If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You have been caught with your pants down, crying and screaming Mum Mum please Mum I was kidding I was kidding don't take me seriously, will not help you
One shouldn't expect too much from you at least at this stage, you are excused
It is important that you don't hurt yourself
So keep yourself busy and continue practising my advices
Oh yah, almost forgot, to finish you completely, take those two quotes of you, you insisted to insert your nose in the middle of this
>> Mackenzie couldn’t have been a ripper victim because Druitt was dead
>> Mackenzie and Coles are irrelevant unless it can be proven that they were victims of the ripper. And it can’t.
Now who is the liar?!
I proved you wrong again!
It will be difficult for you at first now, but it will get better with time, remember my advices?! Sport,..scocial activities?!
The Baron
Seriously?
The first one was very obviously a joke, the clue is the
The second is a fact. Mackenzie and Coles cannot be ‘proven’ to have been Ripper victims. Almost no one believes Coles to have been one and only a percentage of Ripperologists believe Mackenzie to have been one. It’s called opinion….it’s not a fact.
So……you are still proven to be a liar.
Pathetic. It would have been much easier just to have admitted that you are wrong Baron. By the way, even though posters on here have varying opinions they all have one thing in common. They can all read and so can all see that you have yet again been caught out.
Even by your standards that’s a pathetic reply. What are you talking about?
The issue is not what McNaghten believed. We all know what he believed. No one can dispute what he believed. The ‘issue’ is that you claimed (and have stated it numerous times on this Forum) that I have stated as a fact that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim just to maintain Druitt as a suspect. I’ve explained numerous times that it’s not the case but you keep posting the same lie. We all know why of course.
So that is the point Baron as you well know. I posted several examples proving that I’ve never stated that point as a fact.
So, I’ll ask again, do you intend to respond to the actual point? I’ll wait again
I wonder what you’ll make up next?
9 hours this time and no response. Struggling to make something up?
Point me where in my post I mentioned you or even quoted you.
Do you believe you are the center of the world too?!
Macnaghten dismissed Mckenzie as a ripper victim, and favoured Druitt as the ripper.
Why Macnaghten was allowed to dismiss Mckenzie in favour of Druitt and when Michael Richards dismisses other victims he is being criticised?!
Disscussing with you is meaningless.
The Baron
Even by your standards that’s a pathetic reply. What are you talking about?
The issue is not what McNaghten believed. We all know what he believed. No one can dispute what he believed. The ‘issue’ is that you claimed (and have stated it numerous times on this Forum) that I have stated as a fact that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim just to maintain Druitt as a suspect. I’ve explained numerous times that it’s not the case but you keep posting the same lie. We all know why of course.
So that is the point Baron as you well know. I posted several examples proving that I’ve never stated that point as a fact.
So, I’ll ask again, do you intend to respond to the actual point? I’ll wait again
Leave a comment: