GSG xmas present

[Pierre]

Steve, sir, that's all well and good, but let's be honest: you can take him at his word and try to falsify his hypotheses as often as you like, I feel he's content to play this game for as long as he wants. It's been a year and a quarter without a single testable proposition or source so far.

Your approach sounds eminently sensible, and a year ago maybe it was. The question is, how long are you prepared to waste your time on this guy's untestable evasive rubbish?

How long, Steve? At what point would you say enough is enough, he will never share his suspect or his sources?

128 years of speculations and when it is almost finished you can not wait.

[Harry D]

Perhaps his objective is to get forum members to attack and criticise other forum members about how to respond to him.

In which case, you fall for his bait every time.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Mr. Orsam.

[Henry Flower]

Steve, sir, that's all well and good, but let's be honest: you can take him at his word and try to falsify his hypotheses as often as you like, I feel he's content to play this game for as long as he wants. It's been a year and a quarter without a single testable proposition or source so far.

Your approach sounds eminently sensible, and a year ago maybe it was. The question is, how long are you prepared to waste your time on this guy's untestable evasive rubbish?

How long, Steve? At what point would you say enough is enough, he will never share his suspect or his sources?

[GUT]

Pierre's in even bigger trouble that I thought if he doesn't know how to prove his hypothesis.

I'm reminded of his very first post in this forum (17 Sept 2015) in which he said:

"I'm planning to go on with the research and I know what data I need to prove who the killer was. There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find."

Perhaps he didn't know what data he needed to prove who the killer was after all.

Or perhaps, just perhaps mind you, it's as I've said all along....HE is making BS up as he goes along.

[David Orsam]

It's a little known fact that I provide a service to members of the forum by defining simple English words, with the help of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Prove, v. "To establish as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument."

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;404285

This was my exact question to you, David, and you were not able to answer it in your post:

What do you mean exactly when you say "prove it"?

Donīt you even know what you are talking about?

[David Orsam]

Pierre's in even bigger trouble that I thought if he doesn't know how to prove his hypothesis.

I'm reminded of his very first post in this forum (17 Sept 2015) in which he said:

"I'm planning to go on with the research and I know what data I need to prove who the killer was. There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find."

Perhaps he didn't know what data he needed to prove who the killer was after all.

[Pierre]

Poor Pierre. What a terrible quandary. He can't disprove his hypothesis yet he can't prove it either.

A real shame that his attempts to do so up to now have certainly been hopeless.

How sad to be in a such a state of intellectual uncertainty.

Hi David,

What do you mean exactly when you say "prove it"?

[John G]

I'm afraid that Pierre just interprets sources in a way that's consistent with his own fantastical theory. For instance, to conclude that the GSG contains the word "judges" is just plain silly. In fact, there's not even enough evidence to conclude that the GSG was written by either Stride's or Eddowes' killer.

Meanwhile, further to the Alice in Wonderland theory, what about the Princess Alice link, Pierre? Surely that must mean something if you apply your own "anything goes" approach to this problem.

[David Orsam]

I am struggling very hard right now to try and disprove my hypotheses. I can tell you it is certainly hopeless.

Poor Pierre. What a terrible quandary. He can't disprove his hypothesis yet he can't prove it either.

A real shame that his attempts to do so up to now have certainly been hopeless.

How sad to be in a such a state of intellectual uncertainty.

[Pierre]

I really do not understand why people get so hot under the collar over our dear friend Pierre. Ok if he attacks you as an individual I do.

There are two approaches, ignore him which NO ONE does for long. And he will not go away I am sure of that.what ever his reasons, he is not a pure windup merchant.

The other alternative is to treat him seriously and expose the failings in the arguments he makes.
That is the approach I have generally taken as have several others.

If others do not want to partake in the debates with Pierre it's really very simple. DON'T.

I have my own views on Pierre and his motivations, which while not total negative, that he is not just a troll, Are certainly far from positive. I believe he has not been 100% open about some issues and I don’t just mean the refusal to namend a suspect.

Hope all had a good xmas day (including Pierre).

Steve

Hi Steve,

and thanks.

I am struggling very hard right now to try and disprove my hypotheses. I can tell you it is certainly hopeless. If you research any person, anyone at all, and try to disprove that he was the Whitechapel killer, you must get at least some small data source that shows he could not have done the murders.

I am sure that whoever you research, somewhere you have to find at least some data, at least one single source, which you can use to disprove your hypothesis.

The problem is that I have been trying to find such a source, but they donīt exist. Instead I tend to get just another confirming source.

All the best,
Pierre

[Elamarna]

I really do not understand why people get so hot under the collar over our dear friend Pierre. Ok if he attacks you as an individual I do.

There are two approaches, ignore him which NO ONE does for long. And he will not go away I am sure of that.what ever his reasons, he is not a pure windup merchant.

The other alternative is to treat him seriously and expose the failings in the arguments he makes.
That is the approach I have generally taken as have several others.

If others do not want to partake in the debates with Pierre it's really very simple. DON'T.

I have my own views on Pierre and his motivations, which while not total negative, that he is not just a troll, Are certainly far from positive. I believe he has not been 100% open about some issues and I don’t just mean the refusal to namend a suspect.

Hope all had a good xmas day (including Pierre).

Steve

[David Orsam]

If the Admins had any problem with Pierre's antics, they would've nipped this in the bud ages ago. From the moment he posted here it was an obvious wind-up. There are a lot of threads on here with untapped potential that fall by the wayside but Pierre's nonsense captures everyone's attention. If no one took the bait and refused to entertain this nonsense, he would do what most trolls do and move on. It's only because he gets a reaction out of people that he keeps up this charade.

Perhaps his objective is to get forum members to attack and criticise other forum members about how to respond to him.

In which case, you fall for his bait every time.

[Harry D]

Admin, wake up.

If the Admins had any problem with Pierre's antics, they would've nipped this in the bud ages ago. From the moment he posted here it was an obvious wind-up. There are a lot of threads on here with untapped potential that fall by the wayside but Pierre's nonsense captures everyone's attention. If no one took the bait and refused to entertain this nonsense, he would do what most trolls do and move on. It's only because he gets a reaction out of people that he keeps up this charade.

[c.d.]

Oh my! Have I been put in my place.

c.d.