'it was nice' Observation

[tji]

You got balls, kid, that's what I like about you.



Not if he puts them in that bucket


Tj

[Tom_Wescott]

Convincing the general public that you're wrong is beginning to look ridiculously easy,

Minor factual errors aside, when have I EVER been wrong, in spite of the efforts of so many to prove otherwise. Even the great Debs tried her hand at it with her Grainger nonsense and failed to gain any ground. You got balls, kid, that's what I like about you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Read back through the exchanges over the last couple of pages. As I said, i'll be ignoring any further such comments.

Tom:

You crack me up. You say I twisted your words when I said you claimed Mortimer stood at her door for 30 minutes. You then go on to state that Mortimer 'claimed' to have been at her door for 30 minutes and that this was a direct quote (though how you could possibly know this from a police report is anybody's guess).

You really have confused yourself, haven't you? Convincing the general public that you're wrong is beginning to look ridiculously easy, but I won't be playing all my aces just yet.

That should be the central question, though of course we should discuss what implications this has on what she saw and didn't see, and what other witnesses claimed to have seen. I wouldn't want to veer off Mortimer. However, since my last post, some things have changed and it looks like a fire has been lit under my butt. Enough lolligagging. I'll have to get back to you on the Mortimer project.

I think this is fair enough.
Well, i've made the first move by sending you a PM. It's up to you now. But it took you more than a year to answer my questions about sources on Mortimer before and let me be clear that I won't be waiting around for months or years on end again to get this project underway. Either you are in or you're not and you'd better make up your mind, sharpish. I've got other things I could and should be working on.

Huh? Why on earth would I need help to write a mortimer article? I've been publishing on the Berner Street Mystery since you were 13. If I can't do it on my own, then I don't deserve to share a byline with you. Incidentally, I've yet to share a byline with anyone, although I'm somewhat curious what a collaborative effort would be like.


I think you would find collaborative efforts quite enjoyable, if not slightly confusing at times when trying to collaborate over the WWW.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not doing an about-face of any kind, but you're twisting my words to make it sound like something I haven't said. You know damned well that my argument all along has been that if Mortimer was at her door for the 30 minutes that she claimed she was, then it wasn't during the period of 12.30 - 1 AM.

You crack me up. You say I twisted your words when I said you claimed Mortimer stood at her door for 30 minutes. You then go on to state that Mortimer 'claimed' to have been at her door for 30 minutes and that this was a direct quote (though how you could possibly know this from a police report is anybody's guess).

Are you suggesting that we do an entire article which focuses solely on one question - that being the time Mortimer spent at her door?

That should be the central question, though of course we should discuss what implications this has on what she saw and didn't see, and what other witnesses claimed to have seen. I wouldn't want to veer off Mortimer. However, since my last post, some things have changed and it looks like a fire has been lit under my butt. Enough lolligagging. I'll have to get back to you on the Mortimer project.

Anyone would think that we're talking about a street fight rather than an article. I've got no doubt that you'll be calling in as much help as you could possibly muster.

Huh? Why on earth would I need help to write a mortimer article? I've been publishing on the Berner Street Mystery since you were 13. If I can't do it on my own, then I don't deserve to share a byline with you. Incidentally, I've yet to share a byline with anyone, although I'm somewhat curious what a collaborative effort would be like.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Are you simply referring to the ginger beer bottle being full or not?

[Adam Went]

You'll forgive me if i'd rather go and stick my privates in a bucket of piranhas than read any more of what you've written, Maria. We all know you blundered over the ginger beer, people would have a lot more respect if you'd just admit you made an error rather than constantly try and worm your way out of situations like this.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

What “blunder“, Vegemite? Read what I wrote. Nuance is not your forte, Adam.

[Adam Went]

I'll choose to ignore another blunder of gargantuan proportions by Maria and state simply that I agree with what Steven has been saying about "the proper red stuff".

Tom:

I'm not doing an about-face of any kind, but you're twisting my words to make it sound like something I haven't said. You know damned well that my argument all along has been that if Mortimer was at her door for the 30 minutes that she claimed she was, then it wasn't during the period of 12.30 - 1 AM. Her 30 minute time period is, of course, a direct quote from her own mouth, as opposed to the 10 minute gap theory which, barely supported in the first place, is written in the third person. Let's not have the dirty tactics starting before we've even put pen to paper, thanks.

As for the articles, it sounds like you might have more than one in you, which is awesome, but a point/counter-point article, which is what I suggested, needs to be focused on discussing the question at hand.

Are you suggesting that we do an entire article which focuses solely on one question - that being the time Mortimer spent at her door?

You can even get your buddies Begg and SPE to pipe in and support your 30-minute hypothesis, I'm not scared. Bring it on. LOL.

Anyone would think that we're talking about a street fight rather than an article. I've got no doubt that you'll be calling in as much help as you could possibly muster and so if there are certain individuals who are willing to provide information which assists in my arguments, then yes, I will without question be making use of that.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Hi Abby,
that's precisely what I meant. Not that I'm convinced about this, it's just an idea.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Steven Russell;183702]

I'm not disagreeing at all with Steven Russell, I'm simply contemplating something slightly different than what he's talking about.

What then? You are really reaching here, Maria.
Best wishes,
Steve.

Hi SR, Maria

I think i see what maria is getting at - That is they both talk about taking away something from the body (blood and kidney)and trying to save it.

To me, other than the taunting tone, that is the only similarity between the two letters.

[mariab]

quote mariab:
I'm not disagreeing at all with Steven Russell, I'm simply contemplating something slightly different than what he's talking about.

What then? You are really reaching here, Maria.

Simply what I said in my post #63. I was thinking out loud about the plausibility of connecting “Dear Boss“/“Saucy Jack“ with “From Hell“ (with an altered handwritting), and I was simply mentioning the ‘coincidence‘ (?) of the ginger beer bottle with the kidney “prasarved“ in spirits. Of course, the person who wrote “From Hell“ knew about “Dear Boss“. Now the only thing missing is ears sent to somebody's wife. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott:
it's pretty obvious to most that Pipeman was Charles Le Grand.

In your dreams, Tom.

If not pretty obvious, it's EXTREMELY plausible. I have an interesting suspicion about this. It needs further research, and it will be presented in an article.

[Stephen Thomas]

it's pretty obvious to most that Pipeman was Charles Le Grand.

In your dreams, Tom.

[Steven Russell]

[quote=mariab;183687]I'm not disagreeing at all with Steven Russell, I'm simply contemplating something slightly different than what he's talking about.

What then? You are really reaching here, Maria.
Best wishes,
Steve.

[mariab]

I'm with Steve on this.

I'm not disagreeing at all with Steven Russell, I'm simply contemplating something slightly different than what he's talking about.

You can even get your buddies Begg and SPE to pipe in and support your 30-minute hypothesis, I'm not scared. Bring it on. LOL.

Begg and SPE teaming up to support someone, I'd like to witness that. (Can't picture this, unless that someone were, say, Philip Hutchinson attacked by AP Wolf or Karen Trenouth or Felicity Loyd.
(Do I sound much like a newbie now?)

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm with Steve on this.

Adam,

There's an entire thread over at the forums, as well as your published article 'A Matter of Time', that has you postulating adamantly that Mortimer was in her doorway for 30 minutes. Now, if my arguments to the contrary have changed your mind, that's great, but please don't pretend you never said that.

As for the articles, it sounds like you might have more than one in you, which is awesome, but a point/counter-point article, which is what I suggested, needs to be focused on discussing the question at hand. And unless you've done a complete about face on Mortimer and now agree with me, I think that's a good place to start. You can even get your buddies Begg and SPE to pipe in and support your 30-minute hypothesis, I'm not scared. Bring it on. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott