morf13 wrote:Blagh...Blagh....Blagh... I am surprised at one thing, we both know alot about Quentin Tarantino movies.
Well, you never disappoint, morf...underwhelming as usual.
I know, go recruit your boy rickster to help you out...you can use the handicap...it won't change the result, but it might make it more sporting.
More than a half hour to divine the origin of that quote? From a google maestro and crackajack researcher such as yourself? Simply appalling...."It just won't do...."
- Gavrilo Princip
morf13 wrote:Luckily for me, and i am speaking just for myself, I dont put too much weight in your opinion, but thanks anyway. Some people dig for answers, even if it isnt easy and may not lead anyplace. Some people may not be skilled enough to dig for the truth, and are content to sit back and judge everybody else, sort of a "coach", you know like that old saying, "those who can't play- coach". Or to use another Football phrase, maybe they "like to play Monday morning QB".
You don't dig...you only scratch the surface with your fingernails until you dig up enough ambiguity to allow you to engage in wild speculation. Nevertheless, you call it what you will, the fact of the matter is, all of your theorizing is pointless without ascertaining the underlying facts (for the fourth of fifth time). You're going about this whole process ass-backwards. Bently is concentrating on what he can do with factual matter (i.e. a photo of a partial postage cancellation mark), and for what it's worth, with no other supporting documentation, it's good work. You've dug up some things that are completely ancillary to the central questions:
A) Is the envelope from the Hautz letter?
B) Does "Attn: Editor" appear on the envelope?
Everything you've done here is contingent on the answers to those questions. So, what does a responsible researcher do? They find out the answers to those questions first...without bloating a thread to 40 pages...just FYI, the work you've put into this is almost useless, until those two questions are answered. Large threads do not bolster support for your theory. In fact, your failure to acknowledge this pivotal weakness is more troubling than your failure to remedy it.
morf13 wrote:I think it is clear what category you fall into. Either way, I think it is funny how alot of us think the clues From the Bates case and the Hautz letter merit 40+ pages, but you feel as if you are the authority on what IS and ISNT worth talking about.
What's a lot? Two theorists, one dedicated researcher and Encyclopedia Brown? I'm not the authority...common sense is the authority.
morf13 wrote:Again, you have the right to your own opinion, but so do we. So if you think it is worthless, why spend your valuable time on this thread?
You are entitled to your opinion, and so far, following your opinion has led you nowhere. So why not take a different tack? Get the facts first, and then start spewing your thoughts later? Just a thought...I mean, as opposed to going off half-cocked without knowing anything.
Also, I don't know why anyone would brown-nose me, I have absolutely no authority here.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest