Author Topic: Emma Morris  (Read 45268 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13160
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #360 on: July 16, 2024, 11:46:AM »
The reason why Bamber inflicted the burn marks goes into 3 camps -

To check for signs of life:

Steve
Jane
Hardy Boy
Scipio
Adam
NGB
Former posters on Blue
Former posters on Red.

Rage/Spite:

ILB

Don't know:

Zoso
Dan

----------

Torture has been ruled out due to time constraints. You can't torture a dead/unconcious person.

Nothing is ruled out.

Unless you are a mind reader.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #361 on: July 16, 2024, 11:53:AM »

I'm inclined to believe there's reason for all things, although such may not always be obvious. But back to you accusing me of reading minds -btw, you have been seen to be telling posters what they're thinking- I don't actually need to. It's all there in front of me, on the screen. The choice of words is a huge indication of the intended meaning.

Now, you may claim there was nothing terse or abrupt in your response to Curiosity, but balanced against your failure to respond to their post directly, that's exactly how it came across. You could have chosen any moment, at all, to politely 'request' that they posted an introduction, but you chose to do it in a way which turned it into a put down. But, as you say, for you, it was logical behaviour. Who am I to dispute that?

Wrong again. You are using your own warped thinking again. I decided/chose not to respond to the post. You chose to put your own spin on my behaviour. It was clear Curiosity was likely a guilt supporter and I wanted to confirm my thinking so I went to the foyer to confirm my suspicion. When no entry was found I sought to confirm my thinking by asking for him/her to introduce themself.

All the time you think you can interpret other peoples behaviour and thought processes by their words and actions when there may well be other perfectly valid reasons. You are the arrogant one who believes their thinking is superior and YOUR interpretation of peoples behaviour is the only truth. That is why your posts are based on YOUR interpretations of other peoples actions. You consistently advance arguments based on  what YOU think is the correct answer to the behaviour of others. You are not a mind reader however much you think you are.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2024, 11:56:AM by Bubo bubo »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #362 on: July 16, 2024, 12:27:PM »
Wrong again. You are using your own warped thinking again. I decided/chose not to respond to the post. You chose to put your own spin on my behaviour. It was clear Curiosity was likely a guilt supporter and I wanted to confirm my thinking so I went to the foyer to confirm my suspicion. When no entry was found I sought to confirm my thinking by asking for him/her to introduce themself.

All the time you think you can interpret other peoples behaviour and thought processes by their words and actions when there may well be other perfectly valid reasons. You are the arrogant one who believes their thinking is superior and YOUR interpretation of peoples behaviour is the only truth. That is why your posts are based on YOUR interpretations of other peoples actions. You consistently advance arguments based on  what YOU think is the correct answer to the behaviour of others. You are not a mind reader however much you think you are.


Whereas as you clearly ARE one! How else is it possible for you to know what I think?

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #363 on: July 16, 2024, 12:44:PM »

Whereas as you clearly ARE one! How else is it possible for you to know what I think?

Because you have set out your argument/thinking for my behaviour without considering other reasons for my actions. You let your base instincts rather than using rational thought processes to guide you towards other possible alternatives. You leapt in without thought to have a 'Dig'. It is plain as a pikestaff.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #364 on: July 16, 2024, 01:42:PM »
Because you have set out your argument/thinking for my behaviour without considering other reasons for my actions. You let your base instincts rather than using rational thought processes to guide you towards other possible alternatives. You leapt in without thought to have a 'Dig'. It is plain as a pikestaff.


You imagine I haven't given thought to other -possible- reasons for your behaviour? That you accuse me of having "leapt in without a thought to have a 'Dig'" referring to it as being my "base instincts" says much about you, but isn't what I do...........unless, of course, the tools are provided......................

................Anyway, I've tired of all this backchat. I imagine, by now, our fellow posters are bored by it. A reasonable course of action would be to put each other on ignore, don't you think?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2024, 01:55:PM by Jane »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #365 on: July 16, 2024, 02:04:PM »
Nothing is ruled out.

Unless you are a mind reader.

I do not know why you have included me in your list.  I have never suggested that Jeremy Bamber caused the burn marks.


Offline Hardy Boy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #366 on: July 16, 2024, 02:06:PM »
I do not know why you have included me in your list.  I have never suggested that Jeremy Bamber caused the burn marks.
I don't think its ILB that has you on the list NGB, it's Adams list?

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #367 on: July 16, 2024, 02:33:PM »

I see you're now giving lectures in how to welcome new members!

This is your original post. If this is not a Put down/Dig I do not know what else it could be. You jumped in.

You followed it up with this.
Arrogant you may be, but I never put you down as being totally stupid. However, if you think I'm going to accept your perfectly polite, yes, I noted the please! response to Curiosity, you're wrong. Because it wasn't, was it? It was a put down, wasn't it? They called you out on a point about a/the rifle. I think the comment was "BS"?  I'm guessing you may not have had any response so you jumped on your high horse and played Mr Superior. Then you had a go at me because I'd noticed it. Enjoy your day!

You then posted this.
I'm inclined to believe there's reason for all things, although such may not always be obvious. But back to you accusing me of reading minds -btw, you have been seen to be telling posters what they're thinking- I don't actually need to. It's all there in front of me, on the screen. The choice of words is a huge indication of the intended meaning.

Now, you may claim there was nothing terse or abrupt in your response to Curiosity, but balanced against your failure to respond to their post directly, that's exactly how it came across. You could have chosen any moment, at all, to politely 'request' that they posted an introduction, but you chose to do it in a way which turned it into a put down. But, as you say, for you, it was logical behaviour. Who am I to dispute that?

Now you were into your normal operation mode. Reading peoples minds just from a one line post. Now you are continuing your psychobabble. How do you know that it was how others would see it. Your basing it purely on your own perceptions. I had no reason to seek this information before. There is no way on Gods earth that my original request was a put down. It was a simple request to which you applied your psychic powers to attribute some ulterior motive without any evidence.

I see you also wish to end this with you having the last word. A trait I have remarked upon in other instances. I do not need to put you on ignore. I have never seen you make a single post that makes a significant contribution to the overall debate and as such I just browse your comments which continue to be based on some unique insight you claim by applying your personal understandings based almost entirely on your special abilities to know other peoples' motives and thinking.

I am happy for others to come to their own conclusions.


« Last Edit: July 16, 2024, 02:43:PM by Bubo bubo »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #368 on: July 16, 2024, 02:59:PM »
I don't think its ILB that has you on the list NGB, it's Adams list?

Yes, I was replying to the Adam post quoted in ILB's post.  I will delete it and reply to the correct one.


Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #369 on: July 16, 2024, 03:00:PM »
The reason why Bamber inflicted the burn marks goes into 3 camps -

To check for signs of life:

Steve
Jane
Hardy Boy
Scipio
Adam
NGB
Former posters on Blue
Former posters on Red.

Rage/Spite:

ILB

Don't know:

Zoso
Dan

----------

Torture has been ruled out due to time constraints. You can't torture a dead/unconcious person.

Why are you including me in your list?  I have never claimed that Jeremy Bamber caused the burns.


Offline Zoso

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #370 on: July 16, 2024, 03:03:PM »
The reason why Bamber inflicted the burn marks goes into 3 camps -

To check for signs of life:

Steve
Jane
Hardy Boy
Scipio
Adam
NGB
Former posters on Blue
Former posters on Red.

Rage/Spite:

ILB

Don't know:

Zoso
Dan

----------

Torture has been ruled out due to time constraints. You can't torture a dead/unconcious person.

If he did make the burn marks - no one 'knows' why. I don't place any significance on them.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13160
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #371 on: July 16, 2024, 03:23:PM »
Why are you including me in your list?  I have never claimed that Jeremy Bamber caused the burns.

He is looking for you to bite.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13160
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #372 on: July 16, 2024, 03:25:PM »
If he did make the burn marks - no one 'knows' why. I don't place any significance on them.

Neither do I I don't get why they are routinely brought up. Neither points to Jeremy or Shelias guilt.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #373 on: July 16, 2024, 03:27:PM »
Why are you including me in your list?  I have never claimed that Jeremy Bamber caused the burns.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3687.msg146567.html#msg146567

You posted in 2012 -

My personal view is that it was in order to check if Nevill was dead.

--------

Appreciate you believe it was Sheila checking for signs of life.

Have amended reply 350.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2024, 03:33:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Zoso

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: Emma Morris
« Reply #374 on: July 16, 2024, 03:52:PM »
Neither do I I don't get why they are routinely brought up. Neither points to Jeremy or Shelias guilt.

Exactly.