I think I have found him.

[curious]

oh Dear Pierre, We Thee Implore
To Bugger Off And Bore No More.
But If That Effort Be Too Great,
Just Bugger Off At Any Rate.

G

Thanks! I've been missing the fun this thread once was.

[GUT]

oh Dear Pierre, We Thee Implore
To Bugger Off And Bore No More.
But If That Effort Be Too Great,
Just Bugger Off At Any Rate.

G

Where's the like button?

[Graham]

oh Dear Pierre, We Thee Implore
To Bugger Off And Bore No More.
But If That Effort Be Too Great,
Just Bugger Off At Any Rate.

G

[GUT]

BULL$H!T

That's the one.

[GUT]

Is your sudden string of posts to me and/or about me, Pierre, caused by the above?

But that's because Pierre is "Full of it".

[David Orsam]

Really? That's interesting because I distinctly recall you telling us that if you revealed the identity of your suspect then evidence might be destroyed.

In fact, I can cite the exact post. It was #771 in this thread. You said:

"The reasons I canīt reveal my theory before my work is finished are two: it might destroy evidence - and there is the ethical aspect of accusing innocent people."

When I asked you how this evidence would be destroyed, you said in #790:

"I wish I could tell you where this evidence is being held but I canīt."

Yet when Amanda says that "the data is out of their control" you tell us that this is a problem you "don't have".

There is a contradiction here isn't there? Either the data is in your control, and being held by you, so that there is no risk of destruction or it is out of your control and risks being destroyed.

Are you lying to us Pierre?

Is your sudden string of posts to me and/or about me, Pierre, caused by the above?

[David Orsam]

Yes! I have found David!

Is this the breakdown that has long been on the cards?

[Pierre]

I think I have found him.

Yes! I have found David!

[David Orsam]

Really? That's interesting because I distinctly recall you telling us that if you revealed the identity of your suspect then evidence might be destroyed.

In fact, I can cite the exact post. It was #771 in this thread. You said:

"The reasons I canīt reveal my theory before my work is finished are two: it might destroy evidence - and there is the ethical aspect of accusing innocent people."

When I asked you how this evidence would be destroyed, you said in #790:

"I wish I could tell you where this evidence is being held but I canīt."

Yet when Amanda says that "the data is out of their control" you tell us that this is a problem you "don't have".

There is a contradiction here isn't there? Either the data is in your control, and being held by you, so that there is no risk of destruction or it is out of your control and risks being destroyed.

Are you lying to us Pierre?

Repeating this because I think it does require a response.

[David Orsam]

Proud to be on Pierre's Hit List

I see he is here, spending his time on writing to me although I have put him on the ignore list. And David is the only one on this list.

And I see that, despite pretending to ignore me, you are still reading my posts but avoiding actually replying to them.

BTW, my posts are not necessarily written to you, Pierre, they are usually written for a wider audience. One that you have so far failed to convince of anything as far as I can see.

[Pierre]

David loves me.

I see he is here, spending his time on writing to me although I have put him on the ignore list. And David is the only one on this list.

[David Orsam]

Those are all problems that I donīt have.

Really? That's interesting because I distinctly recall you telling us that if you revealed the identity of your suspect then evidence might be destroyed.

In fact, I can cite the exact post. It was #771 in this thread. You said:

"The reasons I canīt reveal my theory before my work is finished are two: it might destroy evidence - and there is the ethical aspect of accusing innocent people."

When I asked you how this evidence would be destroyed, you said in #790:

"I wish I could tell you where this evidence is being held but I canīt."

Yet when Amanda says that "the data is out of their control" you tell us that this is a problem you "don't have".

There is a contradiction here isn't there? Either the data is in your control, and being held by you, so that there is no risk of destruction or it is out of your control and risks being destroyed.

Are you lying to us Pierre?

[Pierre]

Richard,

Have to say I am coming to the same conclusion.
First thing was it could upset the grandson, then it was mentioned that it was something to do with how the evidence was obtained, then the question of funding was mentioned, now they can't say anything because the data is out of their control. either they have evidence or they don't.

I was concerned that perhaps I was wrong to say they were close to teasing, hence my reply to Amanda; but it seems others feel even stronger

regards

Elamarna

Hi,

Those are all problems that I donīt have.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Dear Elamarna,

As a co-member of the grampton project, I must jump in to defend Pinkmoon.
I am sure he didn't mean to tease, but rather to reassure that there are genuine researchers working hard to answer questions.

I do feel that old pinky may be putting his neck on the line by giving a date for the release of our facts but please rest assured that he will be reprimanded with the utmost severity for doing so, as the success of our work is dependent upon many factors out of our control.
Amanda

Lest we not digress into a vast wasteland of Pierrism Amanda, perhaps just leave your pet project and enthusiasm for the release date of your theory. Most people here are working hard to answer questions....to assume your work is harder or more valid is presumptuous and smacks of self promotion. What ever answers you and your team come up with are no better or worse than anyones unless the presentation of some undeniable proof is part of your "groups" plan.

[Natasha]

Pierre

What is the purpose of your thread? If you've got a theory share it. If you haven't then maybe you should have started this thread in the pub talk section.

As many have suggested it appears to be vanity, and I agree