PEN PAL FROM HELL Jeremy Bamber sent me hundreds of twisted letters from prison

[lookout]

Oh so I’m called a dirty little pervert for asking why a child killer would refer to a said poster as Naughty, nothing sexual, yet you are implying more went on and get away with it?  Is it because I’m of different gender?

Did I say that ? No I didn't so stop inferring something that isn't there !!

[lookout]

What's the matter with you men ? Besides waiting for an opportunity to cause trouble. Grow up !! Get a brain.

[guest7363]

What's the matter with you men ? Besides waiting for an opportunity to cause trouble. Grow up !! Get a brain.

Well what do you mean no smoke without fire?

used for saying that if something bad is being said about someone, or if something seems bad, then there is probably a good reason for it

[JackieD]

    So you have no idea and cannot explain the contradictions in CAL's accounts?
     If you had understood Chomsky, then you would need to explain to yourself, not the likes of me, how it is that two contradictory statements can both be true. They can't, obviously. If you truly had any grasp of linguistics then you would need to clarify this. Whatever your opinion on the likes of me  , there are contradictions that need explaining. You ask no questions and have no explanation.
    This is an intellectually dishonest position that any student of Chomsky and language/linguistics would pick apart. It shows a looseness with language that immediately raises questions or should. Why such vague generalisations instead of accurate numbers? There is no reason other than the shaping of a narrative. Deceptive and unclear/ambiguous language is an obvious tell to anyone with any understanding of the techniques employed.
    You can't, and don't attempt to explain the contradictions. Whether or not you agree that CAL is wholly unreliable is neither here nor there. Her own contradictory claims demonstrate this.
   
 
   

On point Gringo

I love the way you go into detail to explain

Much appreciated

[lookout]

Well what do you mean no smoke without fire?

used for saying that if something bad is being said about someone, or if something seems bad, then there is probably a good reason for it

Why does it always have to be something bad in your eyes ? Why does it always have to be a crime just because it involves JB ? What exactly are you trying to say ?

No smoke without fire can mean anything.

[guest7363]

Why does it always have to be something bad in your eyes ? Why does it always have to be a crime just because it involves JB ? What exactly are you trying to say ?

No smoke without fire can mean anything.

Oh right, I didn’t know that 👍

[lookout]

Oh right, I didn’t know that 👍

If there are kisses at the bottom of the letter then voice your objections,. simple as that. Strangers don't include kisses , or shouldn't do, in correspondence.

But don't go crying " pervert " if you don't do/ say something about it.

[David1819]

    So you have no idea and cannot explain the contradictions in CAL's accounts?
     If you had understood Chomsky, then you would need to explain to yourself, not the likes of me, how it is that two contradictory statements can both be true. They can't, obviously. If you truly had any grasp of linguistics then you would need to clarify this. Whatever your opinion on the likes of me  , there are contradictions that need explaining. You ask no questions and have no explanation.
    This is an intellectually dishonest position that any student of Chomsky and language/linguistics would pick apart. It shows a looseness with language that immediately raises questions or should. Why such vague generalisations instead of accurate numbers? There is no reason other than the shaping of a narrative. Deceptive and unclear/ambiguous language is an obvious tell to anyone with any understanding of the techniques employed.
    You can't, and don't attempt to explain the contradictions. Whether or not you agree that CAL is wholly unreliable is neither here nor there. Her own contradictory claims demonstrate this.
   
 

I think she knows the only explanation for this (like everyone else) but is not going to publicly acknowledge it. Best pretend there is an alternative answer and give excuses for not explaining it.

[guest7363]

If there are kisses at the bottom of the letter then voice your objections,. simple as that. Strangers don't include kisses , or shouldn't do, in correspondence.

But don't go crying " pervert " if you don't do/ say something about it.

Oh but there are kisses at the bottom 👍

[Caroline]

    So you have no idea and cannot explain the contradictions in CAL's accounts?
     If you had understood Chomsky, then you would need to explain to yourself, not the likes of me, how it is that two contradictory statements can both be true. They can't, obviously. If you truly had any grasp of linguistics then you would need to clarify this. Whatever your opinion on the likes of me  , there are contradictions that need explaining. You ask no questions and have no explanation.
    This is an intellectually dishonest position that any student of Chomsky and language/linguistics would pick apart. It shows a looseness with language that immediately raises questions or should. Why such vague generalisations instead of accurate numbers? There is no reason other than the shaping of a narrative. Deceptive and unclear/ambiguous language is an obvious tell to anyone with any understanding of the techniques employed.
    You can't, and don't attempt to explain the contradictions. Whether or not you agree that CAL is wholly unreliable is neither here nor there. Her own contradictory claims demonstrate this.
   
 
   

I very much doubt  Chomsky would be proud that his name had been used to hound and denigrate. I think he'd be ashamed of someone like you and anyone that would support you.

[Caroline]

I think she knows the only explanation for this (like everyone else) but is not going to publicly acknowledge it. Best pretend there is an alternative answer and give excuses for not explaining it.

Another one applying the Emperor's new clothes approach - change the record David you're boring and predictable and NO! I believe CAL - simple! When you're able to produce an argument that you haven't stolen from someone else - you might finally grow up - DUDE! ( )

[lookout]

Oh but there are kisses at the bottom 👍

Well there you are----so no objection was raised then. Why the fuss and palava ?

[David1819]

Another one applying the Emperor's new clothes approach - change the record David you're boring and predictable and NO! I believe CAL - simple! When you're able to produce an argument that you haven't stolen from someone else - you might finally grow up - DUDE! ( )

Do you believe CAL when she said "dozens" or do you believe CAL when she said "hundreds"?

PS: hope you have a fire extinguisher handy. Your projector is seriously overheating dudette.

[JackieD]

Another one applying the Emperor's new clothes approach - change the record David you're boring and predictable and NO! I believe CAL - simple! When you're able to produce an argument that you haven't stolen from someone else - you might finally grow up - DUDE! ( )

It has been well established that CAL is happy to endorse lies to sell books

There are no such letters and you will never be able to supply ‘twisted’ letters from JB

He was obviously not the slightest bit bothered by you changing your stance by calling you naughty

[sami]

Do you believe CAL when she said "dozens" or do you believe CAL when she said "hundreds"?

PS: hope you have a fire extinguisher handy. Your projector is seriously overheating dudette.

your full of shit ,wheres the breakthrough evidence plonker