The GOGMAGOG-letter

[GUT]

And if people didn't destroy his idiotic horse twaddle other newbies may come along and accept it as unchallenged.

[The Good Michael]

Haha!

But just think what would happen to poor Pierre if everyone suddenly ignored him?

I dare say it would be too much for him.

Yes, but it would be wondrous to see.

Mike

[Pierre]

It took you 15 years to get a degree? I've heard of the 5year plan, but 15? Wow.

No, I have more than one.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

No, I have more than one.

Regards, Pierre

May I ask, in what subject areas?

[DJA]

No, I have more than one.

Regards, Pierre

5 year plans or 15 year plans?

[Elamarna]

May I ask, in what subject areas?

John he won't tell us, how many times has he been asked?
Ignore his ramblings and pseudo scientific comments and games. (He will get upset now saying he is the only one not playing games, and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves, well Pierre, PROVE IT! )


There is no point in discussing any points he raises without any evidence, which he will not provide, his interpretation of metaphorical, as he calls them, writings are not evidence.

He changes his mind all the time, he provides false information, be it on the profession of the killer, or the history of historical documents, he has demonstrated NO scientific credibility or competence.


He claims to be a researcher, but says credibility is meaningless to him. Must be the first scientific researcher in history to believe such.

He denigrates writers whom he claims have no academic qualification, yet he refuses to say what his own are or mention any work he has been involved with, as the researcher he claims to be.

There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!

If and when, and its a big if, he tells the World who is his "suspect" and no more of this nonsense "he is not a suspect", then the World can review and consider his theory.

The World will then decide if it has an validity.

Steve


because

Steve

[John G]

John he won't tell us, how many times has he been asked?
Ignore his ramblings and pseudo scientific comments and games. (He will get upset now saying he is the only one not playing games, and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves, well Pierre, PROVE IT! )


There is no point in discussing any points he raises without any evidence, which he will not provide, his interpretation of metaphorical, as he calls them, writings are not evidence.

He changes his mind all the time, he provides false information, be it on the profession of the killer, or the history of historical documents, he has demonstrated NO scientific credibility or competence.


He claims to be a researcher, but says credibility is meaningless to him. Must be the first scientific researcher in history to believe such.

He denigrates writers whom he claims have no academic qualification, yet he refuses to say what his own are or mention any work he has been involved with, as the researcher he claims to be.

There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!

If and when, and its a big if, he tells the World who is his "suspect" and no more of this nonsense "he is not a suspect", then the World can review and consider his theory.

The World will then decide if it has an validity.

Steve


because

Steve

Hi Steve,

An excellent critique of "Pierre". I wonder, though, if one qualification he might have is a PhD in pseudoscience!

[Abby Normal]

John he won't tell us, how many times has he been asked?
Ignore his ramblings and pseudo scientific comments and games. (He will get upset now saying he is the only one not playing games, and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves, well Pierre, PROVE IT! )


There is no point in discussing any points he raises without any evidence, which he will not provide, his interpretation of metaphorical, as he calls them, writings are not evidence.

He changes his mind all the time, he provides false information, be it on the profession of the killer, or the history of historical documents, he has demonstrated NO scientific credibility or competence.


He claims to be a researcher, but says credibility is meaningless to him. Must be the first scientific researcher in history to believe such.

He denigrates writers whom he claims have no academic qualification, yet he refuses to say what his own are or mention any work he has been involved with, as the researcher he claims to be.

There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!

If and when, and its a big if, he tells the World who is his "suspect" and no more of this nonsense "he is not a suspect", then the World can review and consider his theory.

The World will then decide if it has an validity.

Steve


because

Steve

Hi Steve
from the hints he has already given I can assure you there is no validity in his suspect. As serious consideration for a viable candidate-its already a moot point. Its just another crack pot.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve by
from the hints he has already given I can assure you there is no validity in his suspect. As serious consideration for a viable candidate-its already a moot point. Its just another crack pot.

Dear Abby Normal,

While i take on board your comment about viable candidates, It could be that there may be some validity (by this I mean the candidate is not someone who is at least plausible on the surface and cannot be ruled out in a 60 minute internet search,) towards the suspect, however I seriously doubt any to the theory which he supplies with it.
In other words he could name somebody who is not ridiculous by per chance.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Dear Abby Normal,

While i take on board your comment about viable candidates, It could be that there may be some validity (by this I mean the candidate is not someone who is at least plausible on the surface and cannot be ruled out in a 60 minute internet search,) towards the suspect, however I seriously doubt any to the theory which he supplies with it.
In other words he could name somebody who is not ridiculous by per chance.

Steve

true. the person could be a viable candidate despite pierres crackpot theory.
I see what your saying.

[Pierre]

John he won't tell us, how many times has he been asked?
Ignore his ramblings and pseudo scientific comments and games. (He will get upset now saying he is the only one not playing games, and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves, well Pierre, PROVE IT! )


There is no point in discussing any points he raises without any evidence, which he will not provide, his interpretation of metaphorical, as he calls them, writings are not evidence.

He changes his mind all the time, he provides false information, be it on the profession of the killer, or the history of historical documents, he has demonstrated NO scientific credibility or competence.

He claims to be a researcher, but says credibility is meaningless to him. Must be the first scientific researcher in history to believe such.

He denigrates writers whom he claims have no academic qualification, yet he refuses to say what his own are or mention any work he has been involved with, as the researcher he claims to be.

There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!

If and when, and its a big if, he tells the World who is his "suspect" and no more of this nonsense "he is not a suspect", then the World can review and consider his theory.

The World will then decide if it has an validity.

Steve


because

Steve

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

Which lies Pierre, please tell me where I have lied in the previous post? If I have I will unreservedly apologise to you.

I do not see any insults actually either, so could you tell me where I have insulted in the previous post?

Every comment is based on your own posts

The only comment which could, in a different context, be seen as remotely insulting was :

"There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!"


I say there are a few possible reasons, I list just two options.

I Take it the last four words of your post, before your name, are not meant as a threat of any type, is that correct ?

Elamarna

[GUT]

Hi Steve
from the hints he has already given I can assure you there is no validity in his suspect. As serious consideration for a viable candidate-its already a moot point. Its just another crack pot.

That's an insult to all the genuine crack pots out there and I take of fence on their behalf.

[GUT]

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

I Take it the last four words of your post, before your name, are not meant as a threat of any type, is that correct ?

Elamarna

Don't worry Steve based on past contradictions in what he says I doubt Pierre manages to remember much at all.

[JadenCollins]

Don't worry Steve based on past contradictions in what he says I doubt Pierre manages to remember much at all.

Watch it, he might snap soon.