Tweet
Originally posted by Chris Phillips
View Post
-
And the fact that you chose my post to criticise rather than Dusty and RJ’s attempts to hi-jack this thread is very revealing.
-
There was no attempt to 'hijack' this thread. I was directly responding to 'Stow's' claim that he has seen no criticism of his videos.Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
I'm perfectly happy to start a new thread if Ed prefers to address my comments elsewhere.
For the sake of clarity, is there some reason Stow can't respond to criticisms made on Casebook?
It's an awkward set-up. If one wishes to discuss his claims on this site, it is considered 'sniping' that runs counter to the spirit of the new policy, but if one does it at Casebook, one is derided as being part of an ill-informed 'tribe' who has nothing to offer.
Where is one supposed to address Ed's videos if one has legitimate concerns?
And my motive for looking at Ed Stow's methodology was inspired by his own boasts on this website:
"I do some historical analysis and make a suggestion based upon it. That is the correct methodology, which is invariably applied in the Lechmere theory, arguably the only suspect where this is the case."
“Lechmere critics however apply the opposite....Lechmere critics invariably frame their arguments which runs counter to historical methodology."
As such, I consider it perfectly legitimate and justified to explore whether Stow is using 'correct historical methodology" in his 'Evidence of Guilt' videos.Comment
-
Indeed. Though no more revealing than many of my attempts to moderate discussions here while I still tried to perform the impossible task. I say it with great regret, because as a researcher you have a huge amount to offer. But this kind of partisan stuff is what made the task impossible. I just wish people could avoid the endless ad hominem attacks. But perhaps it goes with the territory, in which case I don't want anything to do with the territory.Originally posted by Gary Barnett View PostComment
-
"""RJ Palmer"""
I actually said:
'I have yet to see any real criticism of any of my videos.'
As usual I am misquoted to make a point against something I haven't said.
In my film where I mention timings I also give a fairly lengthy justification for why the timing between Lechmere and Paul are the relevant ones to synchronise. I never make airy fairy points without substantiation. Well I may have done once but no one noticed.
As my justification for synchronising Lechmere and Paul was totally ignored (so far as I am aware), that is why I used the expression 'any REAL criticism,'
You have to read what I say not what you want me to have said.
I am quite happy to discuss any of my claims.
The previous administrator banned whole areas of discussion as being outside the realms of legitimate Jack the Ripper duscussion, perversely including who Jack the Ripper might be. I see the current administrator is entering into such badinage with gusto on that other site, so perhaps he feels different about it. Or maybe he only likes to do it where is assertions cannot be challenged.
I think I have started threads for each of my (well received) films, so I should have thought there is no shortage of relevant locations for appropriate discussions.Comment
-
Some lies being spouted over here that I’d like to clear up.
We’ve been informing people of Eddy Butler’s repugnant racist views long before he started a YouTube channel. The two are not connected.
The number of subscribers to his YouTube channel is paltry compared to the number who subscribe to Rippercast. He has about 1/8th of the amount. I don’t typically care how many subscribers we have since I’m willing to bring content to whomever enjoys it, whether it be 5 people or 50,000, but for reasons unknown Eddy Butler is obsessed with his numbers, which by any standard are pretty pathetic.
Is far as I remember, Jenni and Neal Shelden left the field due to the way she was treated by Don Souden, and some were also whispering and looking askance at their relationship due to the age difference. I remained friends with Jenni throughout it all, but yet Butler claims those he likes to call the “gatekeepers” (including myself) somehow responsible for their departure. Bull****
Originally, under Howard Brown’s leadership of this forum, and continued under Chris Phillips, attacking Casebook as a whole was not allowed on this site, just as attacking JtRForums is not allowed on Casebook. Now I see it’s become open season on Casebook over here. Duly noted.
JM
Comment
-
You are not being misquoted. Anyone can check for themselves, starting at the 15:17 mark:Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
(12) Jack the Ripper: The Evidence for Guilt. Part 1 - YouTube
"Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here. The others are actually police witnesses."
I think your methodology speaks for itself, but since this thread is dedicated to other matters, I'll drop it for now.
That's what I was asking. Why can't they be challenged over there? This is not a trick question. I don't know the answer.Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
I suppose you must have been banned or have some private reason of your own, but between the two sites it is increasingly difficult to keep up with who is banned and who is not banned and what can be quoted and what cannot be quoted. Bouncing back and forth to address a point is becoming so convoluted that it is not worth the effort.
Personally, I think a website dedicated to genuine debate would benefit from limiting the number of posts any individual poster could make in any 24-hour period, which would discourage the needless back-and-forths and off-topic banter, and at the same time encourage the poster to be more concise and thoughtful with the limited number of comments they could make.
It would require software changes, however, so I don't see this ever happening.
There is something to be said for the slow-moving debates that played themselves out in the pages of magazines during a brief period in the 1990s.
Comment
-
Eddy Butler has referred to Rippercast as the "official channel" with "Lechmere-hostile content" often enough for me to know who he means when he says:
I have little interest in Rippercast's numbers or Casebook's numbers, and even less interest in Eddy Butler's numbers. So I decline to involve myself in his dick measuring contest. Although he will no doubt continue to flash everyone who reads these boards.Trevor
Failure?
I have had over 10,000 views in less than two weeks for my first video about the Evidence for Guilt with respect to Lechmere. Viewing figures that the self-ordained official channels, with their Lechmere-hostile content, could only dream about.
JMComment
-
I am sure that, despite what anyone may be claiming to the contrary, the rules about posting on this site have not changed one iota since my resignation as administrator. It has certainly not become "open season" on Casebook.Originally posted by Jonathan Menges View Post
Unfortunately we are now in the position that only one person is willing to moderate the site, so he may not be able to see and deal with everything immediately. The problems on this thread have been brought to his attention.Comment
-
Ok.people this Stops Now.
No debate , it just stops.
Making comments about Casebook is simply not on by the way.
Any more of this and people will be removed.
That applies to EVERYONE.
Steve
Comment
-
JonthanOriginally posted by Jonathan Menges View Post
Can I appologise for the attacks on casebook, this is not acceptable or within rule.
I had only just become aware of this.
SteveComment
Comment