He gave the police his name

[John G]

And of course the Great Scientist can't see that

Giving his full name

And

In Metaphorical language


Are totally inconsistent with each other.

But such be someone's ability to reason in anything like a scientific fashion.

Ah, but to be fair the statistical analysis test that he intends to apply to this hypothesis might eventually reveal the inconsistency to him!

[Mayerling]

Hi evertonmarc,

As I wrote, he gave the police his full name. And he used a metaphorical language to protect himself.

And while uttering the metaphorical language he waved his wand - it was Lord Valdemort!!!

I will test my hypothesis of this statistically, so we will know the chance/risk of me being wrong.

Maybe Snape should assist you.

Regards, Pierre

Regards,

Jeff

[GUT]

Ah, but to be fair the statistical analysis test that he intends to apply to this hypothesis might eventually reveal the inconsistency to him!

My dog spotted it and he's a slow reader.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi evertonmarc,

As I wrote, he gave the police his full name. And he used a metaphorical language to protect himself.

I will test my hypothesis of this statistically, so we will know the chance/risk of me being wrong.

Regards, Pierre

Based upon what you've already written in umpteen posts, I would say that "statistically" your word and opinions are valueless.

[GUT]

Based upon what you've already written in umpteen posts, I would say that "statistically" your word and opinions are valueless.

That's generous.

I don't rate them that high.

[Mayerling]

That's generous.

I don't rate them that high.

Reminds me of a quote from Speaker of the House Thomas "Czar" Reed (creator of "Reed's Rules", which still govern the U.S. House of Representatives). A master of the aphoristic put-down, he once was talking to a friend about two below par Congressmen he had to listen to in his position in the House. "Every time they open their mouths," Reed said, "they subtract from the total of human knowledge!"

Sounds like anyone we know?

Jeff

[GUT]

Reminds me of a quote from Speaker of the House Thomas "Czar" Reed (creator of "Reed's Rules", which still govern the U.S. House of Representatives). A master of the aphoristic put-down, he once was talking to a friend about two below par Congressmen he had to listen to in his position in the House. "Every time they open their mouths," Reed said, "they subtract from the total of human knowledge!"

Sounds like anyone we know?

Jeff

I'd agree but he likes me and thinks I'm capable of intelligent discussion and if I agree he might put me on the naughty list.

[John G]

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that Pierre's theory is almost entirely dependent on his subjective interpretation of metaphorical language contained in communications sent, purportedly, by the killer.

Now some of these communications he claims have a "low validity". However, clearly not the communication, or "data source", that is the subject of this thread: despite the suspect's name appearing in only metaphorical form Pierre confidently asserts: "There is now hardly any doubt. I must have found him."

Is that a reasonable assessment? Or am I missing something?

[Rosella]

It probably is. I've long since lost the plot about what Pierre means about anything. It's like trying to grasp a handful of mist. I just wish he'd stop with the metaphorical nonsense and the pseudo-intellectual BS and state what he actually means in his epistles in plain everyday English.

[Observer]

Hook, line, and sinker

Is that a reasonable assessment? Or am I missing something?

What you, and all the others who are taking part in the discussions pertaining to Pierre's theory are missing is that he's leading you all up the garden path ! He's doing a very good job of it too. You are all firmly planted in his top pocket.

Some posters contributing to this masterly wind up, have contributed hundreds of posts ! Hundreds for goodness sake.

I reiterate, a mastery performance, Monsiuer Pierre.

[John G]

What you, and all the others who are taking part in the discussions pertaining to Pierre's theory are missing is that he's leading you all up the garden path ! He's doing a very good job of it too. You are all firmly planted in his top pocket.

Some posters contributing to this masterly wind up, have contributed hundreds of posts ! Hundreds for goodness sake.

I reiterate, a mastery performance, Monsiuer Pierre.

Really? You think dear Pierre might not be completely legitimate? Of course, it is possible that I'd determined that as having a high validity probability-oh no, I'm descending into Pierre-speak-from his very first post.

Nonetheless, I must confess that I do find some of his posts quite amusing at times, particularly the pseudo-intellectual techno/psychobabble, which is why I guess I'm such a willing participant! Perhaps not the purist of motives on my account, but there you go...

Anyway, he might possibly have a properly historically researched theory...well, a kind of Erich Von Daniken, pseudo-historical kind of theory.

[kookingpot]

a kind of Erich Von Daniken, pseudo-historical kind of theory.

Or Graham Hancock, or David Irving.

[John G]

Or Graham Hancock, or David Irving.

Well, of course there was a time when David Irving was considered to be a serious historian; even Hugh Trevor Roper once wrote, "no praise can be to too high for his indefatigable, scholarly industry." Although he did express severe doubts about his methodology-and it's now known that he seriously overestimated German casualties during the bombing of Dresden. And, of course, this also raised serious concerns about his motives.

Christopher Hitchens also came to his defence a few years ago- regarding his legitimacy as a serious historian- on an American TV broadcast. Of course, all of this was before he was proved in court to be a holocaust denier...

[Observer]

Really?

Most definately. As I said, a masterly performance.

[Mayerling]

What you, and all the others who are taking part in the discussions pertaining to Pierre's theory are missing is that he's leading you all up the garden path ! He's doing a very good job of it too. You are all firmly planted in his top pocket.

Some posters contributing to this masterly wind up, have contributed hundreds of posts ! Hundreds for goodness sake.

I reiterate, a mastery performance, Monsiuer Pierre.

I am willing to consider not to pay attention to Pierre, and to go my own way, except I wonder how you can be so sure that if we ignore him Pierre will stop. My suspicion is that he won't.

He is such an egotist that he'll consider (if we all stop paying attention to him) that he has scared us off, and that he is our superior in intellect and attainments. And don't forget, he has several acolytes and beginners on these threads who will continue paying attention to his points, doing research he needs, and expounding his wisdom to the rest of us. He is actually in a good win position if we leave him in control of his fields.

I don't think he'll ever get his final piece of the puzzle. If he does get something he'll seek something further. Like the inventor of that typesetting machine that Mark Twain invested in, who always had some new adjustment to it to improve it's performance. It was called the "Paige Typesetter" (Paige was it's inventor). In the end, after Twain spent thousands of dollars in hoping the typesetter was ready to be manufactured, Otto Merganthaler came along with a simpler, easier machine that became the prototype in the printing industry.

Twain was ruined in part due to the Paige Typesetter. However I don't think "Pierre" need to worry about that happening.

Jeff