Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;394763]

When you write with chalk on a rough surface, aren't the written letters always somewhat diffuse, i.e. blurred?

Let us hypothesize that this is the case and you are right.

That means that everyone writing on such a surface would expect the written letters to be somewhat diffuse, i.e. blurred.

It also means that everyone writing on such a surface could choose to write on another surface, where the letters would not become diffuse, i.e. blurred.

But now, since the letters were written where they were written, the author of the GSG accepted the conditions for writing, didnīt he?

Letīs hypothesize that the author was the Whitechapel killer.

Can you think of a reason, and give an historical motive explanation or a functional explanation, as to why he chose these conditions for writing the GSG?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Can you think of a reason, and give an historical motive explanation or a functional explanation, as to why he chose these conditions for writing the GSG?

Because there were no blackboards available on the streets of Whitechapel that night?

[Pierre]

Because there were no blackboards available on the streets of Whitechapel that night?

It is much more simple.

[David Orsam]

It is much more simple.

Oh that's good.

[Abby Normal]

I have read your book and watched your DVD, Trevor. However, since they were published your theorising has been extensively criticised and utterly rejected by many of the best informed commentators on the case. I thought that you would want to answer your critics and present your sources for doing so. Clearly I assumed wrongly. Personally, I don't think you take on board any criticism of your thinking; you just make the same argument over and over again, so your argument probably hasn't change from what you wrote.

As for people not having read your book or watched your DVD, life is short, Trevor. However, what books on this subject have you read? I don't think you've read any. Not one. Unless it's free on Google, and probably not even then. I have asked you several times - how many, six or seven? - and you've doged the question every time. I'm sure you will again, but it doesn't matter. It's just that criticising people for not having read your book is a serious case of pot calling, don't you think?

hes only read the books hes plagerized from.

[Pierre]

Oh that's good.

Come on, David. Give it a try.

[David Orsam]

Come on, David. Give it a try.

I already did. You asked me if I could think of a reason and I gave you one.

[Pierre]

I already did. You asked me if I could think of a reason and I gave you one.

I give you a chance to be serious, David. But since you can produce no serious answer, you chose to play the fool.

You have already written the sufficient historical facts yourself. All you have to do now is to draw a conclusion.

Why did he chose that type of wall?

[John G]

I give you a chance to be serious, David. But since you can produce no serious answer, you chose to play the fool.

You have already written the sufficient historical facts yourself. All you have to do now is to draw a conclusion.

Why did he chose that type of wall?

A random act?

[David Orsam]

I give you a chance to be serious, David. But since you can produce no serious answer, you chose to play the fool.

You have already written the sufficient historical facts yourself. All you have to do now is to draw a conclusion.

Why did he chose that type of wall?

I repeat my answer Pierre. There was no blackboard available.

[Pierre]

I repeat my answer Pierre. There was no blackboard available.

How can this be difficult?

[David Orsam]

How can this be difficult?

I don't think it is difficult. There was no blackboard so the author of the writing was forced to write on a relatively rough surface.

[Pierre]

A random act?

OK, John. Letīs see if you can do it. David wrote:

When you write with chalk on a rough surface, aren't the written letters always somewhat diffuse, i.e. blurred?

My comment to this was:

Let us hypothesize that this is the case and you are right.

That means that everyone writing on such a surface would expect the written letters to be somewhat diffuse, i.e. blurred.

It also means that everyone writing on such a surface could choose to write on another surface, where the letters would not become diffuse, i.e. blurred.

But now, since the letters were written where they were written, the author of the GSG accepted the conditions for writing, didnīt he?

Letīs hypothesize that the author was the Whitechapel killer.

Can you think of a reason, and give an historical motive explanation or a functional explanation, as to why he chose these conditions for writing the GSG?

So John:

What is the simple reason, what historical explanation can there be?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I don't think it is difficult. There was no blackboard so the author of the writing was forced to write on a relatively rough surface.

"Forced"?

Who or what "forced" him?

[David Orsam]

"Forced"?

Who or what "forced" him?

The absence of a blackboard.

I already said this.