A major breakthrough

[David Orsam]

Nice try Buster, not in the same league, as well you know.

So what's the answer then Buster? Did I have you on the end of my hook or were we engaging in debate on an internet forum?

[David Orsam]

Incindently, why on Earth did you continue to post in a thread in which you considered to be "definately closed"?

I didn't consider it to be "definitely closed" (note spelling), I announced it to be "definitely closed", which is a different matter entirely.

[David Orsam]

Absolutely not. My attendance in Pierre threads number three, and three only, two advising the likes of you and others of the folly of your ways, and the other in defiance of your arrogant suggestion that the thread was definitely closed, and that, believe it not, I care not a fig, is the truth. By the way if you look carefully I decided at the time that one further post in defence of your unreasonable suggestion that the thread was definitely closed was enough, you'll notice I did not reply to the question Pierre posed me.

My "arrogant" and "unreasonable" suggestion that the thread was closed was, of course, a joke - I do not have the power to close threads believe it or not - but at the same time it would have been good if everyone else had picked up on the idea and not responded to Pierre any further. But because you did, then someone else did and so on. But that is always going to happen. You can't prevent every member, present and future, from responding to Pierre if they want to and they are perfectly entitled to do it.

And for future reference I really don't need your advice about "the folly of my ways." In fact, it's strange that you don't consider such advice to be arrogant and unreasonable. But I've clearly got you on my hook now so just keep wriggling and we can go on for days with this argument. How lovely!

[Observer]

I well remember, Observer, when you spent a number of days, over many posts, arguing with me about Mrs Maxwell's evidence. Does that mean that I had you on the end of my hook? Or were you just engaging in debate with me on an internet forum?

Nice try Buster, not in the same league, as well you know.

[Observer]

Incindently, why on Earth did you continue to post in a thread in which you considered to be "definately closed"?

[Observer]

Here's a funny thing Observer. On a couple of occasions I tried to indicate to my fellow forum members that Pierre should be ignored by posting the words "THREAD CLOSED" at the end of my posts. Of course there were some people who didn't seem to get the message and wanted to continue the discussion with him. Take a look at this one for example

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9302

In post #2 I replied to Pierre and concluded by saying in capital letters and bold "THREAD CLOSED". When he failed to get the message I posted this in #4:

"And you will have noticed - because you clearly are reading my posts - that I closed this thread in my previous post. I have not re-opened it, nor given you permission to make any further posts, so I'm sorry but you are not entitled to post in this thread any more.

THREAD NOW DEFINITELY CLOSED."

Now take a look at who made the next post in that thread, just over one hour later. A certain member called "Observer".

And here you are back again posting in yet another Pierre thread! Are you, therefore, one of those fish wriggling around who can't seem to get off Pierre's hook?

Absolutely not. My attendance in Pierre threads number three, and three only, two advising the likes of you and others of the folly of your ways, and the other in defiance of your arrogant suggestion that the thread was definitely closed, and that, believe it not, I care not a fig, is the truth. By the way if you look carefully I decided at the time that one further post in defence of your unreasonable suggestion that the thread was definitely closed was enough, you'll notice I did not reply to the question Pierre posed me.

[David Orsam]

As ever you grasp the wrong end of the stick. Seeing as I was referring to Pierre's ability to have you all on the end of his hook, the masterful performance I alluded to was his ability to do just that.

I well remember, Observer, when you spent a number of days, over many posts, arguing with me about Mrs Maxwell's evidence. Does that mean that I had you on the end of my hook? Or were you just engaging in debate with me on an internet forum?

[Observer]

I seriously doubt that anyone who's read Pierre's posts would say that he's carried out a "masterful performance!"

Anyway, I lost interest in his "suspect" about a year ago, mainly because he probably doesn't exist or, if he does, he'll be a hopeless candidate.

I'll still engage with Pierre though, mainly because I like the banter and it stops me from getting bored. And I especially like his funny posts, particularly as they're no doubt not intentionally funny.

As ever you grasp the wrong end of the stick. Seeing as I was referring to Pierre's ability to have you all on the end of his hook, the masterful performance I alluded to was his ability to do just that.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have been on this site since before the Millennium , and witnessed many people come and go, many topics have been discussed, mostly with named suspects.
I have found the thread ''A major breakthrough'' extremely frustrating, along with many Casebook regulars. it is such a load of nonsense,and its very nauseating.
I would ask Pierre, to conclude his research, and findings , and reveal this major breakthrough, so that we can all settle down , and resume some normality.
Yours in anticipation.
Richard.

[John G]

Spot on Harry. Pierre entered this Forum with a rickety old bamboo fishing rod, with string for tackle, and a safety pin as a makeshift hook. He's hooked more than his share of fish along the way, they can't get get off the hook. However look at him now he cruises this Forum in a state of the art super trawler, with all mod cons. A masterly performance in every way.

I seriously doubt that anyone who's read Pierre's posts would say that he's carried out a "masterful performance!"

Anyway, I lost interest in his "suspect" about a year ago, mainly because he probably doesn't exist or, if he does, he'll be a hopeless candidate.

I'll still engage with Pierre though, mainly because I like the banter and it stops me from getting bored. And I especially like his funny posts, particularly as they're no doubt not intentionally funny.

[GUT]

Pierre that statement is untrue, it is not that you can't talk about the subject, which suggests that something external is preventing you, but that you do not wish to talk about the subject.

still continuing the burden of history line, unrealistic.


Steve

Yep, nothing stopping him at all, except the fact there is nothing to share.

[GUT]

Completely overlooking apple there, GUT. Nobody expects apple.

In defense of the admins here, I'm not a fan of banning people. We're all grown ups (I think), who can make the decision on whether or not to ignore or engage with Pierre. As I've said several times before, while I think he talks utter bosh, it has inspired some enjoyable discussion from people who have sources that weren't created by Lloyd Grossman.

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather like to see how all of this pans out. It's got to end somewhere.

Always expect Apple if it's Pork.

[David Orsam]

Spot on Harry. Pierre entered this Forum with a rickety old bamboo fishing rod, with string for tackle, and a safety pin as a makeshift hook. He's hooked more than his share of fish along the way, they can't get get off the hook. However look at him now he cruises this Forum in a state of the art super trawler, with all mod cons. A masterly performance in every way.

Here's a funny thing Observer. On a couple of occasions I tried to indicate to my fellow forum members that Pierre should be ignored by posting the words "THREAD CLOSED" at the end of my posts. Of course there were some people who didn't seem to get the message and wanted to continue the discussion with him. Take a look at this one for example

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9302

In post #2 I replied to Pierre and concluded by saying in capital letters and bold "THREAD CLOSED". When he failed to get the message I posted this in #4:

"And you will have noticed - because you clearly are reading my posts - that I closed this thread in my previous post. I have not re-opened it, nor given you permission to make any further posts, so I'm sorry but you are not entitled to post in this thread any more.

THREAD NOW DEFINITELY CLOSED."

Now take a look at who made the next post in that thread, just over one hour later. A certain member called "Observer".

And here you are back again posting in yet another Pierre thread! Are you, therefore, one of those fish wriggling around who can't seem to get off Pierre's hook?

[David Orsam]

Unfortunately, a contingent on here still hang on his every word and continue to play this charade.

Until and unless Pierre is told otherwise by Admin, he has just as much right to post nonsense on this forum as you do Harry, and boy are you both making full use of that entitlement.

[Geddy2112]

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather like to see how all of this pans out. It's got to end somewhere.

I've just had a text from Buck Rodgers and he says it's still going...