards were exposed to 'rude and childish' comments. I was exposed to plenty of those myself after my book came out and I didn't see Mr. Poster or Ed Stow jumping to my defense. Wait, now that I think about it, most of the rude and childish comments came from Ed Stow. Fancy that.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • You should read the Independant article.

                Thats how people who arent ripperologists view people who are.

                If you think thats healthy.........fine.

                Many would think its a sign of something not quite right.

                And the view of those nonripperologists is not engendered by the subject (as interest in old crimes is not generally viewed as abnormal) but by the behaviour of those involved.

                And the point is that some academic interest could be useful. To try and remove the impression every one has of ripperology as well as perhaps engendering a more credible atmosphere to the pursuit.

                Its not a difficult concept.

                But if you think the world viewing the subject as a nasty, crank filled, distasteful pursuit mostly because of childish crank behaviour is entirely positive, then its hardly a matter of concern for you.

                Im sure ufo freaks and conspiracy nuts dont care what others think either. But they do wonder why people wont listen to them.

                P

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                  By who though, Paul?
                  Who doesn't take things seriously?
                  I don't understand what you and MR P are asking for.
                  Money, Debs.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • I take the subject seriously but I don't give a damn what MR P thinks of my efforts.

                    Comment


                    • You obviously dont read very well either Debra.

                      I addressed what your post asked....why would academic involvement be a good thing.

                      What I think of what you do is irrelevant.

                      But no subject has ever really thrived as a pusuit when the behaviour of its participants drives it further and further to the fringe.

                      please do me the courtesy of reading my post next time instead of posting knee jerk answers.

                      P

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                        You obviously dont read very well either Debra.

                        I addressed what your post asked....why would academic involvement be a good thing.

                        What I think of what you do is irrelevant.

                        But no subject has ever really thrived as a pusuit when the behaviour of its participants drives it further and further to the fringe.

                        please do me the courtesy of reading my post next time instead of posting knee jerk answers.

                        P
                        I don't read all your posts Mr P, sorry. I think you epitomise all that is bad about message board ripperology.
                        Anonymous venom designed to cause friction.

                        Comment


                        • Ho ho

                          I must blend in very nicely then.

                          P

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                            You obviously dont read very well either Debra.

                            I addressed what your post asked....why would academic involvement be a good thing.

                            What I think of what you do is irrelevant.

                            But no subject has ever really thrived as a pusuit when the behaviour of its participants drives it further and further to the fringe.

                            please do me the courtesy of reading my post next time instead of posting knee jerk answers.

                            P
                            Surely the 'behaviour of its participants' should be judged by the publications and not message boards and social media?

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott

                            Comment


                            • A fai point Tom.

                              But the periodic glimpses the public get of ripperology is when some suspect naming blockbuster comes out and then ripperology flares up like an angry boil.

                              And the visible face of that is not the books.

                              Unfortunately the interface betwwen many disciplines and the public is the internet.

                              Not textbooks or weighty tomes.

                              P

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                                Surely the 'behaviour of its participants' should be judged by the publications and not message boards and social media?

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott
                                Yes. Ripperology should be judged on it's published writings just like science.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X