Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[MrBarnett]

Jolly good! Let us start with "Characterizing the posts of David", shall we? This is

CPD 1:

Trying to control other people´s answers in the forum.

The pair of you should grow up.

[Elamarna]

Thank you for sharing your ideas, David.

I have a series of evidence here. It is a disturbing collection.

And it makes me tired. As do you.

Pierre,

yet another example of the major issue I have with your replies on occasions

You are asked a question, and it is a valid question

Your reply is just more evasion, why do you do this?

Its so easy to give a meaningful answer is it not?

I do not need a reply, but others will, and deserve to have one.



frustrated

steve

[David Orsam]

I have a series of evidence here. It is a disturbing collection.

If you truly have evidence, Pierre, post it or publish it. If you don't then I'm afraid I simply don't believe you.

Not that I'm saying you are lying but it's clear that you don't always understand documents and you have shown repeatedly on this forum that you have a tendency of leaping to conclusions based on things you haven't properly understood. Unless any of your "evidence" is produced it cannot be assumed to exist.

So I regret to say that I do not accept your claim that you have "a series of evidence here" and that it is "a disturbing collection". I fear you are seeing what you want to see.

But on the subject of the pawn tickets do you have anything else to say?

Because if not then perhaps this thread has finally come to an end.

[Elamarna]

Jolly good! Let us start with "Characterizing the posts of David", shall we? This is

CPD 1:

Trying to control other people´s answers in the forum.

Pierre my friend,

That is so pointless a post.

You know my view that I will challenge anything I find to be misleading or pointless.

You and David do not agree, however he is asking a question, giving his view and asking if you agree or not.

I really do not see how it can be said that post is trying control your or anyone’s answer.


You may not agree with David or indeed the post by Joshua, which he is talking about (I suspect you do not), in which case say so and say why.
You may find that if you give a reasoned reply people may accept your view.


However rather than do that, or even ignore the point, what I do see is an attempt to evade answering the question, by attacking the poster of the question.

While I have been writing this I see 4 more such replies.

I see this often, when peoples views and abilities are challenged by others, there is a tendency to defend oneself by attacking the person asking the uncomfortable questions. ( this applies to many, not just you.)

Far better would be a response which kept to the "facts", backed up the views which are challenged with evidence/sources and concentrating on completing the research to either prove your theory or not.

Sorry if that sound harsh, but it is how I see the issue.

Steve

[Pierre]

Talking about the subject at hand, Pierre, are you able to confirm that when you say that "2 or 3" of the 42 characters from the pawn ticket are not included in your suspect's name this means that your suspect's name is comprised of either 39 or 40 characters.

Please don't tell me that you are excluding duplicates from your total of "2 or 3" so that your suspect's name could be comprised of much less than 39 characters.

You do realise how much this will affect the probabilities don't you?

Thank you for sharing your ideas, David.

I have a series of evidence here. It is a disturbing collection.

And it makes me tired. As do you.

[David Orsam]

Talking about the subject at hand, Pierre, are you able to confirm that when you say that "2 or 3" of the 42 characters from the pawn ticket are not included in your suspect's name this means that your suspect's name is comprised of either 39 or 40 characters.

Please don't tell me that you are excluding duplicates from your total of "2 or 3" so that your suspect's name could be comprised of much less than 39 characters.

You do realise how much this will affect the probabilities don't you?

[Pierre]

Pierre stop obsessing about me and deal with the subject at hand please.

CPD 5: Commanding other people.

[David Orsam]

Pierre stop obsessing about me and deal with the subject at hand please.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;389035]

If you do your experiment and we end up asking ourselves philosophical questions about whether you have achieved anything then you will have achieved...well...precisely nothing.

CPD 4: Accusing people in advance before they have performed their task.

[Pierre]

I thought we were looking at the problem from the perspective of a statistician.

If you can ask "what is a heap?" and "where starts the rich and ends the poor?" you clearly don't understand the concept of statistical significance. That's what you are supposedly trying to establish, i.e. whether you can conduct an experiment which produces a statistically significant result.

CPD 3: Trying to control other peoples abilities.

[Pierre]

Vague and non-specific answers like this support my conclusion that you think we are all stupid and that you think you can get away without providing a single source for what you have said on this subject by making generalised and meaningless statements such as the above.

CPD 2:

Accusing other people for thinking things they do not think.

[Pierre]

Are you planning on responding to Joshua's post by the way Pierre?

What he says seems pretty conclusive to me. You?

Jolly good! Let us start with "Characterizing the posts of David", shall we? This is

CPD 1:

Trying to control other people´s answers in the forum.

[David Orsam]

The big problem, for me, is that Polly was murdered in the early hours of 31st Aug long before any pawn shop would have been open, so the ticket couldn't have been taken from her body.

Are you planning on responding to Joshua's post by the way Pierre?

What he says seems pretty conclusive to me. You?

[David Orsam]

Sure, David. The scientific basis and the judging of results have been available in sociology and history at universities for decades.

Vague and non-specific answers like this support my conclusion that you think we are all stupid and that you think you can get away without providing a single source for what you have said on this subject by making generalised and meaningless statements such as the above.

[David Orsam]

Read your last question, David. It is very rude. Do not put words into my mouth, not even in the form of questions.

Pierre you need to be aware that I will ask you whatever questions I feel it is appropriate to ask.

Your explanation of what 20 percent means led me to believe it was appropriate to ask if you think we are all stupid.

From your response, or rather your non-response, it looks to me like that is exactly what you must think.