Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

I wrote this:

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

and you responded with this:

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have said.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well Mitch, at least Martin isn't confusing "information" with "identification" anymore and I say that's progress.

JohnM

The troll is still here....

His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.

[John Mytton]

The troll is still here....

His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.

The troll is still here....

Yep, and I'm not going anywhere!

His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.

I was being positive about the progress you are making, why is that a problem?

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone, but do carry on.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yep, and I'm not going anywhere!

I was being positive about the progress you are making, why is that a problem?

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone, but do carry on.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

JohnM

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone

The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you. As most of those contain some sort of provocation, it's hardly surprising that I reply to them to point out your lies, misrepresentations and stupidity.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

No, I meant troublesome. You've been tiresome for a long time now.

[John Mytton]

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone

The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

No, I meant troublesome. You've been tiresome for a long time now.

The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you.

Huh? that doesn't even make sense and is illogical, we have never been talking about the number of posts made in the last week but the amount of direct replies to my posts, and it's on record that you have made many more posts(about ten), replying to me than I have made in replying to you, thus if anything you are more obsessed with me than I am with you, and that's a fact Jack! LMFAO!
But do try again.

No, I meant troublesome.

I humbly apologise that my posts pointing out the flaws in your arguments are causing you trouble.

EDIT, I notice you modified your post to add a string of insults, again proving my point, "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you"

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh? that doesn't even make sense and is illogical, we have never been talking about the number of posts made in the last week but the amount of direct replies to my posts, and it's on record that you have made many more posts(about ten), replying to me than I have made in replying to you, thus if anything you are more obsessed with me than I am with you, and that's a fact Jack! LMFAO!
But do try again.

I humbly apologise that my posts pointing out the flaws in your arguments are causing you trouble.

EDIT, I notice you modified your post to add a string of insults, again proving my point, "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you"

JohnM

When you have anything of significance or interest to say let me know.

[Mitch Todd]

It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have said.

I understand what "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman" means. Especially in the context of what you were trying to argue. Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

[Martin Weidmann]

I understand what "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman" means. Especially in the context of what you were trying to argue. Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

If you need to make up what I "thought" you've already lost my interest.