The Bus Stop Farce

[Charles Collins]

And there you go.... arguing for argument's sake.

When you start out with something that's arbitrary everything that follows is by definition arbitrary.

I've already proven beyond any doubt that the time stamps on the DPD recording do not justify the conclusion that Tippit was killed at 1.14. So, either the 1.17 and 1.18 time stamps for the calls by Bowles and Callaway (both men made calls roughly within 2 minutes after the shots and not 4) are wrong or Myers is pathetically bad at mathematics.

However, there is no way that his decision to use 12:29 is arbitrary.

You can take that up with Dale Myers. He seems to disagree with you.

And if either one of you had any integrity whatsoever, you would admit that you are wrong and accept Bowles report and Dale Myers’ words for what they are.

You really mean we should take your version of what Bowles and Myers said for what it is, don't you?

But you just keep on believing the fairytale.

When you start out with something that's arbitrary everything that follows is by definition arbitrary.

1. Dale Myers is the one that used the word arbitrary (not Bowles).

2. In Dale Myers’ sentence, the adjective arbitrary immediately precedes the words zero base. Which in proper English grammar means he is describing zero base (not “real” time, or anything else).

3. Bowles selected the beginning of the open-mike transmission to be his zero base. Personally, I don’t think this is arbitrary because Bowles never said that it was arbitrary, and because it is the beginning of the continuous recording and therefore it makes a logical choice. So, in my opinion, Dale Myers chose the wrong word. However, Bowles could have selected another point in the continuous recording to be his zero base and been just as accurate. The zero base time is is a point of reference.

4. The decision to use 12:29 as a “real” time assumption for the start of the open-mike transmission was not arbitrary. Neither Bowles or Myers says anything like that. The both say that it was derived. You can argue that his method of deriving that time is flawed or inaccurate. But to deem it as being arbitrary is simply wrong.


You really mean we should take your version of what Bowles and Myers said for what it is, don't you?

No, simply apply proper English grammar to their words as I explained above.

[Martin Weidmann]

You brought it up; I offered my condolences.
You disrespected that. Tell us who made this an issue.

Are you sure you're honouring your wife's memory here today?

You started your reply with 'BS'.
I'll take that as meaning my entire post.

'You're a class act' is obviously meant as sarcasm in this context. (Let me change that to a 'real' class act so the sarcasm might be made clear to any mentally-challenged posters here). What the hell happened to your self-proclaimed 'superior education'?

And you are doing what you just accused Charles Collins of doing: Arguing for the sake of argument.

--------------------------------------------------

You lot break up things into far too many pieces
Then break up those pieces into evermore tiny pieces

Inspired by Vincent Bugliosi's 'split the split hairs'

You disrespected that.

I disrespected nothing. I only responded to the rest of your post in which you tried to justify bringing a poster's family into it.
That was BS.

I'll take that as meaning my entire post.

So based on a wrong assumption you decided to make an issue out if it. Wow!

Are you sure you're honouring your wife's memory here today?

You clearly have never met her. She never had the time of day for disingenuous people. I'm done with this pathetic conversation.

[Charles Collins]

Here is an example of using a zero reference point that will hopefully help clear up any confusion:

An architect is drawing up a set of plans for a multistory building with an underground parking deck below the building. He needs to draw some elevation views to show the distances between floors, ceiling heights, window sill heights, etc. And he needs a reference point (zero point) that he can calculate the various elevation distances from. Lets say he selects the main (ground) floor as his reference point. He can designate the finished ground floor as zero and show the elevations of the other items as a distance from his zero reference point. In this case the underground items would have a negative number for their elevations.

However, he could have selected, for example, the floor of the lowest level of the underground parking deck to be his zero reference point, designated the distances to the other items accordingly, and still ended up with, for practical purposes, the same resulting building. Provided of course that the builder followed the plans properly.

So, in a sense, the selection of what to use for the zero reference point is arbitrary. And I believe that that is what Dale Meyers is trying to say in that sentence.

[Bill Chapman]

You disrespected that.

I disrespected nothing. I only responded to the rest of your post in which you tried to justify bringing a poster's family into it.
That was BS.

I'll take that as meaning my entire post.

So based on a wrong assumption you decided to make an issue out if it. Wow!

Are you sure you're honouring your wife's memory here today?

You clearly have never met her. She never had the time of day for disingenuous people. I'm done with this pathetic conversation.

Exactly. I have never met her. That, in effect, leaves me off any potential list of people who might be contacted upon news of her passing. Again, tell me how I would have known that she had she had passed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here is an example of using a zero reference point that will hopefully help clear up any confusion:

An architect is drawing up a set of plans for a multistory building with an underground parking deck below the building. He needs to draw some elevation views to show the distances between floors, ceiling heights, window sill heights, etc. And he needs a reference point (zero point) that he can calculate the various elevation distances from. Lets say he selects the main (ground) floor as his reference point. He can designate the finished ground floor as zero and show the elevations of the other items as a distance from his zero reference point. In this case the underground items would have a negative number for their elevations.

However, he could have selected, for example, the floor of the lowest level of the underground parking deck to be his zero reference point, designated the distances to the other items accordingly, and still ended up with, for practical purposes, the same resulting building. Provided of course that the builder followed the plans properly.

So, in a sense, the selection of what to use for the zero reference point is arbitrary. And I believe that that is what Dale Meyers is trying to say in that sentence.

And on and on and on he goes.... Trying to "win" an argument by wearing everybody else down.

And now you can spend another 5 posts explaining why you are not trying to wear everybody down....

In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.

[Martin Weidmann]

Exactly. I have never met her. That, in effect, leaves me off any potential list of people who might be contacted upon news of her passing. Again, tell me how I would have known she had passed.

You couldn't have known. You couldn't even have known that I had a wife. But that's not the point.

When you start talking about a poster's family, without knowing anything about them, you always run the risk of saying something wrong. Better not go there.....That's the point I was making.

[Bill Chapman]

You couldn't have known. You couldn't even have known that I had a wife. But that's not the point.

When you start talking about a poster's family, without knowing anything about them, you always run the risk of saying something wrong. Better not go there.....That's the point I was making.

And that can be easily corrected by offering condolences, with the other person graciously accepting.

[Martin Weidmann]

And that can be easily corrected by offering condolences, with the other person graciously accepting.

Or it could have been prevented by simply not doing it. And here I end this "discussion". Feel free to have the last word