>>I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.<<
It’s more than a tad disingenuous to pretend I haven’t answered or that I'm trying to avoid a question when you have accumulated such a long list of unanswered questions.
Why would you need me to explain a question that you already know the answer to?
We’ve had this debate many times here and over at Jtrforums just look my answers up there. Or perhaps you could just read my explanation on page 26 of Ripperologist 142.
Why is it that so much of what you post has such a dishonest bent to it.?
>>Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?<<
Very straight forward, you don’t even have to go the trouble of looking up my last to examples. You could have just browsed this very thread to see Caligo O and Gut give you the same explanation.
But as aways, it’s not about the facts it’s about covering your mistakes and perceived point scoring.
>>No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.<<
As is now painfully obvious, you always had the answer, you are just posturing.
>>ME: “I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.”
YOU: Nor did I say that you have, did I?<<
No you didn’t “say” it you wrote it.
“… you inititated a discussion about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them …”
So yes you did write it. And now you are pretending you didn't.
>>But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?<<
Interesting response, you managed to move the conversation completely away from the subject matter you claim to be replying to.
To remind you, was the quote of yours I use as a sign off.
Now, since you hold such store about getting replies, are you read to answer some of the long list that is accumulating on this thread and have so far run away from? There not just mine.
It’s more than a tad disingenuous to pretend I haven’t answered or that I'm trying to avoid a question when you have accumulated such a long list of unanswered questions.
Why would you need me to explain a question that you already know the answer to?
We’ve had this debate many times here and over at Jtrforums just look my answers up there. Or perhaps you could just read my explanation on page 26 of Ripperologist 142.
Why is it that so much of what you post has such a dishonest bent to it.?
>>Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?<<
Very straight forward, you don’t even have to go the trouble of looking up my last to examples. You could have just browsed this very thread to see Caligo O and Gut give you the same explanation.
But as aways, it’s not about the facts it’s about covering your mistakes and perceived point scoring.
>>No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.<<
As is now painfully obvious, you always had the answer, you are just posturing.
>>ME: “I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.”
YOU: Nor did I say that you have, did I?<<
No you didn’t “say” it you wrote it.
“… you inititated a discussion about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them …”
So yes you did write it. And now you are pretending you didn't.
>>But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?<<
Interesting response, you managed to move the conversation completely away from the subject matter you claim to be replying to.
To remind you, was the quote of yours I use as a sign off.
Now, since you hold such store about getting replies, are you read to answer some of the long list that is accumulating on this thread and have so far run away from? There not just mine.
Comment