Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Catherine Eddowes Menstruating?

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

  • Originally posted by Paul View Post
    The dilemma has always been that if you speak out against something you inevitably give it publicity. If you don't speak out then sometimes terrible things happen.
    I know, it's a catch 22. But do you feel so compelled to answer every single point of his so seriously? What a waste of time and energy! :-)
    I'm also real surprised that "the apron as protection" theory got accepted to be presented at the York conference, if I'm not mistaken.
    Best regards,
    Maria

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
      I know, it's a catch 22. But do you feel so compelled to answer every single point of his so seriously? What a waste of time and energy! :-)
      I'm also real surprised that "the apron as protection" theory got accepted to be presented at the York conference, if I'm not mistaken.
      If someone says something often enough or loudly enough then sometimes people believe it and it gets accepted as fact. Ironically, that would be the same argument Trevor would probably make, adding that it is exactly what has happened, which is why he is questioning them.

      I'm all for people questioning the data and the theories. Every historian is. It's an important part of what history is all about. It's the same in your field. But, as you will be aware as much as I, not all questioning is good or sensible, and it can waste time and muddy the historical waters to the point where it is hard to get back to the facts. And so even those questioning the data and theories and reaching alternative conclusions have to be questioned and tested in their turn. That's the process going on here, but with Trevor it seems to be momentously difficult, mostly because he simply doesn't address the facts. For example, he claims that carrying 12 rags is excessive and that women today don't carry 12 tampons with them, but it is pointed out to him that she was homeless and carried all her possessions with her. He doesn't reply to this or concede the validity of the point, and in due course he uses the 12 rags are excessive argument again. There is no headway, no progress.

      So, to answer your question, yes it is a complete and utter waste of time and energy, and probably a total bore to most people and mystifying to others, especially as Trevor rarely answers his critics, but either resorts to one of his ploys or, like any good politician, doesn't answer the question put to him but answers something else entirely. On the other hand, if you do a search on here for "Marriott" and look at the posts rather than threads, you'll see the posts go back to 2004 and that he was the butt of criticism for daft ideas and factual inaccuracy back then. One has to wonder if it is wise or sensible to tolerate it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paul View Post
        you'll see the posts go back to 2004 and that he was the butt of criticism for daft ideas and factual inaccuracy back then. One has to wonder if it is wise or sensible to tolerate it.
        I don't know, if I were a mod I'd just lock the thread. ;-)
        Kinda has exceeded its usefulness?
        Best regards,
        Maria

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
          I don't know, if I were a mod I'd just lock the thread. ;-)
          Kinda has exceeded its usefulness?
          I am a mod and the issue is more about banning people disrupting it.

          You don't get to decide what gets discussed and what doesn't.

          Carry on or move on.

          Comment


          • Sure. I was just being a smarta$$. (And slightly directive.) :-)
            Best regards,
            Maria

            Comment


            • If people have no interest in this thread's issue, stay off the thread and focus on some other area of the site, if you will.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
                I don't know, if I were a mod I'd just lock the thread. ;-)
                Kinda has exceeded its usefulness?
                Has it? I wonder why you think that? Has anything been resolved do you think? Or are you just bored by it?

                How do we progress? Has Trevor established the validity of his theory, or has it been completely trashed? Do we accept that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron and dropped the bit herself, and thus relegate the idea that the murderer dropped it to way back on the burner, or can we accept the long held interpretation of the evidence? If the latter, can we move on or are we going to have to have to put up with Trevor's theory rearing up again?

                Has anything been resolved, if so when and where and how? If nothing has been resolved, why lock the thread?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                  Has it? I wonder why you think that? Has anything been resolved do you think? {...}
                  Has anything been resolved, if so when and where and how? If nothing has been resolved, why lock the thread?
                  Don't want to insist out of respect for How and Sir Bob as a mod, but this is precisely my point, this matter is "unresolvable" under the current circumstances. Due to lack of will from one single party.

                  Just like Monty and Cris Malone have illustrated previously, with some real funny jokes (referring to Somme and to "beating a dead horse").
                  Best regards,
                  Maria

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson
                    Tom is a great researcher and a valuable member here. We had an exchange of sniper fire. It happens. Let's move on.
                    Hi Sir Bob. I'm sorry but I must have missed something. Where was our 'exchange of sniper fire'? I don't recall firing a single bullet your way.

                    Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson
                    I am a mod and the issue is more about banning people disrupting it.
                    Really?

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment


                    • Even one does not care for the thread's subject, there is an interesting question here.

                      How were female detainees treated? What were the regulations? And yeah, women menstruated. (More than I thought!! mea culpa mea maxima culpa) Were the male guards/constables expected to deal with it?

                      It is at the heart of the theory Marriott has proposed.

                      Otherwise, it's reasonable to believe Jack took the apron piece away.

                      So the issue is at the heart of the Case whether one believes it has cooties or not.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        Really?

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        Really.

                        Let's move on before we all regret it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
                          Don't want to insist out of respect for How and Sir Bob as a mod, but this is precisely my point, this matter is "unresolvable" under the current circumstances. Due to lack of will from one single party.

                          Just like Monty and Cris Malone have illustrated previously, with some real funny jokes (referring to Somme and to "beating a dead horse").
                          Do you think we have to have the will of that one particular party in order to reach a resolution?

                          Yes, Chris and Monty have made their points with wit, but I'm not sure who is flogging the dead horse. Is it Trevor who is still trying to justify a theory which doesn't stand up, or is it us fruitlessly trying to help Trevor to understand his theory is dead?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson View Post
                            Even one does not care for the thread's subject, there is an interesting question here. How were female detainees treated? What were the regulations?.
                            Maybe there was an infirmary at the prison and they had bandages and stuff, for multiple purposes?

                            Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson View Post
                            It is at the heart of the theory Marriott has proposed.
                            Doesn't make any sense whatsoever or help in any way Marriott's theory. Even if we were to assume that Eddowes were menstruating that night and that they failed to give her some help at the prison, she STILL had her 12 rags along and could have used those instead of tearing up her precious apron, which (so I've heard) in Victorian Britain also served as a leg warmer.
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson
                              you said "yuck" to that. Right. Of course Tom.

                              Jenni called you out on your usual inanity and you retreat like a simpering coward - which is what you are as you would say none of this to my face. Loads of internet courage.

                              Why you constantly need to needle and disrupt threads is your matter, but don't expect not to get called out on it.

                              A cretinous theory has been proposed by your new best friend at the Forums. We're dismantling it, piece by piece.
                              Ahhhh....I see.

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                Do you think we have to have the will of that one particular party in order to reach a resolution?
                                The resolution had been long reached by the majority here, or shall I say, before even the "theory" was formulated.

                                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                Is it Trevor who is still trying to justify a theory which doesn't stand up, or is it us fruitlessly trying to help Trevor to understand his theory is dead?
                                I'm afraid both, that's why I mentioned a catch 22.
                                Last edited by SirRobertAnderson; January 26, 2013, 01:39 AM. Reason: Back to topic
                                Best regards,
                                Maria

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X