You still haven't figured out that it has nothing to do with the patrol man and everything to do with your suggestion that Baker gave the wallet to Rose?
If it has nothing to do with the patrolman, then why do you keep on bringing up the patrolman? I mean, like over and over and over again!
Well, apparently you don't because you have been making the same mistake over and over again. You keep on insisting that if it wasn't Baker who gave the wallet to Rose, it must have been the patrol man. And you couldn't have been more wrong. I never claimed that the patrol man gave the wallet to Rose. I, in fact, accepted that Rose wasn't sure who gave him the wallet.
No. That not what I'm saying, that's what
you wrote. When you wrote, "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman," you created a dilemma between the two, then excluded Baker. Which (again) leaves the patrolman. You may not have intended for it to come out that way, but that's how it came out.
And, I agree that Rose didn't remember who gave him the wallet. That's part of the reason why I find your reasoning here so bizarre. If he doesn't remember who it was, then it doesn't matter if he brought up the patrolman. Or anyone else.
I merely stated that if Rose did get the wallet from Baker (who he knew very well), as you suggested, he would have had no need to even bring up any other possible source for the wallet, which of course includes the patrol man. At some point you argued (I'm paraphrasing) that Rose simply may have forgotten the event, because it was a mundane act that frequently happened. This, of course, makes no sense, because first of all it doesn't happen every day that you get to talk to a man accused of killing the President. But more importantly, you want us to believe that it is plausible that he simply had forgotten that Baker (who he knew well) gave him the wallet, yet at the same remembered the presence of an unknown police man. Really?
Once again, you presume to know what would have been going through Rose's head. But it's simply your own self-serving presumption. I will note that people tend to pay attention to, and remember, the novel while putting the routine and mundane out of mind. Not always, but that is the tendency.
BTW, I said that "Baker might well be your 'unidentified officer.'" That is, I raised the possibility that Baker was Rose's wallet-giver, but did not say that he was. That's a bit different than what you try to insinuate here.
For all I know it was neither Baker or the patrol man who actually gave the wallet to Rose. But that - and you probably will not understand this - was never the subject of our discussion.
I didn't say that it was any particular person. I did raise Baker as a possibility, since Bentley mentioned him. If you think the discussion has gone of track, that might be because you're unable to stay on point. Just sayin'.
Sorry, I can't fix stupid.
We know. we've tried to enlighten you for years now, but you mulishly adhere to the same old stupidities. But we've tried. Oh have we tried.
Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind.
No. That was you;
Uh, no.
You are the person who claimed that Rose
would have remembered Baker. I said that Rose
might not have payed enough attention to the wallet handover to remember who gave it to him, and that your assumption that Rose would have automatically remembered Baker is just an assumption.
And not only that, but you also presumed to know what I was thinking;
I never presumed to know what you are thinking. But I know what you actually wrote.
I'm done with this pointless argumentative BS. I'm sure you'll find somebody else to bore to death.
It's no skin off my back. I can only stomach so much of you making a fool of yourself.
