Ben:
"Doesn't bother me if you remember her or not.
Your "forgetfulness" in this regard serves as a testament to your habit of dismissing evidence that isn't convenient to your cause."
We donīt know how convenient or unconvenient it is, Ben, and that is my whole point. Earlier on the thread, Sam said that Iremonger had expressively stated that we had a total mismatch, whereas I seem to remember that it was said that she only said something like "On balance, I think ..."
Do you know what she REALLY said? And if you do, who has told you? Certainly not Iremonger.
So no, I am not ruling out any evidence that goes against me. But when it lacks every bit of substantiation, I question it.
"Nope, that'll be one expert who actually examined the original documents, another whose professionalism and experience is beyond any doubt and who has expressed her intention to dedicate her time and abilities to assess the original documents. You're free to cast any aspertions you wish in the direction of the third, providing you don't expect anyone to care."
Sorry, Ben, but once again, we do not know what Iremonger examined - we only know what YOU would have liked her to have examined and what YOU think is logical. So there goes that point. As for Crystals credentials, I know just as little about them as I do about Iremonger. And expert three - well, who knows?
Point is, your line-up MAY be top of the line. But if it is, you are awfully shy about it. If I had known it to be a lousy line, I would have pointed that out - but I donīt. I know nothing about itīs quality, and that would also go for the rest of the posters you are trying to sell your bid to.
"That's after radically changing his mind in a suspicous and implausible fashion, which you unwittingly acknowledge yourself in an earlier post in which you condeded that Leander said nothing about a match being "probable"."
Ooopla, Ben! Letīs first admit that what I said was that he never used the actual WORD probable. And in all fairness, I added that this was due to the fact that he never needed to, since he had already said that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match.
And we all know by now that Leanders complete turnaround went from saing, in the first post, that a match could not be ruled out (later explaining that this expression infact meant that we had a match on the positive end of the scale, the end where the probable matches end up), to saying in his last post that we have a match on the positive end of the scale (where the probable matches end up).
So there is that almighty turn-around again! He goes from stance A to ... no, wait a minute, he does not go at all ... he stays at the very same stance! Heureka!
Fisherman
"Doesn't bother me if you remember her or not.
Your "forgetfulness" in this regard serves as a testament to your habit of dismissing evidence that isn't convenient to your cause."
We donīt know how convenient or unconvenient it is, Ben, and that is my whole point. Earlier on the thread, Sam said that Iremonger had expressively stated that we had a total mismatch, whereas I seem to remember that it was said that she only said something like "On balance, I think ..."
Do you know what she REALLY said? And if you do, who has told you? Certainly not Iremonger.
So no, I am not ruling out any evidence that goes against me. But when it lacks every bit of substantiation, I question it.
"Nope, that'll be one expert who actually examined the original documents, another whose professionalism and experience is beyond any doubt and who has expressed her intention to dedicate her time and abilities to assess the original documents. You're free to cast any aspertions you wish in the direction of the third, providing you don't expect anyone to care."
Sorry, Ben, but once again, we do not know what Iremonger examined - we only know what YOU would have liked her to have examined and what YOU think is logical. So there goes that point. As for Crystals credentials, I know just as little about them as I do about Iremonger. And expert three - well, who knows?
Point is, your line-up MAY be top of the line. But if it is, you are awfully shy about it. If I had known it to be a lousy line, I would have pointed that out - but I donīt. I know nothing about itīs quality, and that would also go for the rest of the posters you are trying to sell your bid to.
"That's after radically changing his mind in a suspicous and implausible fashion, which you unwittingly acknowledge yourself in an earlier post in which you condeded that Leander said nothing about a match being "probable"."
Ooopla, Ben! Letīs first admit that what I said was that he never used the actual WORD probable. And in all fairness, I added that this was due to the fact that he never needed to, since he had already said that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match.
And we all know by now that Leanders complete turnaround went from saing, in the first post, that a match could not be ruled out (later explaining that this expression infact meant that we had a match on the positive end of the scale, the end where the probable matches end up), to saying in his last post that we have a match on the positive end of the scale (where the probable matches end up).
So there is that almighty turn-around again! He goes from stance A to ... no, wait a minute, he does not go at all ... he stays at the very same stance! Heureka!
Fisherman
Comment