Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    More importantly for the accuracy of the report is the time given.


    Steve
    This has been answered, Steve. You need to read that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Itīs always like this when a large building is torn down: lots of dust and noise.

      Once the dust settles, silence takes over and the air clears.

      Unfortunatly no building has been torn Down.
      We have the same debate time after time, and desoite your claims nothing changes. Your argument is a negative, that it cannot be proven exactly how far apart the carmen were.
      However the whole evidence, not just that of Mizen provides not one ounce of evidence that they were ever apart.


      Stevw

      Comment


      • Fish, you are now even misinterpreting yourself!

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        Why on earth should he have been? The two men went TOGETHER to find a policeman, after all.

        Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

        Fish, they went together. They saw a policeman. Are you suggesting that they saw the policeman at different times?

        Yes, for once you are right : 'saw' means saw. Move to the top of the class.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Unfortunatly no building has been torn Down.
          We have the same debate time after time, and desoite your claims nothing changes. Your argument is a negative, that it cannot be proven exactly how far apart the carmen were.
          However the whole evidence, not just that of Mizen provides not one ounce of evidence that they were ever apart.


          Stevw
          That is of course wrong, since the papers were plastered with how Mizen said that "a man" or "one man" came up to him and spoke, so your argument goes very quickly down the drain.

          It also applies that it is a proven matter that the wordings you rely heavily on were used by somebody who was not in place in Bucks Row.

          So yes, the building "Paul MUST have been within earshot" tumbled down earlier this morning. And itīs not coming up again.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert View Post
            Fish, you are now even misinterpreting yourself!

            Quote:
            Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Why on earth should he have been? The two men went TOGETHER to find a policeman, after all.

            Not glued to each other, Gareth. And nowhere along the road do we have any information about how close or distant the two men were.

            Fish, they went together. They saw a policeman. Are you suggesting that they saw the policeman at different times?

            Yes, for once you are right : 'saw' means saw. Move to the top of the class.
            More jestering and linguistic jibber-jabber. Uninteresting.

            Comment


            • Keep checking the dictionaries, Fish.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                Keep checking the dictionaries, Fish.
                More jestering. Useless.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  I donīt have to. I have already taken your argument apart, and the errand has come to an end. It cannot in any shape or form be decided that Paul was within earshot of Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.

                  Which, incidentally, is what I have suggested all along.

                  It actually offers me a possibility to quote Hans Rosling from that clip I posted earlier:

                  I am right and you are wrong and there can be no discussion about that.

                  Mind you, that does not mean that Paul WAS out of earshot, but it does mean that it cannot be excluded that he was.
                  The degree of self deluzion and wish fulfilment in the above post is trully staggering.

                  The attempt to base the exchange purely on tbe views of one individual, when two others are involved demonstrates completely the bias used in the anaylisis of the data.

                  It is You who are wrong Fish, you seemingly convince yourself of a point and then grandiosity claim that point is established bdyond doubt.

                  If you cannot convince a point is not established other tban in your mind.


                  Steve
                  I

                  Comment


                  • Basically, Baxters question amounts to "There was another guy there too, a chum of Crossī, right?" and nothing more than so. Thatīs all Mizen confirms.

                    Itīs nighty-nighty for the "Paul must have heard what was said"-brigade. And thatīs about time.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      The degree of self deluzion and wish fulfilment in the above post is trully staggering.

                      The attempt to base the exchange purely on tbe views of one individual, when two others are involved demonstrates completely the bias used in the anaylisis of the data.

                      It is You who are wrong Fish, you seemingly convince yourself of a point and then grandiosity claim that point is established bdyond doubt.

                      If you cannot convince a point is not established other tban in your mind.


                      Steve
                      I
                      The one point I am establishing here is that there is not enough in it - by any means - to conclude that Paul must have been within earshot.

                      I do not push the point that he must have been out of earshot - I push the point that it cannot be proven that he must have been within earshot.

                      I am not saying that my theory on Lechmere is proven by this - I am saying that it cannot be disproven by your efforts.

                      I am not the one overcharging the fact account here. The collection of misinterpretors you belong to takes care of that, by hanging the whole matter on a source that was not even there.

                      You need to get yourself a large broome and sweep outside your own door before you start to pick on me for dabbling with the evidence, Steve. As it stands, you may even have to go inside that door and clear away all that glass you have been throwing stones at.

                      Paul could well have been out of earshot. Agreed?

                      Mizen would hardly answer "no" to the coroners question. Agreed?

                      The "Paul MUST have heard" building therefore crumbled and fell today. Agreed?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 06-07-2018, 03:21 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Yes, and where in this text does it say how close or distant they were? Where does it say that they both walked up to Mizen? Where does it say they both talked to him? Where is the distance to Paul given, as Lehmere spoke to Mizen? Where does it say that "saw" means spoke to? They saw a PC, meaning they visually noticed him, is as far as I can see just as viable an interpretation.

                        Come on, Robert - you are revisiting old ground now. The issue has moved on.
                        Christer,
                        My dear fellow, just because you caim something has moved on, it does not mean it has.

                        You started by saying the carmen seperated, and dispite all you have posted you have not been able to establish that such happened.

                        All you have done is to reconfirm that such was possible, which no one has denied.

                        The position has not changed at all.
                        LECHMERE says they spoke to Mizen togeather, Mizen implies different, but only implies.
                        Baxter asks a question which Mizen replies to in the affermative.

                        NOTHING has changed, that the carmen seperated has not been established, indeed the suggestion that they stood apart is not supported by any source at all.

                        Several hours repeating I have established iit, when no such thing is established clearly demonstrates the inability to actually do so


                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • As I foresee the oncoming posts will maily consist of denial of the facts and accusations of me thinking I am Napoleon Bonaparte, I will skip that over and take a break.

                          Used wisely, it will give you the time to ponder if you really think it is worth it to fight a lost battle.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            The only reply is a "Yes. I think he was also a carman." as far as this particular errand goes.

                            And then, all sorts of interpretations are made from that.

                            It is using Baxter as the primary source, somehow trying to transfer his question (however THAT was worded!) into Mizens view. As evidence, it is useless if you want to prove that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere talked to Mizen.
                            I dont need to prove it, the carmen say they were together, Mizen never says they are not,
                            The sources clearly say they are together.

                            it is you who needs to prove they are not together.


                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                              All you have done is to reconfirm that such was possible, which no one has denied.
                              Steve
                              That could be your funniest post so far. "No one has denied".

                              Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

                              Iīm off.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                This has been answered, Steve. You need to read that.
                                I have, and the argument does not distract from the failure of the Morning Advertiser.
                                You are relying on this account, however its accuracy is questionable in this report

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X