Fisherman
Whatever. In that time nothing at all has surfaced that enables the theory to be 'spot on' either. It is, and remains, pure conjecture.
So now, Fisherman, you will be good enough to point the post in which I said that will you? No? What a surprise....
Actually, the vast majority of what you have said has already been said by others - years ago. It wasn't enough to convince then, and it isn't now. So you've been out and had your 5 minutes of fame. And? What does that prove? That your'e a self-publicist. It certainly hasn't added anything to your argument.
Yep, I agree with that.
SOME posters find it "lacking", while other posters find it a good solution. And over the last several months, things have been added, scrutinized and compared. During this time, nothing at all has surfaced that disenables the theory to be spot on, albeit a lot of shudda-cudda-wudda has been offered, as Edward so aptly put it.
What is is not about - and should never be - is to offer "Ha ha - I donīt believe you", since that is a thoroughly anti-intellectual approach to any theory.
Another example of what it should not be about is saying "You need to add something new!", and when you have it pointed out to you that no matter how we look upon it, I am the one who actually lies behind the whole discussion (together with Edward, who has done far more research than I have on the man),
you say I should refrain from "posturing"...? It is a deplorable manner of discussing things, and just as lacking as ever of any REAL contribution to the core issues of the case.
Comment