To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, Iīm sure itīs a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.
Have you heard about the pilots doing sucessfull surgery on their patients?
Have you heard about the surgeons flying planes all over the world?
Have you heard about the queens councellors and barristers writing history?
In case anyone is confused I misread Fisherman's post, it happens.
I am big enough to admit my mistakes, as always. Hopefully before others point them out to me.
For such I apologize.
So a better last line would have been:
"that certainly does indicate an ability to read and comprehend."
THERE we go!
As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I find you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.
Last edited by Fisherman : 07-14-2017 at 02:39 AM.
Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.
If you can lead that on, you stand a fair chance of people thinking that I am a fanatic with no ability to judge matters correctly.
Then again, if they read what the two of us argue, you are toast, John.
If you find the risk worth taking, so be it.
Last edited by Fisherman : 07-14-2017 at 02:35 AM.
As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I fond you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.
John G: We I'm certainly not a huge fan of Trevor Marriott, or his suspect for that matter. But yes, I would acknowledge that on occasion I've been as guilty as anyone in using inflammatory language, although overwhelmingly in response to similar language used against me, and even of submitting posts which lack objectivity.
Okay, so whilst you sometimes are justifiedly annoyed and cannot hold back an inflammatory comment, it applies that you are nevertheless the better part in the exchanges you participate in on this score. Is that correct?
Although, that said there's nothing wrong with being passionate about the subject. And yes, I'll acknowledge that your an experienced and knowledgeable poster, and some of your posts are undoubtedly of the highest quality.
Thanks for that. And I will willingly concede that I not some, but many times express myself in a way that is not consistent with well-behaved posting. I loose my patience, quite simply, and just like you, I think that this is to a degree justifiable. For example, I have repeatedly over the last few days been subjected to the statement on my behalf that I think doctors infallible. It is a stupid thing to say, and I absolutely loathe it. And so, when the cup is filled and this crap runs over the brim, I find it VERY hard to keep silent about it, especially since I am convinced that some posters say this not because they think this is my actual position but instead for the sheer hell of it. Thatīs the problem with public boards - you are forced to rub shoulders with people who are not here for reasons of interest and honesty only. In the end, it is never a good thing to loose your temper. I do it in periods nowadays, it seems, and I would rather not. But thatīs more to say that I am likely to regret some things in the future too, and less to say that I will never do it again.
That said, I change my mind all the time on the issues, even in respect of arguments I've previously passionately held, such as Stride and Kelly being definite Ripper victims. The problem, however, is that once you commit yourself totally to a particular suspect you effectively box yourself in, even to the point where you end up defending the almost indefensible.
Pick ONE such thing on my behalf, and I will in the coolest and calmest way possible show you why I (probably) disagree. I do not think I have ever defended almost indefensible matters in favour of the theory I subscribe to, so I am genuinely curious about whether you are speaking about me here.
I think you can be very keen on a suspect and stay inquisitive and reasonably unbiased nevertheless. And I think that arguing the opposite is absolutely disastrous, because it would mean that no suspect that cannot be proven as the killer would be one suggested in a respectable fahsion. They would all be doomed to denial, no questions asked.
Maybe the inherent danger about that approach is not obvious to everybody. It should be, though.