|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:23 pm: |       |
The impression I get is that there are plenty of people here with decent shoes, but somebody wants to cling to the idea that they are the only ones shod.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
David,
How would you let the matter be decided then? It's quite clear that you are just going to stick to your theory, not matter how much evidence shows that you are wrong.
Even if JUWE was short for Jugendwerk in 1888, surely JUWES still doesn't make sense. If it meant what you are trying to make it mean then it would say "The Juwe are the men...." not "The Juwes...." as Juwe already indicates an organization.
I don't expect you to answer me as you haven't answered anything I've put to you, obviously you do not answer what you cannot explain.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 238
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Mr. Radka,
I apologize if my variant spellings of your name offended you. I must have forgotten what seems the unwritten law of the Boards that only you are allowed to be insolent, boorish and childish.
There is, however, nothing childish about preferring Mr. Nelson's recent effort to yours. In terms of style, scholarship and mature thinking it is far superior to your derivative musings. Moreover, whether from honesty or simply graciousness, he freely admits his debt to other theorists. As it is, you might be well advised to blame your faulty logic on others.
Don. |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Thomas,
thanks for confirming.
Christian
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
1. "How would you let the matter be decided then? It's quite clear that you are just going to stick to your theory, not matter how much evidence shows that you are wrong."
>>Deciding would be pretty difficult I think. You'd have to trace Juwe back as far as you could in different kinds of literature, lexicons, etc. Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't get any hits back as far as 1888. But that doesn't mean the contraction was not in use then in spoken language somewhere in Germany, and therefore able to be picked up by JtR. If you did get a hit in 1888 or before, then the matter is resolved. Difficult, but language use is not always a straightforward thing, especially considering contractions.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
1. "I don't expect you to answer me as you haven't answered anything I've put to you, obviously you do not answer what you cannot explain."
>>I have answered methodically and in order posts made from the beginning through the May 3 archive, and a few quick ones after that. When I get enough time I will return to the archive for methodical answering. All thoughtful questions will be answered. I believe that turning away from what one cannot explain may be something that Ms Long does in her own life, thus she is projecting it on me here because she doesn't like the characteristic in herself. It is not something I have done on these boards.
2. "Even if JUWE was short for Jugendwerk in 1888, surely JUWES still doesn't make sense. If it meant what you are trying to make it mean then it would say "The Juwe are the men...." not "The Juwes...." as Juwe already indicates an organization."
>>The German grammar and exact word meaning and referent don't matter--you are missing my point completely. All the Ripper was looking for was some kind of a rhyme or other simplistic malapropistic misuse of language that secretly conveyed what he wanted said at the moment. It is illiterate, ungrammatical, mispelled in English, semantically faulty, but what's the problem with that? "Juwes" is supposed to sound like "Jews" and thus to refer to Levy, his companions, and in a more distant sense to Schwartz and the Pipe man if he were Jewish. This is made clear in the Summary. FORGET ALL GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
"All your talk of your "center" and your supposed superior knowledge is irrelevant and just a screen to hide behind instead of dealing with the severe problems in your theory."
Why is Mr. Norder allowed to post specious insults like this, but when I respond to his points my posts are not advanced from the queue? This is not an attempt to address any issues in my theory--it is clearly nothing more than an ad hominem, a punch in the teeth.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 801
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hi David,Congratulations anyway on generating such an amazing amount of posts!Can"t be bad that!
Keep Smiling!
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 90
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi David,
"Why is Mr. Norder allowed to post specious insults like this"
That wasn't an insult, it was commentary on your theory and your method of debate.
"This is not an attempt to address any issues in my theory"
Sure it was... it was addressing the "center" of your theory.
And, besides, you ignored the rest of my whole post, which showed that your opinion on what "psychopath" means doesn't fit with the actual clinical descriptions.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Hi David,
Keep this up, and joseph Barnett will vanish into thin air.
Honesty David, you are obviously an intelligent man, but your conplicated approach to these murders, is so intellectual, and to be quite honest, to attempt to delve into the mind of a man living 116 years ago, going by modern day science, is worthless.
We all eccept that the killer was sick, he may have also been cunning, but dispite all of our endeavours is still nameless.
The Fact is David none of us have solved this mystery to date, even if that deflates my own ego.
Regards Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 389
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
David,
I have a question, not about the content of your theory, but rather I need a definition. You keep referring to the "epistomological centre". I've never come upon this particular phrase in philosophy. I've asked one of my friends in the philosophy department and he's never heard of anything being referred to as such, and felt it was a curious way to phrase things. We both, however, felt that it's quite possible that this is a phrase used by some particular author.
Anyway, such rambling aside, I would appreciate if you could provide a definition of "epistomolocial centre". I don't mean a listing of what you consider the "epis. centre of this particular case", but rather of the term in general. As it is fundamental to your approach, and as it is not a widely used terminology, it is important that you provide a definition so that those critiquing your theory may do so with a full understanding of your starting point. If you have coined the phrase yourself, then it is even more important that you provide a clear definition of what it is that you intend by such a term. Sorry for such a boaring request, but it would be most helpful and informative to everyone involved I suspect.
Also, having an interest in the philosophy of science myself, I'm curious as to which branch of confirmation theory you feel you are conforming to with your current presentation?
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 390
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
David,
You've just posted:
>>The German grammar and exact word meaning and referent don't matter--you are missing my point completely. All the Ripper was looking for was some kind of a rhyme or other simplistic malapropistic misuse of language that secretly conveyed what he wanted said at the moment. It is illiterate, ungrammatical, mispelled in English, semantically faulty, but what's the problem with that? "Juwes" is supposed to sound like "Jews" and thus to refer to Levy, his companions, and in a more distant sense to Schwartz and the Pipe man if he were Jewish. This is made clear in the Summary. FORGET ALL GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS.}
But what is made clear in the summary is that the interpretation of Juwe as "sunday school children" is exceptionally important because this is the "threat" the killer is sending to Levey (you'll be treated like Jews who become Christians; shunned by your friends, family, and community - remember).
In other words, all of this information pertaining to your interpretation of Juwes as stated in your theory, is an entirely appropriate area of discourse. If your offered definition is incorrect, then the conclusions you draw from your definition are also incorrect (A conclusion based upon a false premise is also false. Basic Logic, which I'm sure someone like yourself who claims to have presented philosophic work at conferences fully understands).
Now, you've just admitted, or conceeded the point, that the meaning of Juwes doesn't matter in the message. That means the idea that the message contains the threat you impart upon it is false. This latter statement is based upon the fact that the threat contained in the message was centred upon the notion that Juwes had a specific, Christian oriented, definition. It does not, and so the message no longer contains that threat.
- Jeff |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
David,
Firstly, you are just plain rude. What are you talking about with this drivel:-
I believe that turning away from what one cannot explain may be something that Ms Long does in her own life, thus she is projecting it on me here because she doesn't like the characteristic in herself.
You don't know me at all I find that comment completely uncalled for. I have asked you questions on this thread over and over again and you have not responded with any answers so what am I supposed to think. What right have you to insult other people? None.
Also, by saying:-
Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't get any hits back as far as 1888. But that doesn't mean the contraction was not in use then in spoken language somewhere in Germany
You are basically saying that, because there is no evidence that it wasn't in use must mean it was. I'm sorry but the lack of something surely must mean it just didn't exist at the time. There were no computers in 1888 but I could just as easily say, "obviously, because it doesn't mention the lack of computers during 1888 they must have existed".
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
"Now, you've just admitted, or conceeded the point, that the meaning of Juwes doesn't matter in the message. That means the idea that the message contains the threat you impart upon it is false. This latter statement is based upon the fact that the threat contained in the message was centred upon the notion that Juwes had a specific, Christian oriented, definition. It does not, and so the message no longer contains that threat."
>>"Juwe" is a German contraction for a young person being raised up in the Christian faith, supervised by adult Christians. Purely by an accident of the design of the German and English languages, if the spelling is substituted for "Jew" in an English sentence, the reader can still get the meaning as a mispelling of "Jew," but also at the same time compare and contrast the German contraction with "Jew" if he happens to be already familiar with German. This is ALL I mean. It is as simple as that. The Ripper is BREAKING the rules of language to do this. IGNORE ALL GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
David,
The Ripper is BREAKING the rules of language to do this. IGNORE ALL GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
I'm sorry but I think this is pure rubbish. How can you possibly know this? Were you the Ripper in a previous and still have his memories? Did you time travel back and ask him about the message? Since these options are impossible I suggest that you are simply giving your opinion and so cannot say that this is exactly what happened, maybe it did, not very likely though, but it is still just your OPINION.
You are just desperately trying to cling to hope that this extreme twisting of the evidence is what happened when you have no proof.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
G. Longman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Psycho-babble, German grammar???
Isn't it amazing how these specious arguments for the identity of the Ripper always degenerate into debates and squabbles about irrelevant side-issues and off-topic subjects. The diary is another prime example.
Oh well, back to the drawing board. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
"Honesty David, you are obviously an intelligent man, but your conplicated approach to these murders, is so intellectual, and to be quite honest, to attempt to delve into the mind of a man living 116 years ago, going by modern day science, is worthless."
>>Well Richard, consider an alternative example to the intellectual approach, the empirical approach of Stewart P Evans. What goes wrong with the Tumblety theory more or less right up front can be used as an example, it seems to me, for what goes wrong with all empirical Ripperlogical theories eventually. Stewart receives communication from an antiquarian book dealer who knows of Stewart's interest in the case, concerning a letter he's found written to Sims by Littlechild. Upon review of the document, Stewart determines that its authenticity and provenance are perfect, so he buys it. Now Stewart proceeds into a non-intellectual, purely empirical Ripperology. He's got this letter, and it gives him information that Littlechild, a high-ranking police official with contact to the case, considered Tumblety a legitimate suspect. What Stewart should do at this point is suspend judgment and ask himself questions concerning whether or not this Tumblety fellow makes an adequate suspect. If he had done so, he'd find that he was a gay man not attracted to women in any way, and therefore a very remote subject for suspicion in the Whitechapel murders, since studies have found that people rarely if ever practice sexual serial murder on the gender to which they are not attracted. But instead what Stewart does, impressed with the letter in his hand, is simply go with the empirical flow; from the letter he traces Tumblety's career historically and empirically, and at every turn he finds apparent empirical confirmations of Littlechild's suspicions ready to hand. His sexual deviancy, his arrest, the pursuit by the Met back to America, and, most empirically-emphatically of all, the collection of uteri. It all makes interesting reading for people too cynical to give much credence to thinking about thinking, those who may be immediately and deeply impressed by data points, things, things at hand, simle comparisons of things to one another, etc. But in all this what becomes lost is the massive intellectual problem of the question never asked, the matter of a gay man sexually murdering women. For Evans' readership the "evidence" is convincing, but I am left wondering. Littlechild lived in an epoch before we knew about sexual serial murder, and there is no way to determine what he would have thought of Tumblety if he had access to our more modern case histories. Once you let an intellectual problem of this sort incorporate itself in your work you never get rid of it. Once you start wrong you stay wrong. Asking questions from the beginning, establishing an epistemological foundation for your work, is the only way to try to avoid the trap of the empirical in my view. I have long experience with precisely this sort of problem in my line of work. As soon as Stewart got hold of that letter he tragically but voluntarily impaled himself on the horns of the empirical--which is eventually what everybody puffing a solution to the case has done so far, it seems to me. And in the end, all of these solutions can hardly be told one from the other, they are so similar.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 92
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi David,
"The Ripper is BREAKING the rules of language to do this."
If Juwes in the graffito means what you think it means, Jack is not only breaking the rules of language, he's breaking the rules of time and space.
As pointed out above, "Juwe" to refer to "Jugendwerk" didn't come into use until the 1960s. So then you said, oh, maybe against all evidence people used that contraction back in 1888 anyway... Except that, according to the people running the website you saw the term used on, the word "Jugendwerk" itself was not even the term used until the 1960s. Prior to that, the word was "Jugendkommission." (The Jukos are not the men...?)
So that would be an improper plural form of a foreign word that hadn't been invented yet used as a contraction for a word that also hadn't been invented yet to refer to a term that the Jews in the East End likely wouldn't have even heard of even if it had been invented, used as part of graffito supposedly written to scare them off from reporting him to police...?
Ouch.
At first I thought you had gotten confused and meant "psychotic" when you said "psychopath" (since your scenario doesn't fit the description of psychopathology, as detailed in previous messages above), but now it seems maybe you meant "psychic" instead.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 391
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
David,
In your haste to correct other people you apparently overlook critical information. Jugdenwerk means "youth work".
Judgdenwerk does not, by itself, contain any Christian reference.
You found the word on a Christian youth organisation's web-site, but that doesn't mean Jugdenwerk by itself has this connotation.
Let's try it this way. The English phrase "Youth work" is "religously neutral". But, if I looked up a Christian web site and found that this organisation used the phrase "Christian youth work", it would be unreasonable for me to argue that the phrase "youth work" used elsewhere contains Christian overtones.
Moreover, as Dan has pointed out, the term Jugdenwerk was not used in 1888, and so your arguement that Juwes is a contraction for a word that did not exist at the time is flawed.
You can claim all you want that Juwes is a contraction for Jugdenwerk as many times as you like. But that doesn't change the fact that Jugdenwerk is not a religously loaded word, nor the fact that the word does not appear to be used in 1888. So, even if you are able to find Jugdenwerk in use in 1888, you still have the problem that it is not a religiously loaded word.
Now, read this carefully. Because Jugdenwork is not a religiously loaded word, your assumption that the graffito has religious connotations to it because of the use of Juwes is a flawed assumption. That means your explanation of the graffito is flawed. It's wrong. And therefore, all the parts of your theory that are built upon your interpretation of the graffito, and that depend upon your interpretation of the graffito, are also flawed.
The benefit of posting ideas is not the compliments we occasionally recieve if people like what we have to say. The benefit is that when we make mistakes, people can point them out to us. That way, we don't waste time thinking about false, or incorrect, ideas.
By the way, I'm still looking for your definition of "epistomological centre". My search in the philosophy date base scored no hits. Is this an example of your own jargon? If so, a definition is required. If you didn't just make it up, a definition is still required because it is a very obscure phrase in philosophy. One that my friend in the philosophy dept. has never heard of, and one that does not get used in any of the published scholarly works contained in the philosophy data base.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 392
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
David,
You are a joker aren't you! ha! I love your discussion of Evan's "flaw". I suppose you think it better that "once he found out that Tumblety was gay, he should have just stopped checking him out." David, the idea that simply being homosexual completely negates the possibility that Tumblety could have been the Ripper is so niave that it's laughable.
I don't think Tumblety is the Ripper, but that's not the point. In order to come to that conclusion we need as much information about the suspect as possible. And that is where Evan's has done an amazing job.
You, on the other hand, can't even demonstrate where Aaron lived at the time and have all but said you don't care. You're theory is built upon assumptions about contractions of words you cannot demonstrate were in use when there is evidence to suggest they are recent (where's your connection to the evidence now?), fundamental misunderstandings of the psychological conditions you are assumming the killer had, and a complicated series of motives that are unparalleled in the history of serial lust murders. If you think that Tumblety being homosexual rules him out because most killers murder the gender of their affection, then by that line of reasoning you must dismiss your own proposal as laughable because no other serial mutilator has ever acted with the complex motive you propose.
- Jeff |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
"As pointed out above, "Juwe" to refer to "Jugendwerk" didn't come into use until the 1960s."
This is an outright falsehood. Nothing in the above says that the contraction didn't come into use until the 1960s. Mr. Wiebe said the Mennonites didn't use it for THEIR youth organization until then.
OUCH
As usual, Mr. Norder is misstating facts to lead people to believe in him. If the past is any guide, this post will die in the queue.
David M. Radka |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
"Psycho-babble, German grammar???"
>>Falsley attributed to me in bad faith by Mr. Norder. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 94
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Hey David,
I didn't falsely attribute anything to you. Everything I quote you as having said, you actually said, as can be proven by anyone who wants to go back through the posts. This bit you just put into quotation marks in your post was not said by anyone, so it is a false attribution. In other words, you are falsely accusing other people of the tactics you yourself are using.
"This is an outright falsehood."
No, no it's not. And you are once again throwing insults instead of focusing on the errors in your theory. The word from the people who should know say that "Juwe" with the meaning you claim it had for your killer in 1888 wasn't even invented until the 1960s. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to prove that it was used in 1888.
Each time you attack someone instead of giving a logical reason to support your side you are just admitting that you know that you can't support it with logic.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:32 pm: | |
Mr. Norder,
Whatever do you mean? I copied this right out of your very own May 14, 1:23 PM post:
"As pointed out above, "Juwe" to refer to "Jugendwerk" didn't come into use until the 1960s."
Or if you mean instead:
"Psycho-babble, German grammar???"
That was copied directly out of the post made by G. Longman (who I believe may be Stewart Evans)posting May 14, 10:53 AM. I used the MS copy command for both as I always do, I did not retype anything. What I am saying here is that if Mr. Longman-Evans means that you falsley attribute pscho-babble and incorrect German grammar to me, he is correct. I do not practice either psycho-babble, nor do I have a position that is incorrect because of a misuse of German grammar on my part.
Without going back and deleting anything (for I have saved everything to my hard drive) please copy and paste exactly what you mean when you say:
"This bit you just put into quotation marks in your post was not said by anyone, so it is a false attribution. In other words, you are falsely accusing other people of the tactics you yourself are using."
I never make false attributions. I believe it is clear to all, based on your post immediately above, that you are using extremely devious wordings and outright falsehoods as a series of desperate measures to villify me.
Once again, your belief that what Mr. Wiebe posted here affirmatively precludes the possibility that "Juwe" was a contraction in use in Germany in 1888 is total hogwash. Mr. Wiebe refers only to what the Mennonites do, not to what any other parts of the German nation do.
If you don't want your lies handed back to you, please post an apology.
Further, I've got no respect for your above ramblings concerning my alledged misuse of improper German plurals, my confusing of "psychotic" to "psychopath" to "psychic," and several other of your ill-conceived backhanded jabs. They make no sense that I can discern; I find it impossible to even reply to them unless someone might translate them into sense for me, if that is possible.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
"Now, read this carefully. Because Jugdenwork is not a religiously loaded word, your assumption that the graffito has religious connotations to it because of the use of Juwes is a flawed assumption. That means your explanation of the graffito is flawed. It's wrong. And therefore, all the parts of your theory that are built upon your interpretation of the graffito, and that depend upon your interpretation of the graffito, are also flawed."
>>Childishness. "Juwes" is only one part of my explanation of the graffitus. Certainly the general purpose of the graffitus as a way to con the Jewish witnesses into not giving the murderer to the police is unaffected by your critique of "Juwes," whether it be right or wrong. I've got to hand it to you though, you've got nerve to write this bunk here where everyone can read it, if not smarts.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
