Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
You're quoting from PMF? Well, you're best off posting your protests to Michael, who wrote the post. But, I can see the logic in his post...logic is my language.

Why? take a mixing bowl...add cake mix...and then some wine. Stir it up. Put some of that cake mix on various places and test it. My guess is, the test will reveal each time, cake mix and wine.

That's what we got from Rudy when he touched the handbag...yet, with the light switch and door handle we not so much got a different set of ingredients, but also a cake mix with ingredients absent. That clearly indicates they came from a different bowl...and a different cake.
Click to expand...

Cake mix and wine? Are you kidding me?

Does your DNA mix with everything you touch like cake mix and wine?

Wow! Why am I even talking to you?

It's funny, you have admitted several times that you run PMF on this forum. Now you are not Michael? Do you have any credibility at all?

Cake mix and wine! I love it!
 
Fiona said:
Oh I am not so sure it was me who was irritated, really. I find I tend not to laugh so much when I am irritated ;)
Click to expand...

I know you only ask the questions because you like to try and irritate others. It doesn't work with me but it sure is an excellent quality to have. You should be proud of yourself.

Do you ever mix cake mix and wine? I am just curious.
 
Fulcanelli,

One more question, When I state that I think Rudy went into the bathroom and then back into Meredith's room, You jump up out of your bean bag chair and proclaim that the shoe prints went right out the front door!

Then you explain that Rudy left Meredith's room to go to the bathroom and get towels.

How could this be? As we all know from your rants, those shoe prints went right out the front door!

Cake mix and wine! Thank you!
 
No, Bruce Fisher, I don't. I ask questions for two main reasons. One is to get information. Sometimes I ask them to make a point. It is not a very unusual thing to do. It is occasionally effective in getting someone to examine their position.
 
Fiona said:
No, Bruce Fisher, I don't. I ask questions for two main reasons. One is to get information. Sometimes I ask them to make a point. It is not a very unusual thing to do. It is occasionally effective in getting someone to examine their position.
Click to expand...

So why do you care if I ask Fulcanelli questions about comments that he made on another board?
 
Because you seem to object to cherry picking, and because I do not think it is honest or courteous to quote part of something out of context without linking to the source, nor giving any indication that what you quote is not the whole thing. I think that is a fairly basic. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
Because you seem to object to cherry picking, and because I do not think it is honest to quote part of something out of context without linking to the source. I think that is a fairly basic. YMMV
Click to expand...

I will post the entire comment if you like. You have already read it. You have the source.

Michael contradicts himself with his theory. He claims that Rudy left Meredith's room and went to the bathroom. Then he went back into Meredith's room.

When I make the same claim he shouts about the shoe prints leading out the door.

I honestly hope you don't buy the cake mix and wine example. It is complete nonsense.

If you dip your hand in blood and make 10 hand prints on a wall. When those prints are tested, it is very likely that your DNA may or may not be detected in each print. Your DNA may be found in some and not others.

DNA has little to do with cake mix and wine!
 
I do not care if you post the whole exchange or if you do not, Bruce Fisher. My objection to what you did is not related to whether Michael is right or wrong: or to whether you agree with his argument or not. My objection is to the fact that not everyone would know that your quote was partial: and you gave no indication that it was. It seems to me that that is discourteous and misleading at best. It is a reasonable assumption that if there is no hint that the quote is partial; nor that it comes from somewhere other than this thread; then neither of those things will be true. You might like to think about "implicature".
 
Fiona said:
I do not care if you post the whole exchange or if you do not, Bruce Fisher. My objection to what you did is not related to whether Michael is right or wrong: or to whether you agree with his argument or not. My objection is to the fact that not everyone would know that your quote was partial: and you gave no indication that it was. It seems to me that that is discourteous and misleading at best. It is a reasonable assumption that if there is no hint that the quote is partial; nor that it comes from somewhere other than this thread; then neither of those things will be true. You might like to think about "implicature".
Click to expand...

How can we take this seriously or listen to your arguments when you broke up one of the greatest rock bands of all time?
 
Fiona said:
Is this the "spot the fallacy" interlude? :D
Click to expand...

All I know is, we'd have had at least two albums after Abbey Road were it not for you. Just when George Harrison was becoming on par with John and Paul too. So not only did you break up the band, you ruined Harrison's legacy as well. What else do you plan to spoil!?
 
Oy, levity! How dare you? :p;)
I'm getting the impression this is actually getting nowhere and I'd be better off waiting for the appeal. Maybe that will actually present something new.
 
I am very sorry to hear that that is all you know, HumanityBlues. If you say that it is I must believe you. But all is not lost because with just a little effort you could probably learn something new. Maybe you could start with "staying on topic for beginners"?
 
LondonJohn said:
I agree, which is why it's not the focus of my argument. My focus is that I believe the police might have deliberately kept Knox under "witness" status so as to avoid the need for recording equipment to come into the frame (or, for that matter, access to an attorney).
Click to expand...

And I'm not disagreeing with you on your assessment, only pointing out that it's a long way to go from there to assertions of premeditated malice or destruction/hiding of evidence.





So now that we're in basic agreement, what do we do? Tradition in this thread suggests that we bicker over something trivial for three or four more pages.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Who says the cleanup was happening when she came back in the morning?...QUOTE]

I've seen several people suggesting it. The Perugia Murder Files' "moderator" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) comes to mind.

The notion is part of the "smoking mop" theory preached at the anti-Knox websites.
Click to expand...
 
Fiona said:
I am very sorry to hear that that is all you know, HumanityBlues. If you say that it is I must believe you. But all is not lost because with just a little effort you could probably learn something new. Maybe you could start with "staying on topic for beginners"?
Click to expand...

Nice deflection!;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom