A New Approach

[lookout]

How can books,in this case particularly,provide relevant sources when everything is by word of mouth ??

[Adam]

Difference being I actually paste the relevant parts of the book verbatim and CAL lists all her sources. You on the other hand type out a scewed interpretation of the book and don't show Wilkes sources.

So you believe quoting a book is only acceptable if you copy the page number. Not surprising considering you use you're own diagrams as sources.

I give the book page number & then post the extract of the book. Word for word.

As several other posters have the book, from both sides, there is no way I could misquote the book.

[lookout]

Some of those authors haven't even met Jeremy ? It's one thing discussing a stranger online but it's another when you start writing about them in a book !!

[Adam]

Some of those authors haven't even met Jeremy ? It's one thing discussing a stranger online but it's another when you start writing about them in a book !!

Wilkes met Bamber.

[lookout]

Wilkes met Bamber.

Oh well,he'll have to write another one to excuse anything he's written which is out of place. Same goes for the others,both his and CAL's are biased towards guilt,aren't they ?

[Caroline]

Those are textbooks.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textbook

You didn't distinguish between any kind of books and you have quoted other books. Difference is, when you do it it's OK - in your mind. Many times you have posted part of an article with no reference to where it's from and when tracked down, it's evident that you have been selective.

Fact is books are relevant sources, it's doesn't mean that what is written there is 100% factual, but that is for others to decide. Just as information in text books is also open to debate, for every significant result in a piece of scientific research, there is usually a counter piece of research which is also compelling.

[Caroline]

Oh well,he'll have to write another one to excuse anything he's written which is out of place. Same goes for the others,both his and CAL's are biased towards guilt,aren't they ?

I wouldn't say either one is biased towards guilt. They are simply matter of fact.

[Adam]

Oh well,he'll have to write another one to excuse anything he's written which is out of place. Same goes for the others,both his and CAL's are biased towards guilt,aren't they ?

Why don't you read them ?

[Caroline]

Difference being I actually paste the relevant parts of the book verbatim and CAL lists all her sources. You on the other hand type out a scewed interpretation of the book and don't show Wilkes sources.

No! Difference is, you insinuated that books weren't relevant sources and yet you admit here to using them yourself. 

[lookout]

So if something isn't 100% fact and it's left to the reader to decide,there is BOUND to be conflicting views.
This is exactly what this case is made up of,so each dividing side in their argument doesn't make it any less feasible to whichever side you're on. In other words what each one of us debates about shouldn't be seen as " wrong " in our personal views.

[Caroline]

So if something isn't 100% fact and it's left to the reader to decide,there is BOUND to be conflicting views.
This is exactly what this case is made up of,so each dividing side in their argument doesn't make it any less feasible to whichever side you're on. In other words what each one of us debates about shouldn't be seen as " wrong " in our personal views.

No, there are facts in the case, things that are open to interpretation and absolute myths. If you promote the myths or things that are simply without  foundation and claim they are true, then that is wrong. None of the books do that BUT people here have done.

[lookout]

No, there are facts in the case, things that are open to interpretation and absolute myths. If you promote the myths or things that are simply without  foundation and claim they are true, then that is wrong. None of the books do that BUT people here have done.

Well I'm glad to hear that books are never judged on face value.

[David1819]

So you believe quoting a book is only acceptable if you copy the page number. Not surprising considering you use you're own diagrams as sources.

I give the book page number & then post the extract of the book. Word for word.

As several other posters have the book, from both sides, there is no way I could misquote the book.

No I believe quoting a book is only acceptable if the author provides a verifiable and credible source. Much of CALs sources can be found on this forum and can be checked.

[Caroline]

No I believe quoting a book is only acceptable if the author provides a verifiable and credible source. Much of CALs sources can be found on this forum and can be checked.

Well, you don't make the rules and Wilkes's book has been acceptable long before you arrived and the information in it can be easily checked out.

[David1819]

No! Difference is, you insinuated that books weren't relevant sources and yet you admit here to using them yourself. 

A book is only as credible as the sources it provides.