Warren's Resignation

[Henry Flower]

I see Pierre has adopted that combination of absolute vagueness and terse tetchiness that always signals the point at which the latest piece of his theory is on the verge of imploding before his eyes.

Incidentally, Pierre:

You can always discuss hypotheses, with or without publishing sources on the internet. This is not the standard research practice place, i.e. the university. It is a forum on the internet.

Strange, because for an entire year you've been remorselessly berating anyone else who does precisely that - and demanding sources from anyone who discusses a hypothesis.

Haven't you.

Are you shameless enough to deny that?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

If you ask historical questions you will get historical answers. If you ask common sense questions, you will have no good answers. I suppose that you prefer historical answers. So if you read my historical answers to you again, you will see the meaning of them.



"Without offering clear reasons". But I did, Steve. Did you not read it?

You did not, you gave no explanation for not accepting the data we have

To imply you have other information and not to give even the briefest of details is not an explanation

Do you now?

Yes I certainly do, possible more than you realize.

You can always discuss hypotheses, with or without publishing sources on the internet. This is not the standard research practice place, i.e. the university. It is a forum on the internet.

Please Pierre, an hypothesis without any supporting data is just wishful thinking, it goes nowhere and achieves nothing from a scientific point of view.

And again you present this view that because we are not in an university or other similar institution, basic research rules should not apply; and yet at the same time you tell others they cannot work without sources.

I think you and most people already know that an hypothesis is never conclusive. So what is the point of saying it?

Not true, some can be so, particularly in physical science.

However in this area it is I agree more accurate to talk of probability

To me MAY is not probable, only possible, I used the wrong term, but you know just what I mean.

And so I told you.

Indeed you did, which I acknowledged.

"Missed something"! Well, you can certainly say that!

I do no want to sound cryptical and how can I tell you that you have missed something without telling you what you missed? And what do you want me to tell you?

What you have missed, and what I think everyone else has missed, are the dates on a micro level. There are about 14 important dates which I hypothesize as being connected to the murders.

Well don't think have missed it, as I have NO idea what I am looking for?

14 dates, what did you use to reach this hypothesis- go on please tell

Many sources are in the public domain.

Evasion, I see you are on good form my friend.


Steve

[GUT]

I see Pierre has adopted that combination of absolute vagueness and terse tetchiness that always signals the point at which the latest piece of his theory is on the verge of imploding before his eyes.

Incidentally, Pierre:

You can always discuss hypotheses, with or without publishing sources on the internet. This is not the standard research practice place, i.e. the university. It is a forum on the internet.

Strange, because for an entire year you've been remorselessly berating anyone else who does precisely that - and demanding sources from anyone who discusses a hypothesis.

Haven't you.

Are you shameless enough to deny that?

Please don't tell me you're surprised that he's a H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;402171]

14 dates, what did you use to reach this hypothesis- go on please tell

Sources from organizations/institutions with individual data.

[GUT]

Sources from organizations/institutions with individual data.

Don't you just love the way he tries to pretend he is answering but doesn't answer anything.

Know why?

Cause he just makes junk up.

[Henry Flower]

Sources from organizations/institutions with individual data.

Pierre, can I ask, were they standard organizations/institutions, or the 'advanced' organizations/institutions you mentioned earlier?

Pierre. Please answer the question: given that you now acknowledge the difference between a mere internet forum and a proper locus of academic research, have you or have you not on many many occasions over the past year told people they must refrain from exploring hypotheses without definitive source material, and also demanded on many occasions that others exploring hypotheses present their sources?

Answer the question please.

Why have the rules changed now that you are being pressed on your sources?

Why Pierre?

Clue: we already know the answer. I'm asking merely to determine whether or not you have one ounce of integrity.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;402185]

Pierre, can I ask, were they standard organizations/institutions, or the 'advanced' organizations/institutions you mentioned earlier?

They were advanced organizations/institution.

Pierre. Please answer the question: given that you now acknowledge the difference between a mere internet forum and a proper locus of academic research, have you or have you not on many many occasions over the past year told people they must refrain from exploring hypotheses without definitive source material, and also demanded on many occasions that others exploring hypotheses present their sources?

And this is not a court room, Henry.

Answer the question please.

Why have the rules changed now that you are being pressed on your sources?

Historical methodological rules do not change.

Why Pierre?

Clue: we already know the answer. I'm asking merely to determine whether or not you have one ounce of integrity.

You have already constructed the answer you want so why do you ask?

[Henry Flower]

And this is not a court room, Henry.

I understand your answer. Your answer is that you are a hypocrite.

Historical methodological rules do not change.

Indeed. Only their application changes. You demand that others here follow them, and then refuse to divulge your sources because this is only an internet forum so the rules of academia do not strictly apply. The rules don't change, but you think YOU get to determine when and where they must be applied.

You have already constructed the answer you want so why do you ask?

As I said; to determine whether or not you have even one scintilla of integrity as a researcher. I think everybody can now see the answer to that question.