|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 269
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 12:03 am: |       |
Hi There Kelly -
Quick question Madame. Were you referring to my use of the term psycho (here) that he quoted or a distinction that Dan made? You'll have to forgive me, this thread is getting a little hard to follow and I'm a little tired :P
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
Jason,
You'll have to forgive ME, I think. I just tried to scroll up and find the original quote that David was referring to and I can't find it, but it looks like it was you I was defending after all! He does mention that it's typical of the comments made by Dan, and I guess I just mistakenly thought it was his as well. Sorry; I think we're all a little tired.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Hi David,
Just a thought, but, could the graffitus have been mistranscribed and they missed the dot after the word men?
I have a feeling men. may have been a contraction of the word "mennonites"; those pesky mennonites who no-one should believe ;-)
Sorry I just couldn't resist the temptation - but since we have no photographs could men _actually_ have been some kind of abbereviation also?
Were there any mennonite youth work groups in White Chappel in the 1880s - makes me think I may be onto something here.
Cheerio,
ian
|
An interested party
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:37 am: | |
But did the word 'graffitus' exist then? Does it exist now? |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
Friends,
I will be away from the message boards for one week beginning Monday. I will return next weekend. Thank you all for the many delightful discussions.
David
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:34 am: | |
Congratulations Radka, good show.
I read your summary with great interest. I found it to be an intelligent and well-written narrative. I especially appreciate your methodology, i.e., your use of reliable modern primary source material to explain the actor's frame of reference and support your claims, and your organization of strong sequential arguments, which utilize the contemporary testimony and material evidence from the case. Using those tools to describe motive and method in a macrocosm, provides your readers with a refreshing departure from the usual monotonous discussions of people and events, dominated by the same cast of characters, who talk about the same things, in the same boring way. I applaud your courage to think outside the box, and I greatly admire your patience in dealing with the mob mentality and incompetence of your critics.
You seem to be one, of a small number of readers here, who has actually seen the form of the good. The majority of your critics, however, are content to remain in the comfort and security of their subterranean vault, happily deluding themselves into believing that the shadows of the puppets and animal figures moving across the wall in front of them, is reality. Their narrow mindedness makes it is clear to me at least, that they are having a very difficult time wrapping their brains around a few simple concepts of constructive criticism.
Your self-confidence is a match for anyone's, the problem is, you don't run with that crowd, therefore, you've become their target. Your original thinking has disrupted their self-absorbed tranquility Radka, rather then put together a well-reasoned critique, they instead prefer to dismiss you by using poorly thought out claims of evidentiary procedure to grease the skids. It's much easier for them to brand you as the Anti-Christ of Ripperology, than it is to think about what they're claiming.
You're on the right track Radka, your detractors, on the other hand, are a work in progress, don't let them put you off.
Good luck.
Mephisto
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Well, Mephisto -- Radka's approach is by no means that original, it is just one of those many fit-facts-into-theory attempts that has invaded the case since the 1970s. It's a different twist to it, but it's still the same mess.
Or is "Mephisto" perhaps Radka who is back already, and under a new alias...? 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Mepisto
I didn’t realise Radka was getting a state funeral.
Am I sorry at his passing?
No… he gave me a headache.
How can anyone be the ‘Anti-Christ of Ripperology’ for Christ’s sake?
Radka is the absolute and perfectly sublime example of a Ripposaur. Much like one of those Coelacanths they fish out of the sea around Madagascar every so often, been the same for a million years, will not change and keeps dredging the ocean floor with his over-sized mouth for debris and then blowing it out of his arse to the delight of minnows like you.
I’ll send flowers.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hi Glen AP, everyone!!
I know I know. I said I wasn't going to post anything else on here but that is possibly the funniest thing thats happened all week. Way to go Mepisto! You took my mind off the fact I should be revising and filled my life with JOY!!
Yours Truly
A. Workinprogress!!!!
Jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
I didn't notice any ill thought out arguements./
Where are they
Jennifer |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 252
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
All,
I know, I know, like Jennifer I promised never to post here again, but I can't help myself after reading Mephisto's encomium (and I do think the name is a misspelling of mephitis -- or should be). Anyway, I just wanted to remind people that over the winter we had an occasional poster from England who called himself "Martin Anderson" and after he once agreed with Glenn Andersson (and in the process disagreed with David) Mr. Radka accused him of being a Glenn Andersson alias, or at least his brother or cousin. Hmmmm.
Don. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 4:34 am: | |
Mephisto,
You stick your head any further up it'll get stuck !
Daves theory (and thats all it is...no Holy Grail), in my eyes, isnt the worst I have read.
Aint the best either.
The fact remains that Dave has hyped up his A?R for many a month, years infact. We have endured taunts of 'I know something you dont know' and 'I am the greatest'. There is only one 'Great' and he could back up that claim POW SUCKKA!....Dave cannot.
Dave had to resort to Cleckley and Socrates, that well known double act as back up. Oooh not forgetting the long complex words and statements. Im very suspect of those that hide behind such things. Simplicity is pure dont you think ?
But I think you know that. I think you know the reality. I think you jest with us.
So I'll leave it be.
Monty
PS A.P, Mepisto....very good, very, very good
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 405
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Mephisto,
I have had many a lively discussion with Mr. Radka over the years. I have no problem with his dissertation as far as his own conclusions. It was obviously well researched and definitely thought out during the writing. However, I like Monty and many others feel maybe cheated, (is that the right word guys?) us because for years Mr. Radka hinted that he knew who the killer was. That we were all on the wrong track, that he had the definitive answer. Then he writes this big wordy dissertation and how is it concluded? It might be this guy or it could be the other guy. It was not what we were all waiting to hear. Many of us have been researching this case for years. I personally have never stated my personal theory nor have I put anyone else's theory down. I have disagreed and I have questioned, but I have never told anyone that they were flat out wrong. I did praise Mr. Radka for his research and obvious hard work. I also told him I have read autopsy reports that were more interesting then his wordy, overstated dissertation, which is my own opinion.
Mikey
(Message edited by Mikey559 on June 10, 2004) |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 270
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Mephisto -
I have a question. What does "You seem to be one, of a small number of readers here, who has actually seen the form of the good." mean? I know that it is english, but I'm very uncertain about it's meaning. I myself, have never "seen the form of the good" so I can not say that I identify with the statement.
I share some of the same feelings as my esteemed pal Mikey does. I even went so far as to show him where he made such claims.
And do you know what your pal Radka did? Ignored me completely and resorted to name calling, foolishly thinking that I would 'go away'. The truth is kinda hard to ignore, as it is by its very nature, true. No amount of ignoring or name calling can change it.
Though I will give you a little bit of free advice: It is ill advised to come onto a message board filled with people who post on a regular or semi-regular basis and post (anonymously might I add) that their claims are poorly thought out or that they have labeled someone the 'anti christ of ripperology'. Calling them incompetent is also another way to really get off on a bad note.
The 'anti christ of ripperology' line really had me laughing. Out loud and spastically. What color is the sky on your planet? A claim like that one, by its very utterance, denotes that there is a 'christ of ripperology'. Kinda hard to have an anti christ with out a christ, no? Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out in whom I can find this christ?
Until then, might I highly recommend putting your head in the toilet and flushing. The rush of cold water should be enough to wake you up. Registering and donating probably wouldn't hurt either.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Indeed, Jason. I myself was wondering who the christ of Ripperology might be!
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 8:44 pm: | |
Jason,
The phrase you cite from Mephisto's post is a reference to an elementary, undergraduate reading of Plato. The Allegory of the Cave is used in his post in a somewhat crude and cutesy way, mostly, as far as I can tell, to give his rhetoric the odor of philosophy.
You needn't worry about missing anything. Just as there's not really anything "epistemological" about David's "epistemological center," there's nothing very Platonic, and certainly nothing having to do with the category of forms to be found in any of this.
--John (who teaches The Republic every year, whether he wants to or not) |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 139
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
A first time anonymous poster calling himself "Mephisto" (aka Satan, aka the Anti-Christ) quotes Plato in his message supporting the Plato-loving "Anti-Christ of Ripperology" David Radka...?
I guess that means Mephisto joins Saddam and Bullwinkle as David's biggest supporters.
  
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
David,
you know actually I do think you have a lot of guts keeping this thread alive in the way you do. However, I don't think further criticising people will help your cause. You willing came on to the message boards to answer questions (which again is admirable and not a requirement) but you did so knowing that many people here would not agree with your conclusions that is not taking anything away from the merits of your theory which is not worse than many others but it is an inevitable fact that we ripperologists never agree!!!
However, having come onto the message board it is only fair to answer questions we ask of you isn't it? Surely it is unfair to dismiss us as ignorant and narrow minded because we don't agree with you (that's hardly winning over friends). Furthermore as Monty said you did hype up your theory for months in a secretive manner constantly hinting how stupid we all are, surely you can see that's going to get our backs up before we've even read your theory.
Perhaps we were a little harsh (though I can only speak for myself).
Therefore I am sorry if I have caused you any offence at all David, for I certainly did not intend this. However, I do not agree with your theory (not because I don't understand it because I do) but because I find it to be implausible. That is not to say improbable! It is possible what you say is correct.
Best wishes to you David. Good luck to you too.
Regards
Jennifer |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
On April 26th, Donald Souden wrote:
"What you have done is compose an outline for a novel or screen treatment of Jack the Ripper. Interesting and inventive in parts, but as often happens with early efforts at fiction it is rather contrived and presents a blinkered view of life". Oh, it that so. Well tell me Mr. Preminger, what makes your view of humanity any more compelling than Radka's? For that matter, what makes it any different? It's a big freakin' world out there Moe, and the way you're describing it, indicates that you've got a handle on the social structures and cultural institutions of every human organization on the planet (Durkheim 1947). If that's true, you must have one hell of a bladder, because to acquire an epistemology that extensive, you wouldn't have had time to stop and take a leak. Of course, I'm being factious, but I think you get my point. You made a blanket statement which says in effect: there is no possibility that Radka's "scenario" can exist in the human condition, which as we both know, is pure Bolshoi.
You wrote: "Aaron clearly was not in those houses because Lubnowski and Abrahams wanted him there,..." [emphasis added], but that declaration may say more about you than it does about either gentleman and suggests a truncated appreciation for the dynamics of marriage and extended families". Tell me something Souden, is psychology, or Cognitive Science your profession? If not, then how do you know what's going on in Radka's mind. If so, than you not very professional in your diagnosis. You failed to explain how Radka's claim reveals the inner workings of his mind. If your opinion is that "the two gentleman were loving and caring and willing to accept the burden of a troubled brother-in-law is no less plausible and examples of that behavior abound", then your idea of supporting evidence is rather weak, what's more, it's totally subjective. What makes your speculation any better than Radka's? Nothing.
You're another one who's confused with the subtleties of cause and effect. Radka is claiming that Lubnowski and Abrahams accepted Aaron into their homes by necessity, i.e., causality, your alternative seeks sufficient conditions, i.e., effect, they are not the same thing. It's like you're complaining that your apple doesn't taste like vodka. Well duh!
Your conclusion,
"You did tailor a theory to many of the facts rather than the other way round, but as RJ argued any number of different scenarios could be constructed to satisfy those facts and, despite all your verbiage and academic jargon, your tale is no more convincing than those possibilities and in many instances it is much less so" says two things about your style of criticism:
1 You're not very familiar with critical
thinking.
2 You're not very familiar with argumentation.
1 Let's test your hypothesis. What do you
think the level of critical intensity would
be if Radka chose to "tailor" the facts of
the case, as opposed to building his
hypothesis around them?
I think there would be a thousand posts on this thread in 15 minutes, all condemning Radka
for committing the faux pas that you seem to think is appropriate.
2 Arguments can be either inductive or
deductive. In one instance observations are
made, patterns are discerned, tentative
hypotheses are constructed and tested, and
theories are proposed. In the other, one
begins with a theory, cobbles together
hypotheses, observations related to the
theory are made, and the theory is either
confirmed or rejected. I'll leave it to you
to figure out which is which.
By the way, I wouldn't rely too much on "RJ" for critical support, he seems to think that substituting variables should equal the same
conclusion, i.e., 3+3=2 instead of 1+1. My apologies in advance, if my "verbiage and academic jargon" have put you off.
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
On April 25th, Ally wrote:
David,
"Your premise doesn't really hold. Levy had no assurances that the killer would in fact stop". Levy had no assurances that the killer wouldn't get caught in the act thereby unleashing the anti-jewish feeling". This argument is irrelevant on two counts. First, Radka's premise is an element of inductive reasoning, and as such, it doesn't have to hold to anything, i.e., be valid. It simply has to provide probable justification for the conclusion (Benfield: personal conversation, 2003), therefore, the point is moot. Your alternatives aren't any more (or any less) plausible than Radka's claim. They lack utility because they don't weaken his argument. Second, your argument is self-defeating. Radka's argument seeks to establish the necessary conditions of probability using modus ponens:
if p, then q
p
therefore q.
Your argument for sufficient conditions is modus tollens, which negates both antecedent and consequence:
if p, then q
~ q
therefore ~ p
Therefore, your argument is a dead issue.
On April 25th, RJ Palmer wrote:
"Personally, I am left with the same misgivings I've always had when hearing Mr. Radka discuss his methodology.." Well, why is that so Palmer? "It seems to me that center---that the the killer is a psychopath--is far too soft and mushy to allow anyone to confidently identify what consistutes the actual 'case evidence'". Huh? Your gift for clarity is almost as underwhelming as your value of objectivity.
"So let me pose a question. Wouldn't it be possible for another theorist to fully accept the main 'center'--ie., the premise of a psychopath---and yet build up an entirely different explanation with a different catalogue of what constitutes the 'case evidence' and even come up with a different solution? (Ie., might the theory include MacKenzie but dissmiss Stride?; accept the "Dear Boss" but refute the Lusk letter?) It seems to me that answer is 'yes.' And if the answer is 'yes', how can the methodology claim that it leads to determining the truth of what really happened in 1888-1891?". Well, no. You're substitution argument is a red herring Palmer. When you change the causal elements in an event, you change the necessary conditions of effect. Anyone could discredit anything with that kind of cheap-shot treatment. If your mother married the mailman instead of your father, then you'd have a completely different set of genes (Ridley 1999:38-57, 161-189). Wouldn't you? Your prediction scheme is bogus, because it's ass-backwards. Radka argues cause by necessity, you, on the other hand, attempt to compare his argument to sufficient conditions, which will naturally produce a different effect. Your muddled analysis doesn't reveal anything about Radka's summary.
Not only are you a rhetorical fish monger Palmer, your style is hopelessly self-contradictory. You wrote: "I'm not particularly interested in arguing the specifics of this theortetical
'solution', I'm more interested in the merits of the approach". Then, on the flip-side you state: "P.S. I don't find your Hove explanation is satisfying. London was the largest city in the world. There were a thousand and one places in London for a covert witness parade. I can't believe this is the correct explanation of why it went down in Brighton". So, what's it going to be? Are you going to favor us with your notion of the big picture, or are you going to count the hairs on Radka's….chin?
You're analysis is also self-centered and thoughtless, Palmer. You tell us your mind is closed, "I can't believe this is the correct explanation of why it went down in Brighton", but it's OK for Radka to waste his time responding to your thick-as-a brick receptivity, "I don't see it living up to these claims, but am, of course, willing to hear a rebuttal". Gee, that's really swell of you Palmer old boy; not only are you willing to waste Radka's time, you seem unconcerned with, or oblivious to the reader's time (not to mention band width).
Your critique is pointless and hypocritical, because you've made it personal: "I think it is legitimate to criticize the theory on this point, because it goes out of its way to claim it is a bold departure". So what! Do you really think Radka, or any other author for that matter, is going to come out and say: My theory sucks don't read it. Sorry bud, but in this instance, you're not any less arrogant than the man you're accusing of arrogance?
There isn't anything remotely objective about your criticism. Your animosity for Radka is so obvious, that any open-minded person reading your posts would have to ignore anything you have to say. In sum, you don't practice what you preach, therefore, you don't have any credibility on this topic. (I expected better from you Roger)
On April 26th, Dan Norder wrote:
"And, like a lot of others, it's long on highly speculative and dramatic explanations for some of the grand mythical mysteries of the case and short on logical reasoning to support the conclusions". Actually Norder, the nature of your comments indicates that you may not fully understanding the concepts that guide theoretical supposition and hypothesis building.
Modern scientific method was developed during the Renaissance. One of the main ideas that grew out of that development, was the concept of experimental consistency.
The idea behind experimental consistency is that hypothetical models could be tested by other researchers who, theoretically, would reach the same, or similar conclusions; today this process is called "external validity" (Bernard 2002:108-116).
One of the nice things about external validity is it's practical utility with any theoretical paradigm, e.g., positivism, humanism, rationalism, and of course, empiricism.
Each of these approaches has it's own features and applications, some of which are cross-compatible, while others are dichotomous. Problems arise when people with cursory knowledge of these theoretical formats, begin to indiscriminately mix and match incompatible elements, fully expecting every application of that aggregate to yield viable results.
Every scientific discipline has its own set of procedures, some are even interchangeable, and others are not. Chemistry, for example, uses lab equipment to conduct experiments on physical material. In contrast, using hermeneutics for the same purpose would limit chem lab technicians to reading the labels on flasks and beakers, which is not a very productive way to spend one's time. Similarly, it is counter-productive to hold a rationalist liable to empirical paradigms (Perry 2003:133-187;Critical Thinking Consortium: electronic document).
You wrote: "Your explanations are clever, but I can't see how you can come to them without being highly speculative. The codes, meanings and motives you see there don't have supporting steps to show how you came to those conclusions". This critique makes it clear that your empirical reductionism blinds you to the fact that Radka's summary is a rationalist theoretical composition, there isn't anything speculative, in the pejorative sense that you wish to imply, about it at all. You were so quick to rush to judgment, that you completely over-looked the fact that during the course of his summary, Radka clearly explained why he reached the conclusions he did. You chastise him, and that's all you're really doing in a condescending way, for not telling you how. He isn't trying to tell you how.
In the same post you wrote: "Dramatic" is a subjective but fair term to describe your theory, based upon the complex motives you believe led to the killer's actions". You're only half right Norder, dramatic is a subjective term. It may be an apt description of Radka, the man, it is not, however, in any sense of fairness, or in the interest of objective evaluation, an appropriate term to describe an author or his theory. It is derogatory and condescending, what's more, it is unprofessional.
I think it is only fair that the readership holds critics to the same standards that the critics demand from others.
Mephisto
P.S. Monty, what's an A.P.?
References Cited
Bernard, Russell H.
2002 Research Methods in Anthropology:
Qualitive and Quantitive Approaches. 3rd
edition. New York: AtiMira Press.
Critical Thinking Consortium
2003 Electronic document at:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/ Accessed on
12/06/02
Durkheim, Emile
1947 The Division of Labor in Society.
New York: The Free Press
Perry, Richard J.
2003 Five Key Concepts in
Anthropological Thinking. Upper Saddle River
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ridley, Matt
1999 Genome: The Autobiography of a
Species in 23 Chapters. New York: Harper
Collins.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Mr. Raney,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm in the same boat you are. Since 1999, Radka has been telling everyone with eyes that he's solved the case. I've even broke his….bells about it myself a few times. But now that he's published his summary, I've put that aside. I didn't want anything from the past influencing my judgment of his work. In other words, I wanted to give the man a fair hearing, and evaluate his thesis without prejudice.
Time and again, on these message boards, I've read how crucial objectivity and empirical evidence are to written analysis, only to find that those posters, who make these demands, are the greatest offenders. They make their pronouncements like the gods of Mount Olympus, while at the same time making the same errors of evaluation as those they condemn. These are the same people who bitch-and-moan about the Casebook's credibility with new posters, casual surfers, and Ripperology in general. Without realizing it, they pose the greatest threat.
My purpose here, is to reflect the Janus head conditions that these folks have created and seem content to sustain. I want to coerce, chide, wisecrack, cajole (pick whichever suits your taste) or persuade them to practice what they preach. Otherwise, the discourse becomes stale and meaningless. And I'm sure you'll agree that the subject of The Whitechapel Murders deserves better.
This web site has hosted well-respected authors, and current authorities in Ripperology since its inception, and we've roasted them all. The focus of those discussions, and many were quite intense, was, and should always be, the subject matter. Please don't misunderstand me, we cannot separate ourselves from our personalities, we are who we are, but we can make an effort to leave the animosity, and self-righteous Bolshoi in the deleted file. If objectivity is truly critical to those who preach its glory, then be objective, or be quiet. Hypocrisy is easy, any fool can participate, but living up to expectation is not easy; believe me, it's damn hard. But it will never become manifest without effort. I say, let's make the effort.
We shouldn't hesitate to analyze and critique a perspective, but let's do it with some forethought. Make an effort to recognize what you're reading, and analyze it accordingly, e.g., don't hold inductive argument to the absolute certainty of deduction, don't confuse necessary with sufficient, and don't condemn rationalist discourse because it's not empirical. If people aren’t familiar with these concepts, look 'em up, they're on net, cut, paste, print, and refer to, it's simple.
I think I've said all that I wanted to say on the subject, so I'm going to step down from my soap-box for a while, I've got a lot of other things to do.
Mephisto |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Dear Mephisto,
Thou rebuketh us in truth! Some think you are Elijah. Some think you are the Baptist. But I say thou art a likeness of "Jack-in-the-Box" :-)
|
hemustdoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Hi Mephisto,
I hope you both live happily ever after as you seem to be a match made in heaven (even better for David if you're a "girlie".)
Do let me know where to post the wedding gifts.
I don't see much actual support of David's work from you other than support for the methodology and to boost David's flagging ego.
If you are knowledgeable on the case please feel free to jump in and provide support where you can; I am interested in what supporters of the summary think about the actual content and why.
Shame on you Glenn for suggesting such a thing - if I were a cynic I'd look up a tool someone told me about a few years ago which "digests" documents from a known author (the more the merrier) and can then analyse other documents to give a "confidence level" that the other document is from the same or a different author based on word content, grammatical structure, puctuation used, use of technical terms, complexity of words, etc.
Obviously if someone knows of the tool they run their posts through it before sending and rewrite the post until it gives low confidence levels.
I might actually look for the tool and (if free/shareware) see how it works with Radka Vs Sadman Vs Bullwinkle as there we know they are the same author and have a bigger volume of posts to sample.
Also Glenn, be even more ashamed than Jeniffer; you've left this thread 5 times to my reckoning!
Good luck with the exams Jennifer.
Cheerio,
ian
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
Hi Hemustadoneit you wrote
"Another poster got it right that David was probably Googling and found the word and his logic got the better of him and he's too afraid now to just admit that it was the one and only source and he's extrapolated a web site from 2004 back to the 1880's."
Yes Hem, that seems to be the case doesn't it. I'm still waiting for Mr Radka's explanation.
He's saying the writing of the word "Juwes", isn't crucial to his case now.
Yet he wrote.
"...And right next to the dove, what do you see? The word Juwe, the contraction I discovered as an original, rational contribution to Ripperology, that’s what! Do you realize how many people numbly went right by this word in trying to solve the case over the years? Hundreds of thousands, that’s how many! And who found it, for the first time in history understood its meaning to Ripperology and made it known I might add free of charge, once and for all? David M. Radka, that’s who!"
Seems to me as if Mr Radka's interpretation of the word "Juwes" was important enough to warrant the above comment by Mr Radka.
In fact he called it his, "original, rational contribution to Ripperology,"
Trouble is of course he got it wrong. The word Juwes (as meaning young German workers)only made it's debut in the 1960's
Regards Cludgy.
Regards Cludgy.
|
Woland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
"Or is "Mephisto" perhaps Radka who is back already, and under a new alias...?"
No doubt. The grandiose sense of self-importance, the conceited tone, the implication that everybody who disagrees is an imbecile, the tendency to sing his own praise, these are the hallmarks of everything that David M. Radka, under whatever pseudonym he chose to use, has ever written.
In this case, however, the alias is particularly well chosen: Mephisto or Mephistopheles means literally "he who loves not the light".
But this is probably not what Mr. Radka meant.
For Mephisto is the name of the devil in the Faust legend in the plays of, amongst others, Christopher Marlowe and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
So, using Mr.Radka's logic, the reference is clear: mephisto = devil = antichrist (of ripperology) = radka
Woland
|
An interested party
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
Wolf,
I can't stop laughing - what's the antidote ... please! |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
Mullins,
You wrote: " What does "You seem to be one, of a small number of readers here, who has actually seen the form of the good." mean? I know that it is english, but I'm very uncertain about it's meaning. I myself, have never "seen the form of the good" so I can not say that I identify with the statement". Your post will make one thing very obvious to all who read it Mullins, you truly have never seen the the form of the good.
You have some novel ideas about truth Mullins, maybe it has something to do with the stale air in your cave, but that's only an allegory. Then again, maybe it's not. You wrote: "The truth is kinda hard to ignore, as it is by its very nature, true. No amount of ignoring or name calling can change it". Truth has many forms
(there's that word again). Deductive reasoning requires absolute truth, i.e., something is either valid or invalid. For example: A dog can be seen to be chasing his tail, or the tail can be viewed as evading capture. Another example might be....you for instance. You could be taken for an ignoramus, or as an erudite scholar with obscure wisdom. The point is, that truth is subjective; you know, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder sorta thing. The idea that the truth is the truth only has meaning to a person who has a limited experience with life; the rest of the world sees that type of obscure wisdom as an exercise in circular logic. Perhaps your tail is evading capture after all.
David Radka is not my pal. He's a man, like any other man. I've been reading his posts here for over five years, and I've found him to be quite a character. He gets harassed, mocked, and ridiculed, and when he feels he's had enough, he fights back in kind. He's been here since day one (or pretty close to day one). Actually,there's a good possibility that he's the creation of someone's imagination, you know, like Clark Kent. Mild mannered accountant on the message boards, high-powered executive in real life. That kinda thing happened here quite a bit, but that was way before your time. In fact, it may still be happening today....you just never know.
As far as the Christ/Anit-christ thing goes, I'm glad I was able to bring a little laughter to your life. Right now, I'm a little to busy to answer your question: " Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out in whom I can find this christ?". But I will make this suggestion: Why don't you start another thread somewhere and take a poll. I'm positive that doing so will satisfy your spastic nature to no end.
And by the way, thank you for the kind advice, but I wouldn't think of asking you to move out of your comforatble home, just so I could soak my head.
Have a nice day.
Mephisto
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Glad to see someone noted my post 'interested party'.
Thank the anti-christ there is no antidote to laughter, and for christ's sake there appears to be no antidote for Radka either.
To be honest I think Mepisto meant to describe Radka as the 'enfant terrible' of the Ripper world, but somehow as he was digesting the debris flying out of Radka's arse he caught his teeth on a small bone and got carried away, thinking he had finally found some meat amongst all that dross.
Radka is a living fossil. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
"Personally, I am left with the same misgivings I've always had when hearing Mr. Radka discuss his methodology.." Well, why is that so Palmer? "It seems to me that the center---that the killer is a psychopath--is far too soft and mushy to allow anyone to confidently identify what consistutes the actual 'case evidence'". Huh? Your gift for clarity is almost as underwhelming as your value of objectivity."
Yes, Mephisto. But let's face it. All hope for 'clarity' is lost once Radka has pitched us into the mire of metaphysics.
Radka claims as his 'center' the diagnosis of 'psychopath.' To his credit, he goes into some detail of explaining what he means by this. All well and good (within reason). Next he majestically announces that by knowing that the killer is a psychopath:
"We give ourselves a chance to solve the case by positing, for the first time in Ripperology, what we should be looking for in the case evidence. We become able to determine what elements are related, and what unrelated, by their logical relation to the center.' (Item #1)
And you call me vague?? Cleckly has joined hands with Hegel, Anderson, and Hazelwood and has gone-a-profilin'.
No, I'm afraid I don't accept this. Knowing that the killer is a psychopath does not allow Mr. Radka to determine what he is calling the 'case evidence.' He quickly moves on to steps #2, #3, #4 and so on, and pounces on our shoulders and whispers in our ears that the case evidence is the Lusk letter, the cry of Lipski, the reward money, 'Juwes', the uteri and the mystique of the controlling Jewish mother, Aaron Kosminski disrupting the family unit, etc. etc.
Am I missing something? Is there a missing step or two somewhere here? Where is the connecting tissue?
I'll grant you that Radka has chosen a canon of what he calls the 'evidence' from the known history of the Whitechapel Murders (and it's worth remembering that it's only the known history) and has weaved it into an internally consistant story. But is he not claiming a wee bit more than this? One can understand (but not necessarily agree with) what he means by 'logical confirmation' of the various bits of evidence buzzing around the same story-line. A bloke can grab hold of a copy of Aristotle's Poetics and give a whirl at unity of time, place, and action. Well done---I don't disagree with the motivation. But what is this nonsense about a diagnosis per Cleckley absolutely identifying and even verifying the validity of the so-called evidence? This is crawling into a nutshell and announcing onceself the king of infinite space...
How precisely does Cleckley help determine that Stride was a victim of the man who killed Chapman?
P.S. Am I wrong, or do I seem to discern a certain New York state of mind? :-)
(Message edited by rjpalmer on June 11, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 638
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Mephisto,
What a crock. David is not attempting to establish if p then q because that is the kind of logic based thinking that he supposedly despises. Plus, in order for that sort of reasoning to work, p must be a fact in order for a q to be a fact. I have several times asked Radka for proof that his "p" is fact in order to claim his "q" and he has said time and time again that this is the kind of shoddy thinking that has ruined Ripperology.
 |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
"The point is, that truth is subjective; you know, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder sorta thing. The idea that the truth is the truth only has meaning to a person who has a limited experience with life."
-- Mephisto.
Ah, I see. What was AP's phrase? Guilt by reason of flower arrangement? As I've always suspected, Radka's approach at a "solution" is an aesthetic one. A pretty pattern.
But guess what? It doesn't matter that we are talking history, or that the case is 100+ years old. The concept of criminal guilt cannot be dissected from it's legal context. It's unconvincing nonsense to even suggest it. Any meaningful 'solution' has to be based in the legal tradition, ie., Empiricism. No alchemy allowed, sir. RP |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
Dear J-----
One quicky before the week-end. I don't have such a low opinion of our resident philosopher that I'd assume that he'd become his own sycophantic cheerleader; no, I remember you well enough. Your own academic training naturally positions yourself half-way between the hard sciences and the soft ones; you evidently align yourself with the latter, perhaps embittered by a strange belief that the former won't allow you to uncover the lost Continent of Atlantis with a paint brush.
Whereas gentleman resort to reasoned discourse and honesty, you show again your old adeptnesss at the New York rib-jab and the creaking academic citation. As Ally's post amply demonstrates above, you don't truly understand the implications of Radka's theory; you only instinctively know that your friend's greatest talent is for getting the rabble up, and, as a fellow elitist, you gallantly to rush to his side. So be it, but don't misunderstand and trivialize my position in order to attack it; (I wouldn't rely too much on "RJ" for critical support, he seems to think that substituting variables should equal the same conclusion, i.e., 3+3=2 instead of 1+1) . This is foolishness, and is beneath you. Radka himself --addressing the selfsame observation ---admitted that I was in fact describing a "strength" of his system and even gave the alarming fact that he had come up with 100+ other solutions using the "case evidence." Meditate on that awhile, Plato. (But you've already given your answer; I need not be alarmed at all, for truth is 'subjective.' )
In parting, I would remind you of the sober fact that the last time this sort of metaphysical tomfoolery crept into criminal matters was when they burnt witches in Scotland by the dozen. A white-haired, sun-burnt Yankee in a deceptively simple line said "the earth is the right place for love." Perhaps you know it? Well, consider the same concept in a different context: criminal matters are the right place for empiricism. There's just no substitute for having something in your briefcase, old man. ---I'll leave you now, to dream your golden dreams. Cheers, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on June 11, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Hi all,
I have never laughed so much when reading a website about a set of gruesome killings.
Mephisto (ie David - no?)
Where exactly did you refer to emile durkheim in your post? To what ends has the division of labour in modern societies impacted on David (ie your) theory about psychopathic Jews?
Aside- I do not recommend talking about yourself in the third person.
Ian
Thanks I need all the luck I can get!
But guess what even when I take some time to myself emile durkheim still gets a mention!
Cheers
Jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Sorry apparently you are not David
again am having to appologise!
Jennifer |
Brian Rice
Police Constable
Username: Saucy
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 10:09 pm: | |
Mephisto,
I would like to know where you go to school, so I can pull my children out.
By the way, isn't Mephisto the president of NAMBLA (North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes) on South Park?
Brian
"Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me..." |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
“Mr. Norder wrote: ""Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale."
I answered: >>No. They are not on the same scale as normal people, and exhibit "an irrationality that is gross and obvious." As Cleckley says, they represent "madness in excelsis masked behind a veneer of real sanity." You are basing what you say on your simple and lazy readings of lists of characteristics of psychopaths, thus you lack insight."
Mr. Norder wrote: How do you know what I am basing my words on? This is all coming down to you just claiming to know more than anyone else but with nothing to back it up.”
My rebuttal: I’ve got substantive research and perspective in the field to back it up, which I’ve been sharing with all readers in detail here through my responses in this thread for some weeks. You on the other hand adamantly refuse to say in any detail what you think psychopathy is—you merely keep referring us to simple lists of topical characteristics from other web sites, while never considering the subject adequately yourself. Disturbed people of many types exhibit different characteristics; only some are psychopaths, but many have psychopathic characteristics. Lots of totally or mostly normal people indicate some psychopathic characteristics too. There is a major angle of inflection here that you have to have under your belt to be able to negotiate these matters interpretively. What you’re giving us is therefore DEAD NOTHING in terms of a legitimate interpretation of any real underlying psychiatric conditions that can EITHER solve the case or prove my solution faulty in some way. You HAVE NOTHING. You have to HAVE SOMETHING to talk about these matters.
Mr. Norder wrote: “I'm not going to pretend to have professional level credentials here, but I did take graduate level university classes in psychology and counseling, including a major focus on abnormal psych, which was my emphasis.”
My rebuttal: This in itself would not mean anything unless there was real experience with psychopathy. Psychopaths are a different order of character entirely—please READ SOME GOOD BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT and you’ll see.
Mr. Norder wrote: “Apparently your background is that you read a book that was based upon research more than 50 years old and are coming up with your own unique interpretations of what it said.”
My response: I read current materials. Your repeated statements that my knowledge is outdated is nothing more than a transparent lie, designed to hide your ignorance. You have never given any justification for this position. Exactly what do you think is outdated in my position? Please give us a page or two about this to be clear, in detail. And what is wrong with making interpretations? Don’t psychiatrists have to learn how to make interpretations in order to understand what various disorders are? Certainly, psychiatrists don’t base their understanding of their field on simple lists!
Mr. Norder wrote: These days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised). Neither one includes this irrationality and delusional thinking you keep bringing up.
My rebuttal: ATTENTION! WAKE UP, MR. NORDER!! THERE IS NO DELUSIONAL THINKING IN PSYCHOPATHY!! I NEVER, NEVER, SAID THERE WAS!! YOU ARE TELLING LIES ABOUT WHAT I WRITE!! A PSYCHOPATH CAN BE AS IRRATIONAL AS A HOOTIE OWL AND STILL BE TOTALLY FREE OF DELUSIONS!!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! THE PSYCHATRISTS WHO USE THE CRITERIA HAVE A GOOD IDEA THAT THEY HAVE A DISTRUBED PERSON SITTING IN FRONT OF THEM BEFORE THEY USE THE CRITERIA!!!
Mr. Norder wrote: There's also nothing in them that support your beliefs that a psychopath is horrible at communication or that they lack all emotions. Yes, they are deficient in guilt and empathy, sure (that's pretty much the most important part of the checklist right there), but not anger and so forth like you say. Heck, they are pretty much some of the most angry people out there, and for you to claim that they don't need to vent their feelings on people because they don't have any is totally off the mark.
My Rebuttal: MR. NORDER, YOUR POSITION HERE IS FULL OF PRUNES!!! I NEVER, NEVER SAID THAT A PSYCHOPATH IS HORRIBLE AT COMMUNICATION; I SAID THAT BECAUSE JTR FAILED AT COMMUNICATION WE HAVE AN INSIGHT INTO HIS IRRATIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC EGOCENTRICITY!! WAKE UP!!! THESE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTERS!!! I also never said psychopaths lack all emotions—to claim I did is an outright, blatant lie on your part!!! I said these people are emotionally shallow, deficient in strong, rich and lasting emotions, and that this determines their behavior to a large extent. PSYCHOPATHS ARE NOT ANGRY PEOPLE!! YOU HAVE GOT THEM TOTALLY WRONG!!! YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THIS ENTIRE FIELD IS COMPLETE!!! Real anger requires consistency, inhibitions, refinement of emotions, at least a modicum of emotional depth, and sublimation, all of which are too rich a plate for psychopaths!!! Psychopaths are instead extremely immature people! They are like little infant personalities in grown up bodies. QUIT REFERRING SIMPLE-MINDEDLY TO YOUR CHECKLISTS!! THE CHECKLISTS DON’T TELL ABOUT THE TYPE!! THE TYPE IS A COMPLEX IDEA IN THE INQUIRING MIND!!!
Mr. Norder wrote: “You look at the case and call your killer rational when it suits your purposes and irrational when it fits your scenario better. There's no rhyme or reason to it, and it's certainly not consistent with psychopathy. 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.”
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
My rebuttal: In terms of being the Editor of ‘Ripper Notes,’ the above post is a career-killer. Mr. Norder has before our eyes systematically destroyed his ability to be taken as a fair, serious and knowledgeable arbiter of theories concerning the case. He has committed literary suicide.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Ally wrote:
"What a crock. David is not attempting to establish if p then q because that is the kind of logic based thinking that he supposedly despises". Plus, in order for that sort of reasoning to work, p must be a fact in order for a q to be a fact. I have several times asked Radka for proof that his "p" is fact in order to claim his "q" and he has said time and time again that this is the kind of shoddy thinking that has ruined Ripperology}".
Whether Radka purposely used syllogisms or not, is not my point. The fact is, syllogisms can be used to analyze both his, and your arguments. For example, you wrote:
"Plus, in order for that sort of reasoning to work, p must be a fact in order for a q to be a fact". Not true; p must exist in order for q to exist. This syllogism (modus ponens) is an example of deductive reasoning, which is concerned with the form of an argument, not its content, therefore, facts are irrelevant.
Your argument questioned Radka's antecedent premise, and proposed two alternatives. My response emphasized the fact that, if you negate the antecedent, ~p (not p), then you negate the consequence, ~q (not q), which renders the point moot. If you have an apple, and you take away an apple, then you don't have any apples.
What I tried to point out to you was, if you want to analyze the content of Radka's summary, then you must use inductive reasoning. Unlike deductive logic, which deals with absolutes, i.e, valid or invalid arguments, true or false, etc. etc., inductive reasoning deals strictly with probabilities.
Inductive logic simply requires that Radka's premise be a likely (probable) phenomenon of the human condition? Is it? Yes, it is, i.e., it is highly probable. You suggested that your two alternative: 1..."Levy had no assurances that the killer would in fact stop", and 2...Levy had no assurances that the killer wouldn't get caught in the act thereby unleashing the anti-jewish feeling", were just as likely (probable) to be true of the sitiation as was his original premise.
I see two problems with your line of reasoning:
1.......You claim that your two alternative are
.........just as valid as Radka's.
No, they're not. Radka argues his point as the effect of inductive necessity. He claims that if q occurred, then p caused it.
2.......Your alternatives are proposed as valid,
.........conditions of modus tollens:
.........if p (the cause) does not
.........occur, then q (the effect)
.........will not occur.
In other words, you claim that if p (Radka's scenario) does not occur, e.g., if the murderer stops killing or, the murderer gets caught, then q will not occur, i.e., then Radka's scenario will be invalid. Here, not only are you confusing modus ponens with modus tollens, you are demanding that the probability of inductive argument account for the absolute certainty of deductive reasoning, it just doesn't work.
If your argument is repaired, i.e., your alternatives are used as inductive premises, then they don't have any greater plausibility then Radka's. In other words, Radka's premise is just as likely to have happened as either of yours. Since, in the context of his scenario, your claims aren't any more plausible then Radka's, they don't have sufficient strength to negate his contention.
Ally, can I e-mail you privately? I have some things to ask you that are unrelated to this discussion and the Casebook.
Ms. Pegg,
The concept of "social structure" is the brain-child of Emile Durkheim. You may recall his theory: social cohesion influences social behavior and as a result, there are no individuals in society; only cultural institutions exist etc. I used Durkheim's idea in my reply, therefore, I'm obligated to cite him as my source.
Are you a college student?
Mephisto
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
So I take it you're not Mephisto then?
I admit I thought at first it was a nom du plume (or nom de guerre?) of one of David's supporters and I naturallly thought that it was either you, Natalie, AP or Glenn :-o
Anyway Mephisto if you've wandered in here to find the Christ of Ripperology There's no Messiah in here. There's a mess alright, but no Messiah. Now go away!
And if you think David is the Messiah: He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy! Now go away!
Cheerio,
ian
Quotes coutersy of Monty Python's "The Life of Bwian" and probably subject to Copyright
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
I don't think you do yourself justice in the brain box compartment.
The whole point of it is "if p, then q" David's Summary can be seen as one of:
if JtR killed Stride, then q
Which Radka further interprets as
Who cares whether JtR killed Stride - if he didn't he probably meant to anyway.
Therefore q.
Cheerio,
ian
PS Is Mephisto really still wearing that turd on his head?
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
I wrote: "Psychopaths don't "vent their needs upon" their victims, as you say, either. Not having inhibitions means not having anything to vent."
Mr. Norder responded: Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes”
My rebuttal: This is yet another example of tearing what I say out of context in order to misrepresent my considered positions on the case evidence. People reading this dreck would tend to think of me as simply being wrong about what I say about psychopaths, instead of thinking my case solution through as a whole using psychopathy as a center. Once they start doing that, the writer thinks, they will start joining him in kicking me down, and he’ll have some fun.
This statement is entirely unjustified: “Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale.”
When we talk “psychopathy,” we’re not talking “scale.” Psychopaths cannot be “scaled” or modeled, their basic personality mis-structure being irrational in nature. How many times can zero be divided into 23? One? Twenty-three? 2,406.667 times? This is what the psychopathic personality is like—undefined, arbitrary, unstable, and erratic. Life may be essentially one tangential spring or metaphorical tear following after another. These are not otherwise comprehensible people susceptible to “extreme selfishness” or other attributes as normal people would be, they are fundamentally incomprehensible people, sometimes operating well into or beyond the ranges of insanity. They also seldom, not “often” as you say, resort to “violent ends.” As usual, you miss the entire point of what you represent yourself to the public as knowing about. If you think you’ve got a clue of what you’re talking about, simply answer my point from a solid knowledge of the syndrome you discuss above. Let’s all see what you can do, give us a well-written, detailed 3-page synopsis of the psychopathic personality as you conceive it. Don’t merely tell us, as you’ve done before, that you’ve linked a simple topical list of presenting conditions or diagnostic criteria into this web site—doing that is the ultimate example of not taking the trouble to do your own thinking, and impolitely asks us to be the same as you.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Nice posts recently - especially the AP quote you regurgitated on "Guilt by reason of flower arrangement".
David doesn't need to bother himself by such trifling matters as facts, or hard evidence, the steps you will find are quite simple and logical and well reasoned and written in a very nice blue crayon ;-)
Radka once replied to one of my questions on the reward...
To quote:
We know he was interested in the reward for the most part because of the double event combined with the Lusk letter, and these are rational reasons, not empirical facts. [...snip other wild speculations...]"
If it looks like a turd, it feels like a turd and smells like a turd I for one tend to think it's a turd and no big words from Mr Radka will convince me to wear it on my head and have me believe it's the latest fashion accessory.
Cheerio,
ian
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
“I know this wasn't directed at me but I feel I should say something about this. There is a big difference between presuming someone is telling the truth and someone is lying. Do you go around presuming everyone is a liar unless you find evidence that they are telling the truth? When someone says something, most people presume they are telling the truth unless something proves that they were lying. I'm sorry but it seems to me that you are only saying Levy lied so it will fit in with your theory as there is no evidence that he did lie.”
I do not presume that “everyone is a liar.” There is PLENTY of evidence that Levy lied. The marks on Eddowes’ face that make connection between the murderer and the Duke Street Jews, the graffitus, the fact of two murders on the same night when the murderer was revealed to witnesses both times, Levy’s absurd statement cautioning against the couple to Harris, Levy’s evasiveness at the inquest and to the reporter, and so on. You’ll get an earful about Levy lying from Mr. Nelson, too if you ask him. You’re asking us to give Levy the benefit of the doubt about all this just to be nice to him? Sorry, we’re not that stupid.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 11:28 pm: | |
Roger Palmer wrote:
"Radka claims as his 'center' the diagnosis of 'psychopath.' To his credit, he goes into some detail of explaining what he means by this. All well and good (within reason)". Aaah. Now that's the RJP I remember.
A New York state of mind, hmmmm. I see my reputation precedes me, now if my reputation precludes me, then I would truly be meta-physical. No? ;-)
Actually RJ, there are two reasons I decided to stop by the Casebook, first, I missed sharing the insights of yourself, and a few other folks who frequent these boards: Caz, Mr. George, C.M. DiGrazia, John and Anne Smyth (Please forgive me if I've misspelled your name), Ally, Red Butthead…er Red Daemon, David Og MacDonald (she knows who he is), Radka, Harry Mann, Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Diana, et. al.; second, I needed to ground my future in the lessons that I learned from the people in my past.
I completed my tour of duty in Afghanistan (Banana stand) a little early, thanks to a spray of shrapnel up my right side; my physical rehab ended in April, thankfully, I don't have to go through that torture three days a week anymore (I'm about as healed as I'm ever gonna be), and I had come to a point in my writing, where I needed to do more (A lot more) research before I could continue scribbling with my electronic crayons.
I had returned to university last September, and now that that satisfying enterprise has ended for this year (One semester to go), I have, or had, a little time on my hands, so I decided to look in on my favorite place in the ether. Unfortunately, the reunion will be short-lived, my employment situation has changed over the last two weeks, and my plan to idle away the summer months is rapidly fading. In any event, there were two things I immediately noticed when I stopped by, Caz had co-authored a book (You go girl), and David Radka had published a summary of his solution to the Whitechapel Murders.
I read Radka's summary, Caz's book should be here in a few days, and was pleased to see that he gave a good account of himself, i.e., he generalized a plausible theory, based on his observations. What I found troubling, however, was the poor reception he was getting for his effort. It seemed to me, based on the prevailing train of thought, that very few people had actually made a close reading of the work, and that mainly, they were scorching his ass because of some previous grievances. Now, I realize that Mr. Personality frequently rubs people the wrong way, so I was not surprised to see angry villagers storming Schloss Radka torches in hand, but like I said, what caught my attention was the jist of the commentary. Believe me, when it comes to evaluating historical criticism, I'm no John Omlor, but something seemed seriously out of place here. Were we, all of us, reading the same summary? It was the style and content of the criticism which compelled me to play– Mephisto Esq., the champion of over educated, socially challenged accountants/authors everywhere (Oy vey).
Well, enough about me, and what I think. I have to go now and attend my pouty girlfriend, who's threatening me with a very dangerous-looking pillow. So, we'll discuss perspectives domani.
Hasta lumbago.
Mephisto
P.S. Thanks for that bit of trivia Rice, I had no idea that the opening of a troll's alimentary canal could reproduce without a penis. It just goes to show.....ya learn something new everyday.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Dr. John wrote:
"The phrase you cite from Mephisto's post is a reference to an elementary, undergraduate reading of Plato. The Allegory of the Cave is used in his post in a somewhat crude and cutesy way, mostly, as far as I can tell, to give his rhetoric the odor of philosophy."
Actually professor, Plato's Republic is the focus of some very serious post-graduate work in a number of academic disciplines, e.g., political science, anthropology, and literary criticism. Philosophy doesn't concern itself with trendy tet è tet, nor does it evoke any aroma that I know of Muchacho. Even Hawthorne knew that :-).
One thing I've gathered from The Republic in general, and the allegory of the cave in particular, which you might find interesting, was that Plato wrote The Republic to criticize the application of Homer's worldview as a cultural construct in Athens.
Since the mid 9th century B.C., The Iliad and Odyssey were the core curriculum of Athenian education. By the time Plato was born, c 427 B.C., twelve generations of Athenian schoolboys had been immersed in Homer's ideology. It therefore becomes obvious that the Homeric tradition was instrumental in shaping the Athenian social structures (Durkheim 1947), which engendered what we've come to recognize as the GOLDEN AGE of Greek culture.
Plato, the socialist aristoi that he was, took issue with the inclusive political environment caused by Homeric idealism. The aristoi saw the epics as a learning tool, i.e., a means to reinforce the concept of the aristoi('s) social responsibility to the demos, which in turn, directly lead to Solon's seisachteia. The hoi poloi, on the other hand, were not as much concerned with the welfare of Athens as were the aristoi, they took advantage of the political power they gained through the Homeric worldview, to feather their political nest.
Plato used the allegory of the cave to express his conviction that both classes had erred in their embrace of Homeric aretè as the guiding principle of their lives. Philosophers, he believed, would provide all Athenians with an ethical, tri-partite social system that was consistent with human nature.
Plato aptly demonstrates this concept through the individual who escaped the dark ignorance of the cave, and was intellectually broadened by philosophy, which Plato characterized as the sun, i.e., the form of the good. The escapee was an aristoi, who, driven by his aretè, returned to the demos of the cave to free them, so that they might share his enlightenment. But, like Mullins, they preferred the comfort of their limited insights, to the unknown, intellectual world of philosophy.
My reference to Plato was meant to accentuate the difference between knowledge and opinion, i.e., Radka and Mullins respectively.
Via con Zeus, mi frato.
Mephisto |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:01 pm: | |
Hello RJ,
To begin with, I think it's important to bear in mind Radka's preface to his summary: "The Summary is a full and concise statement of the logical argument manifesting the case solution. The Thesis provides a common language setting for the argument". This statement summarizes the construction of the summary.
Radka went out of his way, it seems, to tell his readers what they're looking at, i.e., a framework for a sequence of related actions and conditions. The framework includes his account of these actions and conditions, based on his analysis of the events in the historical record. He clearly states that what he plans to tell his readers, is why the events happened the way they did. And this is a crucial point, because an explanation of why, is not an explanation of how; why something happens is relativism (Boas 1947); how it happens is structural-functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown 1952). It follows then, that the criterion guiding the analysis of Radka's model must be: Are his explanations of why, plausible? But is this concept complete? Is it knowable?
At this point, it benefits the reader to define his or her terms. First: What does plausible mean?
Well, that depends on the situational context. In this case, the context is the interaction of people, therefore, the criterion for plausibility is the human condition. But what the hell is a human condition?
The human condition is anything that affects people, and anything that is the effect of human interaction. I gave some thought to how the concept of the things that people affect might define the human condition, but I rejected it because that category would include inanimate objects, i.e., planes, trains, and semen stains (Is Bill Clinton in the house?), which I think, has more to do with how, than with why, but I digress.
The natural environment is the primary causal element in the human condition, but Radka doesn't touch on that aspect to any extent, so it's not part of the contextual definition. Human interactions, however, are relevant to Radka's explanations.
Human interactions produce a unique causal phenomenon, which can be manifested as independent variables and dependent variables at the same time. They are universal human conditions which are present in any environment, and under any circumstances that involve more then one person. Radka's model deals with these phenomena, i.e., social structures, culture, and behavior, almost exclusively; therefore, they are the paradigms, the defining elements of the term human condition. Thus, the plausibility of Radka's model, should be measured against the context of the human condition, i.e., the social structures, cultural institutions, and behavioral norms that result from human interaction.
Now, not only does the reader have a clearly defined analytical device with which to evaluate Radka's theoretical model, he or she has the added dimension of context. But, how do we know this device can achieve its design function. Is it exhaustive? Is it knowable? The answer is....No, on both counts.
Context is more than just spatial conditions, the interactions of people in a certain place, it's also a temporal condition. The Whitechapel murders took place during a specific time frame, therefore, the temporal condition is synchronic, the Fall of 1888. OK, so are we ready to go....or not? Well let's see, we have a guiding principal, in the form of an analytical device to help us determine plausibility, and the device is clearly defined:
> Plausible-The degree to which the explanation
is consistent with the human condition.
> The human condition-The social structures,
cultural institutions, and behavioral norms
that result from the interactions of people.
> The spacio-temporal frame is synchronic:
a The Whitechapel district of London.
b Fall, 1888
But before we start, I'd like to have two independent sources evaluate my scheme.
Opinion……..Far out, looks like we're ready ta go.
Knowledge….No dude.
Opinion……..What? Wud he leave out?
Knowledge….Did you read Radka's preface? Do you know what you're lookin' at dude?
Opinion ……."The Summary is a full and concise statement of the logical argument manifesting the case solution. The Thesis provides a common language setting for the argument".
Knowledge….So what are we missing here?
Opinion……..Hah! Sequence.
Knowledge….Sequence. Good call my man.
Even though it's a *summary, Radka's model is still a composition of complex thought. The analytical device, therefore, must be up to the challenge. Let's see if Knowledge and Opinion can solve this problem.
Opinion…….OK, OK, let's have it ask: What is the sequence of explanation?
Knowledge…Uh, dude? That's not very useful.
Opinion…….Why? Wuttsa madder wit it?
Knowledge…Well, it assumes that there is a sequential order in the summary.
Opinion…….What's wrong wit dat?
Knowledge…Well, two things, first assuming that something exists isn't very objective, it means that you're starting off with a pre-conceived notion of some kind. Second, if you assume something, you might end up taking things out of context. Searching a text for key-words or phrases among the explanations to see if they fit your pre-conceived notion of sequence, for example, only reveals their presents or absence, because that's what you're looking for. What you get from that exercise is a list of disconnected actions and thoughts.
Opinion……..OK, how 'bout dis. Let's make it ask a series a questions dat follow a logical order, like antecedent and consequence, ya know, da cause and effect ding.
Knowledge….Don't stop now, you're on a roll.
Opinion……..OK, OK, first we gotta identify da first cause, if weekin do dat, den we know wut stodded da ball rollin'. Maybe we should write dat down, soz weekin analyze all da claims tagedda. Nex' we look for wut Radka sez da first cause caused, if ya get my drift; we write dat down too. Now we looks at his next claim; we write dat down on da side, so to speak, den figer out if it's connected to da one we jus' lookdat. If it is, den weekin write it down underit. If it ain't, den we leave it alone, til we find somethin' it's connected ta.
Knowledge….Opie my man, I think you're on to something there.
I think so too Knoge. Let's go over our analytical device and see if it's ready to go.
The device has three clearly defined functions:
1 Determine if Radka's explanations are plausible, relative to the human condition.
2 Establish first cause, then establish subsequent correlations between the remaining independent and dependent variables.
3 Identify causal patterns for macro-analysis.
Credibility profits from this approach because:
1 It standardizes analysis methodology.
2 The results have external validity.
3 It reveals presents and absents.
4 It's objective.
I'll leave this here for now RJ, I'll pick it up again tomorrow.
I'll talk with you then.
P.S. Dear Ms. O'Ryan,
};-)}
Mephisto Esq.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 142
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:56 am: | |
Just so David's more outrageous accusations are covered:
'This statement is entirely unjustified: “Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale.” When we talk “psychopathy,” we’re not talking “scale.”'
Of course psychopaths are on a scale. Some people are more psychopathic than others. The DSM IV and PCL-R tests for determining psychopathy that I've already mentioned are on scales. In fact, some of the other tests used to measure this condition are the "MMPI Psychopathy Scale" and Dr. Hare's "Self-Report Psychopathy Scale." Note the last word in those titles. The leading professionals in the field call them scales, and they are used as such. I really don't understand how you could be at all familiar with the topic and have missed this point.
'Don’t merely tell us, as you’ve done before, that you’ve linked a simple topical list of presenting conditions or diagnostic criteria into this web site—doing that is the ultimate example of not taking the trouble to do your own thinking, and impolitely asks us to be the same as you.'
No, it's simply asking that, if you are going to use terms like psychopathy that have a specific meaning in a professional field, that you use the term to mean the same thing that the professionals do. I personally don't care what you think psychopathy means, I care what the professionals like Dr. Hare and the American Psychiatric Association say. If you say something that's the opposite of what they say, as you often do, that means you are wrong. It's that simple.
'Mr. Norder wrote: “I'm not going to pretend to have professional level credentials here, but I did take graduate level university classes in psychology and counseling, including a major focus on abnormal psych, which was my emphasis.”
My rebuttal: This in itself would not mean anything unless there was real experience with psychopathy.'
So my educational background but lack of real professional experience somehow puts me lower than your lack of professional experience and lack of educational background? That's a rather bizarre argument.
'ATTENTION! WAKE UP, MR. NORDER!! THERE IS NO DELUSIONAL THINKING IN PSYCHOPATHY!! I NEVER, NEVER, SAID THERE WAS!! YOU ARE TELLING LIES ABOUT WHAT I WRITE!!'
Your explanation of how you think Jack the Ripper acted includes blatant examples of delusional thinking that you try to explain away as being manifestations of psychopathy.
'PSYCHOPATHS ARE NOT ANGRY PEOPLE!! YOU HAVE GOT THEM TOTALLY WRONG!!! YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THIS ENTIRE FIELD IS COMPLETE!!!'
Quite the contrary. The tendency to fly into wild fits of rage is a major symptom of psychopathy. It's one of the points on Dr. Hare's scale, even. So are you claiming that Dr. Hare completely misunderstands the field he is considered one of the world's foremost experts on?
'In terms of being the Editor of ‘Ripper Notes,’ the above post is a career-killer. Mr. Norder has before our eyes systematically destroyed his ability to be taken as a fair, serious and knowledgeable arbiter of theories concerning the case. He has committed literary suicide.'
My career is dead before my first issue even came out? That'd be a shame. But then I trust others will judge for themselves and not just take your word for it.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Ian,
"I admit I thought at first it was a nom du plume (or nom de guerre?) of one of David's supporters and I naturallly thought that it was either you, Natalie, AP or Glenn :-o"
>> Yeah sure... I don't consider myself totally unaware of ironic twists, but still...
(Message edited by Glenna on June 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 7:24 am: | |
Oh God,
now you are mentioning mr Radcliffe Brown!!!!!
What are you thinking!!!!!!
Again i will ask what does Emile Durkheim, Mr Radcliffe Brown or any other sociologist have to do with the theory that JTR was a psychopathic Jew - let me elaborate for you - Functionalist totally do not like psychology - they are collectivists therefore using them to support your theory is odd!!
My education is none of your concern! However I think you will find I am an undergraduate and not a college student.
'How it happens is structural functionalism'. I doubt that is even a sentence that makes sense!! Structural functionalism is a grand theory of society therefore you cannot pick and choose it!!!!!
i should hope i recall his theory as i have an exam on it in 1 hours time!!!
Ian,
there is no way that I would ever write a post almost identical in style and content to Mr Radka!!
Ps Nice to see you back David
Jennifer |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 644
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
You are attempting to use deductive reasoning to support an inductive argument? By your definition, this syllogism is valid:
Penguins are birds,
therefore penguins can fly.
It's not. You can go around flapping your little penguin wings all you want Opus, you aren't ever leaving the ground.
Inductive reasoning doesn't mean you can throw logic out the window...it likewise only works if the premises are determined to be factual and valid... and related to one another. You cannot just make any random observation and claim it is valid by virtue of inductive reasoning. If Radka could prove that Levy was related to Kosminski, then he could claim by inductive reasoning that he was anderson's witness as the observation that would be a motive not to identify him. If Radka could prove that Levy was Anderson's witness, then he could claim that he was related to Kosminski. But he cannot use two unproven claims to mutually support each other and call them valid. That's the kind of shoddy lack-of-logic that is turning the world into mindless mental midgits.
You can email me if you like. Stephen Ryder has my email address and you can get it from him if you don't have it. Make sure your subject line is clear ...otherwise I will delete it without opening it.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 645
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
And here is where I get banned but oh well, it was nice chatting with you all.
Woland,
What an obnoxious little pissy thing that was to do. Who the hell do you think you are? Whether that is factual information or not, what was your point in posting it here? Exactly what did you hope to accomplish by it? At least Radka has the courage to post under his real name and not hide behind unregistereds...I find it absolutely galling that you would put personal information on the boards about a poster while hiding your own identity.
Get a life.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
