Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Was Jack The Ripper ? (H Division, 2019)

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

  • Thanks, Debs. I did a search for Wilhelm Albert on FreeBMD, found the death and thought it rang a bell.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
      Andrew:

      I don't take Ricky's bluster any more seriously than I would if someone more mature threatened The Forums. As Rob Clack said, he's his own worst enemy.

      All that was required to ameliorate the situation was to take the attachments down. Since then, I haven't heard anything.

      But I'll tell you this : The first time he posts anything I consider offensive to anyone other than himself, he'll be removed from the membership and this time there will be no coming back.

      I try to offer people from within all of the various 'cliques' in this field the opportunity to promote their merchandise...he happens to be one of them.

      Its up to him if he cares to do so here.
      Thanks Howard.

      I appreciate your reply and the difficult position you have as moderator of these boards.

      In any case, the vitriol and veiled threats won't change the fact that people have seen the evidence of plagiarism, and have seen through the very vague and unconvincing explanation that Cobb has provided.

      Obviously, people aren't stupid.

      Andrew

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
        I think we can all agree Ricky is his own worst enemy, but after reading some of the comments here and by certain people I wouldn't have personally have gotten involved if I was him. And the issue over plagiarism could have been taken privately by those who are affected. It doesn't need a crowd. As some people are aware I have my own issues regarding some of the photographs and illustrations and I am dealing with that privately. Speaking of photos. I suppose those are exempt as I think I could mention photographs being used in other peoples books which look suspiciously like they came from me. But I wouldn't want to make people feel uncomfortable.
        For the sake of clarity, I don't think those affected were the ones who made the misuse of their words public, and I would like to think that such public statements as John and I have made were understanding and conciliatory. However, it was made public and I don't know whether or not it should be resolved publicly, but does it help the position of Ricky or "Keith Stride" to keep any resolution secret? But maybe Ricky is unconcerned about that. As you say, he is his own worst enemy.

        Comment


        • Don’t those who bought the book in good faith, in the belief they were getting brand new insights into the case, deserve an explanation? It worries me that it might be considered appropriate to sweep plagiarism under the carpet so as not to upset the delicate relationships between Ripper authors. ‘It doesn’t need a crowd’ translates into ‘keep your punters in the dark’.

          Comment


          • Don’t those who bought the book in good faith, in the belief they were getting brand new insights into the case, deserve an explanation?
            Does the fact that a bit of general introductory stuff at the beginning was lifted from somewhere else mean that they didnt get new insights (assuming the insights were not contained in the introductory bumph that was lifted)?

            I dont agree with swiping other peoples work.....but if that was the only bit that was lifted (and I dont know if it was) then it doesnt affect a customers getting new insights or whatever.

            Im not condoning the act, and I know I'm in ignorance of an obviously inflamed past history with the publisher of this tome) but some perspective is surely required in relation to what this means for the people who bought the book (note: people who bought the book, not those whose text was swiped).

            p

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
              Does the fact that a bit of general introductory stuff at the beginning was lifted from somewhere else mean that they didnt get new insights (assuming the insights were not contained in the introductory bumph that was lifted)?

              I dont agree with swiping other peoples work.....but if that was the only bit that was lifted (and I dont know if it was) then it doesnt affect a customers getting new insights or whatever.

              Im not condoning the act, and I know I'm in ignorance of an obviously inflamed past history with the publisher of this tome) but some perspective is surely required in relation to what this means for the people who bought the book (note: people who bought the book, not those whose text was swiped).

              p
              It wasn’t just the intro, though. It would seem that large chunks of the Barnett chapter were also lifted by the mysterious ‘Keith Stride’. (See post 35, for details.)

              The book was billed as ‘the ultimate guide to solving the world’s greatest murder mystery’.

              Comment


              • Thats a different matter then. I guess I wont be buying this one.

                P

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                  Does the fact that a bit of general introductory stuff at the beginning was lifted from somewhere else mean that they didnt get new insights (assuming the insights were not contained in the introductory bumph that was lifted)?

                  I dont agree with swiping other peoples work.....but if that was the only bit that was lifted (and I dont know if it was) then it doesnt affect a customers getting new insights or whatever.

                  Im not condoning the act, and I know I'm in ignorance of an obviously inflamed past history with the publisher of this tome) but some perspective is surely required in relation to what this means for the people who bought the book (note: people who bought the book, not those whose text was swiped).

                  p
                  Hi Mr P,
                  It was brought to my attention that material had been copied from CSI and that a larger quantity of material had apparently been copied by "Keith Stride" without permission or acknowledgement, and I was grateful that it was made public. It is not the first time that material has been lifted from books and websites and it seems that making it public is one of the few ways of deterring other people from doing it. I'm not sure that readers expecting new insights deserve an explanation, but perhaps those who understand that plagiarism is wrong do.

                  Comment


                  • Its a sad state of affairs indeed. Pseudonyms, plagiarism, ghost writers of blogs, back offices etc etc.

                    P

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                      Its a sad state of affairs indeed. Pseudonyms, plagiarism, ghost writers of blogs, back offices etc etc.

                      P
                      It's a pity for those who contributed stuff in good faith, that, at the moment they're tarred with a brush of shady exploitation by association. Hopefully, the full story will come out and ANY innocent parties will be cleared

                      Comment


                      • It should be mentioned though that many of the authors who contributed to this book have also published more through pieces on the same topics elsewhere and their research as it appears here shouldn’t be a tarnish on them at all, or their overall work.
                        Tracey’s incredibly detailed article in Ripperologist#124 springs quickly to mind. It was excellent.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • Yes, every other suspect in the book has been dealt with in past Ripperologist Magazines by these same authors. But the book is a nice summary of their various pieces of research to have in one volume.

                          Comment


                          • Gad! Was that awkward!!!

                            Too much ale...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                              It should be mentioned though that many of the authors who contributed to this book have also published more through pieces on the same topics elsewhere and their research as it appears here shouldn’t be a tarnish on them at all, or their overall work.
                              Tracey’s incredibly detailed article in Ripperologist#124 springs quickly to mind. It was excellent.

                              JM
                              Indeed, it's the current doubt about 1/2 contributions which has led to the worthwhile ones receiving little attention, all I meant was they deserve better

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                                Yes, every other suspect in the book has been dealt with in past Ripperologist Magazines by these same authors. But the book is a nice summary of their various pieces of research to have in one volume.
                                Surely we should be encouraging good authors and good researchers to publish articles and books on the case. But when they see their words lifted like in this example below, and the perpetrator hopes to get away with it scot-free to laugh and mock about it with their mates...I wouldn’t blame those authors and researchers if they said “no thanks”. Acts of plagiarism do serious damage to our field, and some don’t seem to even care.



                                JM

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X