Hate

[Henry Flower]

I think it's important to remember this authoritative instruction:

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

The murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly, and the resignation letter dated 8th November was the resignation letter dated 8th November. The discourse does not hide a mechanism, there is no point inventing an explanation.

Is that simple enough, Pierre? Or do the rules you impose on others change when you need them to?

[Phil Carter]

Originally Posted by Henry Flower

I think it's important to remember this authoritative instruction:

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

The murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly, and the resignation letter dated 8th November was the resignation letter dated 8th November. The discourse does not hide a mechanism, there is no point inventing an explanation.

Is that simple enough, Pierre? Or do the rules you impose on others change when you need them to?

Hello Henry,

Like others, I have considered the possibility that MJK was not the victim's real name.
Proving it is another matter entirely..and on a par with proving that it was "MJK" found in that room. Historical fact, bona fida fact..is missing each way.
The chance of a pseudonym being used is pretty high I'd say..looking at the amount people in this case that have more than one known name.

That said..Pierre is scratching around trying to fit theory into fact. Theory is fine. It has to have factual merit though.


Phil

[Henry Flower]

Originally Posted by Phil Carter

Hello Henry,

Like others, I have considered the possibility that MJK was not the victim's real name.
Proving it is another matter entirely..and on a par with proving that it was "MJK" found in that room. Historical fact, bona fida fact..is missing each way.
The chance of a pseudonym being used is pretty high I'd say..looking at the amount people in this case that have more than one known name.

That said..Pierre is scratching around trying to fit theory into fact. Theory is fine. It has to have factual merit though.


Phil

Hello Phil, I quite agree. I have nothing to say on the identity of the various cuts of meat found strewn around in Miller's Court; my point was merely to point out to Pierre, and anyone else playing his game, that the proscriptions and prescriptions he always imposes on the reasoning of others he is happy to push to one side in his own work, when it suits his theory. That's all.

A year of hypocrisy and arrogance, in the service of a theory that sounds more comical with each hint he lets himself reveal.

What a farce. How long will this bollocks continue?

[Mayerling]

Originally Posted by Henry Flower

So Jeff, if your reading is correct then this is yet another thread that is rendered an absolute waste of time by Pierre's cowardly refusal to divulge his sources.

How long can this game continue?

For what it's worth I don't agree; I would bet on his having no specific sources indicating a problem with the dating of the letter. I think the evolution of this thread indicates a man who didn't initially realise quite how definitive the dating was, and who has subsequently resorted to vagueness and bluster in an effort to extricate himself from his own error.

Hello Henry,

This game will continue until Pierre commits some real blunder that either permanently gets him kicked off the website, or reveals (accidentally) who he really is, and enables us to get after him for annoying most of us. Because it is impossible to time limit either of those events, your guess is as good as mine as to how long this game of idiocy will continue.

You may be right - he may be floundering around having opened himself up to possible theory (not likely truth) and finds he misjudged everything due to his own ego. But such an ego is not likely to ever admit it was wrong - it was simply misunderstood by the rest of us.

As for myself, aside from minor comments I have absented myself from deeply contesting every point. Just as well, as I can't abide the debates that are going on about Pierre's dross.

Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Originally Posted by Henry Flower

Hello Phil, I quite agree. I have nothing to say on the identity of the various cuts of meat found strewn around in Miller's Court; my point was merely to point out to Pierre, and anyone else playing his game, that the proscriptions and prescriptions he always imposes on the reasoning of others he is happy to push to one side in his own work, when it suits his theory. That's all.

A year of hypocrisy and arrogance, in the service of a theory that sounds more comical with each hint he lets himself reveal.

What a farce. How long will this bollocks continue?

Hello Henry,

I agree entirely.
There are theories..snd theorists.

Then there are time wasters.


Phil

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Henry Flower

I think it's important to remember this authoritative instruction:

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

The murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly, and the resignation letter dated 8th November was the resignation letter dated 8th November. The discourse does not hide a mechanism, there is no point inventing an explanation.

Is that simple enough, Pierre? Or do the rules you impose on others change when you need them to?

Did you not see the word "sometimes"?