I go to the primary source, instead of just googling.
Can you explain why you consider "Darkness Descending" a "primary source", but not the work of Peter Gill. Remember, Peter gill *invented* the analysis technique used on the knife blade in this case (LCN analysis). Walk me through your reasoning, step-by-step.
When I did my accountancy case studies, I went to meet industry experts personally. When we had a particular industry case study, I went along to good representative of that industry and approached the departmental managers to find out what were their best selling products, I didn't just google 'top 100 products', I did my own research.
While your accountancy case study history is interesting in its own right, I am not sure how that relates to this case. You say you met with industry representatives. I am trying to draw a parallel with this case. Did you meet with the forensic scientists who worked on this case? The prosecution? The defense? The Italian Supreme Court? If not, what you are saying makes little sense. Please expound.
Google King LondonJohn can sneer at the British Library, but it is a fantastic source of primary material. A good education and foundation in real knowledge, beats one-minute wonder trivial pursuiters, who constantly shoot themselves in the foot with their faux corrections and schoolboy howlers.
You said "emptor caveat" instead of "caveat emptor" lol. Then tried to explain it away by saying you were having a casual informal conversation in Latin.
I don't think LondonJohn sneered at the British Library. Link?
In my pyschology degree we were grilled on how important it was to quote sources at every mention of any theory.
Then why don't you ever quote sources here unless asked for it dozens of times? Seems like you like to SAY you "quote sources" but don't actually do it.
So, you see, unlike some, I have no need to resort to ******** and flowery adverbs.
No, you seem to resort to flowery adjectives instead.
As Mark Twain said, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. For all the PR, few people swallow the FOA propaganda, no matter how many times you care to repeat it.
How many guilter nutters that swallowed the prosecution propaganda are still left Vixen? Besides you, I mean. You still think Amanda was a crazed sex demon lol? Yeah, the entirety of forensic science, the Italian Supreme Court, and PIP sure have swallowed the "propaganda". If by "propaganda" you mean, "basic science" that is.
The problem with the misinformation/ disinformation brigade is that they come to believe that, (a) 'If I say a thing , it becomes true'; (Amanda and Raff's motto: Semper mendacibus, and (b) if I keep on saying it, it must be true!
The fact that YOU of all people wrote this may be the most hilarious thing ever. Why do you keep saying "Amanda's DNA was on the knife blade" over and over and over again (as one example of dozens), after you've been provided proof that is not true hundreds of times?
In the last resort, when all rational argument fails, do what Not Even Wrong does and resort to ad hominem, verbal abuse and name calling. NEW doesn't even go through the rational step, but often leaps straight into the logical fallacies.
You are right, when my rational argument fails, when I base my argument on fundamental principles of science and logic, and back it up by citations to peer reviewed papers written by the top men in forensic genetics, and someone responds by saying Peter Gill was paid off by Donald Trump and Richard Branson and Amanda is surely a witch, I may occasionally call that person an idiot or a super nut. You know why? Because people who say that kind of stuff are either a) an idiot, or b) a super nut.
Anyway Vixen, could we continue this discussion in the rational manner that I started this line of questioning with before you started with the nonsensical mudslinging:
Tell me what you mean by "primary source", because I don't think too many rational people would consider "Darkness Descending" or that new Amanda Knox ebook a "primary source". Expound please.
