I am through with this for some time - I can stand only so much crap over a period of time, and so I´m off.
This post will be my last for some time. Here is the material you ask for.
This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.)
This post arrived after I had explained carefully that there were Eastenders who disliked the police and distrusted them. There was talk of a hatred of the police here. So I grew somewhat tired and posted this in response:
In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.
To which you responded :
And now, in your utter desperation, you are seeking to claim that all Eastenders were such heartless, uncaring b%^**@*s, that they wouldn’t have informed a police officer.
So this is it - I point out that the East End was not police-friendly, and that we could not work from an assumption that any Eastender would "doubtlessly" contact the police, whereupon you said that I was seeking to claim that all Eaastenders were so heartless and uncaring that they would not have contacted the police.
An important factual marker was thus turned into a lie about me that painted me out as totally inept to make a fair and balanced call.
This incidentally came two pages after where you had said "Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'".
As if I had ever said anything at all even remotely like that. Which I of course had not.
So I answered you:
So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.
You need to stop now, it´s running over the brim.
Maybe you can now see what I mean? Regardless of how perceptive you are in that area, I wish you the fairest of luck with your efforts out here in the future.
Me, I will do something else for a while.
As you have decided to omit the part of my post where I accepted the possibilty that Paul might not have suggested going for a police officer (I also even accepted that Paul might have just walked on) I think it’s only fair that I mention it yet again to show that I was presenting an unbiased view of all options.
Quibbling is just pointless.
I used the word ‘undoubtedly’ which was perhaps too strong a word. ‘Overwhelmingly likely’ would probably have been a better choice.
I think that I did nothing wrong in interpreting your use of the phrase ‘copper hating East End’ as an attempt to strengthen the likelihood of there being no police involvement.
This is nitpicking as a distraction.
If I listed all the times that you had misrepresented me and others I would have little time for anything else. I could also add of course “how many times have I called you ignorant or stupid?” You can search the posts as much as you like Fish. But you will find occasions when you have used those inappropriate terms about me.
You persist in climbing onto that high horse. And, as ever, when things are getting tough in Lechmere Land and Steve is undoubtedly beating you in a debate on the Mizen testimony thread you are ‘off’ again. It is transparently you who continue to make these debates personal. I have even, a few days ago, been complimentary about you and your knowledge and yet you still have the same condescending and irate attitude toward me.
I can’t see things changing no matter how much I hope that they will.
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"