You're still wasting time on this? Good.

Happy to oblige.

~Loyal

nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.

Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.

~Loyal

Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.

Dear Comcast,

          I notice that your customer list, vendor list, inter-company agreements, and engineering drawings are concealed. Why are you committing illegal acts?

~Loyal

Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.

Neither was ethnicity or religion, yet you seemed to find it suitable for discussion. Let me make it plain: In an article about Jack the ripper, the author mentioned the alleged perpetrator's religion, ethnicity, sex, and vocation. You became incensed at his listing the alleged perpetrator's religion and ethnicity, but find his sex and vocation beneath discussion. Why?

Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.

Evidence about a murderer is unrelated to the case in any way? I'm afraid your theory of crime analysis is quite far out of the mainstream.

Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"

I'm a racist? Constable Alfred Long reported that it read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Detective Constable Daniel Halse reported that it read, "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." City surveyor Fredrick William Foster reported that it read, "The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold had the graffiti erased because he thought that it would cause a riot.

Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.

So, I write like a racist and you don't? Would you care to explain the difference to me?

~Loyal

p.s. I have since read the article and find that the "shawl" and the "apron" are not the same thing.

This is another tedious Google slashvertisement. Ignore it, in the hope they will stop.

I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.)

Thank you for the compliment. You are very kind. I believe the papers started sensationalising after the first murder (Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols). The reason for that is that there were two prior murders shortly before Polly's. They were Emma Smith's and Martha Tabram's, both of whom I've already mentioned. Of the five, only three murders are almost universally believed to have been committed by one person. Those were Polly Nichols's, Annie Chapman's, and Catherine Eddowes's. The reason they were believed to have been committed by the same man is that all three victims had facial or neck bruises, all three had their throats cut, and all three had abdominal wounds. Elizabeth had bruises and a throat wound, but no abdominal wound. Mary Kelly had very extensive injuries, and was the only one murdered indoors. Of those people who believe Stride was a Ripper victim, they explain away the lack of abdominal wounds by the fact that the murderer was quite likely interrupted mid-murder. He simply didn't have time to cause the abdominal wounds. Of those people who believe Kelly was a Ripper victim, they explain the extent of the injuries by the fact that her's was the only one that offered the Ripper extensive time and privacy to accomplish them.

Of the people who don't think Polly Nichols was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in the street. Of the people who don't think Annie Chapman was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in a back yard. Of the people who don't think Catherine Eddowes was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one not committed in London's East End. So, as you can see, people don't assume that all of the "Jack the Ripper murders" were committed by one person.

One additional point, if I may. It doesn't make much sense to say that sensationalism happened after the third canonical murder (Elizabeth Stride), because the fourth canonical murder (Catherine Eddowes) was only one hour later. There simply wasn't time between the third and fourth murders for any sensationalism to happen.

~Loyal

>>Lookif selfie can be a word, why can’t we let architecting in?

Because "selfie" fills a legitimate and objective need, filling a void created by an advancing technology and culture, neatly and succintly describing a "photograph of someone taken by that same someone, intended primarily for social media."

"Architecting" is superfluous, already synonymous with the shorter and more familiar "building" and "designing," and it contains the pompous subtext of equating the skills and efforts of an architect with those of code-monkeys and gannt-jockeys.

First off, now is not "at the time".

How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex? What I mean to say is that you had no invective to spend on their identifying Jack the Ripper as a man, nor their identification of his victims as women. Jack the Ripper was a man "then and not now," and his women were victims "then and not now." By your logic that shouldn't have been mentioned. Nor did you decry the listing of their professions. The Ripper as a murderer, and his victims as prostitutes. I, for one, would be highly amused to read more articles about Jack the Ripper that didn't mention the suspicion that he was a murderer.

Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.

His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.

John Wilkes Booth...Lee Harvey Oswald...John Wayne Gacy...Theodore Robert Bundy...Charles Milles Manson

I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.

~Loyal

I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.

I was basing that on your statement that it is assumed that Jack the Ripper was an individual person. If you include the eighteen alleged victims, then it's false that it is assumed Jack the Ripper was a solitary individual. For example, Emma Elizabeth Smith is one of the eighteen and prior to her death she reported that she had been attacked by three or four men. On the other hand, if you include only Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly, then one person was sufficient to account for all of the evidence generally available. Some evidence, such as the sighting I mentioned earlier, suggests that one person was necessary. Patterns in the evidence also suggest that it was the same person for those six murders (or five, if you wish to remain canonical).

~Loyal

The reviewer does not indicate if the book is written in English, which is relevant because the title clearly is not.

So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.

Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes. The Ripper's ethnicity would be relevant to that sentiment. Similarly for his religious affinity. There was some graffiti found near Eddowes's apron saying, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." (Variant spellings are in the records.) Some people hold that the graffiti was not written by the Ripper. Some hold that it was, and expressed Jack's anti-Semitic beliefs. Some hold that the Ripper was Jewish and wrote the graffiti to throw off suspicion.

~Loyal

The provenance of the shawl is very questionable. If it is the shawl found near the body of a ripper victim, it may very well not have been hers.

I haven't seen anything definitive, but if it's the shawl I'm thinking of, then it's very likely that it did belong to Catherine Eddowes. If it is then it was cut from the victim during the murder.

The shawl is actually an apron-like affair that women of that era commonly wore. Eddowes's apron was cut from her during the murder, and likely used to carry and conceal some of her organs. It was found a couple of blocks away near the famous, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" graffiti. (Variant spellings are extant in the records.) The cut on the found apron matches the cut on the remaining part of the apron on her body.

~Loyal

Possibly because he was seen with Catherine Eddows by Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris less than eleven minutes prior to the murder, among other reasons.

~Loyal

ABSTRACT

In this paper we we compare the number of legs on humans (homo sapiens) and cats (felis catus). We rely heavily on previous work done on employment classifications and average height done in 1998[1] and 2005[2]. None of the previous work in either employment or height recorded leg quantity, so it was not possible to draw any conclusions. In this study, we generated a matrix associating leg quantity, employment, and average height, and we used an ad hoc method devised by the authors to describe cause and effect. Finally, we threw out all of the results and destroyed the data because to make generalizations on an entire population based on averages would be wrong and racist.

~Loyal

Several years ago I was looking at a World Book Encyclopedia article (I know. Get off my lawn.) about color-blindness, and it had two photographs. One was captioned "what red-green color-blind people see," and the other "what normally-sighted people see." My first thought was, "how do they know that!" Upon reading the article, though, I found it was stated that they located some of the very few people who were color blind in only one eye.

~Loyal