A Plethora of Blogs

The "Exposing" bloggers have kindly posted a list of conditions under which they will allow this blog to continue (they seem to be confused about whether to be thugs or anti-thugs, it seems). It is a long post, so we will refer the reader to the other blog to read it in it's entirety, but we will briefly respond to the salient parts of it.

The parts from "Exposing" are in italics.

1. This new blog will remain 'above' board' like this one. It can employ humour, but it is not permitted to resort to violent style or abuse.

So calling us "Jokers", Germans and Scandinavians "Nazis", French people "frogs", innocent bystanders "probable perverts", and posting the addresses, employers and other personal information about people is not "violent style or abuse"?. Give us a...oh wait, we just realized your first condition is an example of your "humour". Never mind. Good one!

2. Our informants K and FJL are to be completely left alone. They are not to be harassed or bothered in any shape or form. They are innocent women. You may criticise information only, if it is in dispute.

We're happy to concede to that; not because you asked us to, but because we have no desire to adopt your methods. This does not mean that we will allow their claims and comments on your blog pass without examination and, where warranted, challenge and/or rebuttal.

3.. Unidentified informants are not be stalked out, identified and harassed.

You mean, like you do on a regular basis? We have no interest in stalking or harassing your informants. It is precisely the kind of behaviour that you have displayed and that led to the creation of this blog. We have better things to do with our time than trying to ferret out the names and other personal information about your grasses.

We'd ask you to agree to your own demand, but we realize it would deprive you of two-thirds of your material. Besides, from what we've witnessed, most attempts at identifying those who post to your blog are so inaccurate that we are compiling an entire article based around some of the funniest of your howlers.

4. All blogs you have erected about the revealed two of our informants are cleaned out and come down.

(list of blogs follows)

These blogs must all be destroyed and deleted.In response, we undertake to delete all blogs regarding Ripperologists outside of the 'Exposing Ryder and Wescott' Blog. We give our word publicly that as soon as the other blogs all come down, it will be done.

We would like to see those blogs disappear also, since this blog was founded as much to oppose them as to oppose you. We have had no hand in their creation, we have not contributed to them nor do we endorse them. We even left a comment to that effect on your blog when the original FLJ blog appeared. We give you our word that this is our only blog on the subject, and will remain so.

You are also to cease circulating abusive and slanderous emails about FJL and K to people in communication them. You have been doing this for months, ever since FJL appeared on the web. Yes, shame on the creeps who dialogued with you. But it's irrelevant. This pathetic cowardice stops today.

We cannot "cease" what we have not been doing to begin with. We have not, nor would we, circulate any email such as you described--about anyone. Read our very first post--we will not post anything from an anonymous email source, and are not interested in spreading malicious gossip about anyone.

Lawyers are already working on the blogs you erected to attack and humiliate K and FJL and they are unlikely to remain standing in any event.

See above. We would fervently hope that those responsible for those blogs would remove them of their own accord, likewise we would like to see you do the same. Unfortunately we cannot force them, or you, to comply.

Police are working on Daniel Hart, a loner and known nuisance, who is hardly of any assistance to you.

We do not know Daniel Hart, we have had no contact with him, and we know nothing about his history with FLJ apart from that which appears on your blog (which we are forced to conclude is not an entirely unbiased source. Nonetheless the whole thing seems rather tawdry to us and holds little interest).

The name of your blog must change. It must not imply Karen's book. There are better names. Also, FJL has insisted that your username 'nemo' must change. Walter Sickert would himself be more than disgusted at the sight of you apparently. Call it a fad, but we enjoy being on the right side of her.

As far as must, get over yourselves.

As it happens we are considering a new name for the blog, since it is not, nor has it ever been, our intention to judge Karen's theory or book on this blog. We don't happen to agree with Ms Trenouth's theory (then again, neither do you), but we think that her achievement should be acknowledged. We do like the way "Flawed Epiphany" sounds, on the other hand, and we are wary of giving you the impression that you can arbitrarily tell us what to do. So we'll continue to work on it, but it's not our top priority.

As for FJL's "insistence" about our username, we will certainly consider it when and if Mr Sickert contacts us personally to make his feelings known. Given available accounts of his life, we disagree with FLJ's assertions about what he would or wouldn't find amusing.

I think we've pretty much answered everthing. Let us know if we missed anything significant. In return, we have a couple of demands--requests, rather--of our own.

1. That you remove certain persons and entities from the "enemies" list, as they are there based on nothing more than Karen's latest fit of pique. These include, but are not limited to:

1. jacktheripper.de and its owner
2. Maria Birchwood
3. Jana, the author of Sojourn.

If further evidence convinces you that their addition was in fact justified, fair enough--our respective blogs can engage in debate about these people based on their actions, rather than unsubstantiated gossip.

2. That in future you cease adding names to said list (and therefore your blog) based on nothing more substantial than Ms Trenouth's say-so. In short, we are asking you serve the very ethic you claim to champion--that of discouraging bullies--rather than becoming a tool for the bullying of others. Surely in a field based almost entirely on research and the weighing of evidence, finding out if an accusation is even remotely justified cannot be that hard, can it?

You will note that there are only two conditions, and that accepting them will actually increase your credibility. Of course a polite apology (nothing fancy) for calling us cowards for doing the same thing you are doing would be nice, but we are resigned to the fact that it's unlikely.