Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on July 30, 2020, 12:26:AM
-
I'm curious about the image below. I believe it is a photograph of D.I. Cook. It looks like it is taken at a crime scene somewhere.
Is it at White House Farm? If so, I'm just wondering why he, or any other police officer, would be photographed at this or any crime scene? It seems like a curious thing. Are the police in the habit of photographing themselves when at work?
Who took the photograph and why and with what equipment, and on whose authorisation? Did that person provide a statement of truth?
What exactly is Ron Cook doing in the photograph? What is he looking at or for? Why would he be looking out of that particular window? Why is it of interest to him? Or is he walking through a door and just stooping?
Is the photograph a close-up of a larger image? If so, if we were to look at the fuller image, would we see Ron Cook wandering around a sensitive crime scene without wearing gloves? Is Ron Cook holding something? If so, what?
Were other similar photographs taken of Ron Cook and other police officers at the scene? If so, where are these photographs?
Are such photographs situated in the forensic files and if so, what is the name of that file or album and has it been disclosed?
-
Why do you think it is RC?
Where is it from?
-
Why do you think it is RC?
Where is it from?
Good questions, but I'm reasonably sure it's Ronald Cook. The photograph is circulated around quite a lot and it's referred to as him and it resembles him when you compare it to other photographs that are officially supposed to be him. Now I think about it, I believe the man had a slight stoop and you can see it in the picture above.
As for where it's from, that's partly the point of the thread. For research purposes, I have a copy of Murder Casebook 7 and the above picture is in it on page 223, and there is a short italised comment above it confirming it's Ronald Cook.
The description states:
"Detective Inspector Ronald Cook (below) was the scene-of-crime office at White House Farm. His forensic tests were widely criticized [sic], but misleading clues had been laid."
The photograph is black and white, like this one, and has the same focal point (assuming it's a close-up of a larger image, which I suspect it must be). It's credited to the Anglia Press Agency.
My questions still stand. I suspect the photographer was somebody from the local press, but I'd be interested to know. The significance of it is fairly obvious.
-
I'm not sure I follow.
Let's say it is RC, what are you actually asking, Are you asking where it was taken, thinking it may be WHF?
-
I'm not sure I follow.
Let's say it is RC, what are you actually asking, Are you asking where it was taken, thinking it may be WHF?
My questions are in plain English in the opening post. Not sure what else I'm supposed to explain to you?
-
Oh okay.
It doesn't seem very concise, lots of words, I was just after the bullet points.
-
Oh okay.
It doesn't seem very concise, lots of words, I was just after the bullet points.
My post is concise.
Concise =/ = Short
Buy a dictionary.
Also, I don't post here to your order, Hartley.
I've seen your posting history. I know what your agenda here is. If you plan to disrupt this thread, my advice is don't even think about it. I'll dissect you.
-
I presume most of the questions are rhetoric?
-
I presume most of the questions are rhetoric?
No, Hartley, they're not.
Can I recommend that before you continue to post, that you seek assistance with your English comprehension?
Or perhaps just ignore my posts if they're above your intellectual level?
Thank you, Hartley.
-
Sorry I don't understand.
-
Sorry I don't understand.
I know.
-
So what do you think about the image you posted?
Lots of questions, what are your thoughts on it?
-
I know.
Sorry, I'm not that bright. :-[
-
Sorry, I'm not that bright. :-[
I took it to mean you were being facetious with me, that's why I reacted as above. I'm used to it now, so I jump to that conclusion.
What I'm getting at is:
(i). It seems odd (at least to me) that a police officer is photographed at a crime scene. (I realise that they can be photographed incidentally, but why would he be photographed in that way?).
(ii). Let's say it's a press photographer who has done it. Then who was it and what other photographs did he take? And where are those photographs?
(iii). If it was a police officer who took it, then why? And similar questions: who and where?
(iv). Did this person take pictures inside the farmhouse?
(v). Is the photo above of Ron Cook part of a larger photo, and if so, where is it and what does it show him doing?
I've now ended up giving you another list of questions, so we're going round in circles, but I'm not sure how else to explain. I'm not saying this is very important, but it just interests me and it could be important if there are photos somewhere that haven't been looked at. There could be a whole album of them.
-
It doesn't look like WHF, I'm not even sure if it is Ron Cook.
I understand that there are several photographs of police officers at White House Farm, posing and acting in a somewhat unprofessional manner. Although I wouldn't say that this image fits that bill.
I'm more interested in the reason for the question.
-
It doesn't look like WHF, I'm not even sure if it is Ron Cook.
I understand that there are several photographs of police officers at White House Farm, posing and acting in a somewhat unprofessional manner. Although I wouldn't say that this image fits that bill.
I'm more interested in the reason for the question.
It is Ron Cook.
-
I took it to mean you were being facetious with me, that's why I reacted as above. I'm used to it now, so I jump to that conclusion.
What I'm getting at is:
(i). It seems odd (at least to me) that a police officer is photographed at a crime scene. (I realise that they can be photographed incidentally, but why would he be photographed in that way?).
(ii). Let's say it's a press photographer who has done it. Then who was it and what other photographs did he take? And where are those photographs?
(iii). If it was a police officer who took it, then why? And similar questions: who and where?
(iv). Did this person take pictures inside the farmhouse?
(v). Is the photo above of Ron Cook part of a larger photo, and if so, where is it and what does it show him doing?
I've now ended up giving you another list of questions, so we're going round in circles, but I'm not sure how else to explain. I'm not saying this is very important, but it just interests me and it could be important if there are photos somewhere that haven't been looked at. There could be a whole album of them.
Okay, we crossed posts, so it sounds like you are suggesting that there are additional images which have been withheld or hidden.
Is that what you are asking?
-
Okay, we crossed posts, so it sounds like you are suggesting that there are additional images which have been withheld or hidden.
Is that what you are asking?
Well I'm not necessarily implying or suggesting anything Hartley. I'm just asking questions.
But yes, one possibility is that there are more photographs somewhere, maybe in private hands. It doesn't mean they've been hidden or withheld intentionally or deliberately, it could quite plausibly be that they've just never been looked at. I really don't know. There could be negatives that were never developed, there could be photos somewhere that at the time didn't seem very significant and were forgotten about, etc., etc., etc., etc., and so on.
-
Okay, we crossed posts, so it sounds like you are suggesting that there are additional images which have been withheld or hidden.
Is that what you are asking?
Are you familiar with the case? Are you aware of who took the crime scene photographs?
Bird.
As it happens, there have been many conspiracies over witheld photographs over the years. Cut negatives and all sorts of shenanigans.
-
Well I'm not necessarily implying or suggesting anything Hartley. I'm just asking questions.
But yes, one possibility is that there are more photographs somewhere, maybe in private hands. It doesn't mean they've been hidden or withheld intentionally or deliberately, it could quite plausibly be that they've just never been looked at. I really don't know. There could be negatives that were never developed, there could be photos somewhere that at the time didn't seem very significant and were forgotten about, etc., etc., etc., etc., and so on.
Hence my rhetoric comment, you're asking questions which can't be answered, there's no evidence to even warrant the question.
-
Are you familiar with the case? Are you aware of who took the crime scene photographs?
Bird.
As it happens, there have been many conspiracies over witheld photographs over the years. Cut negatives and all sorts of shenanigans.
Indeed, I am familiar with the case, and it seems I'm more familiar with the case than you are because I know that Bird was not the only one who took photos. It seems you're not aware of this basic fact, despite posting on here thousands of times over many years under multiple identities.
Apart from anything else, the above photo is proof that not just Bird was there taking photos - a point you conveniently overlook. Moreover, it's canon that other police officers took photos.
-
Hence my rhetoric comment, you're asking questions which can't be answered, there's no evidence to even warrant the question.
There is evidence to warrant the question, I've produced it above! You're just too biased to engage in thinking.
-
There is evidence to warrant the question, I've produced it above! You're just too biased to engage in thinking.
You're just here to pull our plonkers. If that's your game, then I'll start pulling yours - and it'll hurt.
I really don't know what to say to that one. Hands off perhaps.
-
I really don't know what to say to that one. Hands off perhaps.
What you should do is go away and bother somebody else. Do something more constructive with your sad life, Hartley.
If you continue to disrupt this thread, I'll just involve the moderators or start another thread, or ultimately I'll just stop posting and pursue my inquiries in a more direct fashion - which won't be good news for the people you are trying to protect.
I'm a very determined person.
-
What you should do is go away and bother somebody else. Do something more constructive with your sad life, Hartley.
If you continue to disrupt this thread, I'll just involve the moderators or start another thread, or ultimately I'll just stop posting and pursue my inquiries in a more direct fashion - which won't be good news for the people you are trying to protect.
I'm a very determined person.
What a strange world we live in.
-
What a strange world we live in.
It is indeed a strange world when somebody can post thousands of times to this forum over years and years under multiple identities and yet he doesn't even know basic facts about the case. But then, bias does call brain damage.
What people like you don't understand Hartley, because you're thick, is that you're harming your own case. If it wasn't for people like you and Steve, I'd probably just think, 'Oh, Jeremy is guilty, it's simple'. But as soon as people dare to think or ask questions, people like you come on here trying to stir up trouble and that makes me question why you're doing that. Are you hiding something? It's just a natural question to ask.
It's ironic that pro-guilt people in this case have got themselves so wound up with it all, that they defeat their own cause.
Another irony of this is that I'm not even saying Jeremy is innocent. I'm not even in his camp. All I'm doing is asking questions. What's your issue with that Hartley?
If you and Steve had two brains cells to rub together, you'd just ignore people like me. Instead, you spend a large part of your time - in Steve's case, until recently, pretty much all his time - coming on here picking fights with people.
Jeremy Bamber runs your life, Hartley. Your life is based around Jeremy Bamber. That means Jeremy Bamber has won.
I find that really, really sad.
-
What people like you don't understand Hartley, because you're thick, is that you're harming your own case. If it wasn't for people like you and Steve, I'd probably just think, 'Oh, Jeremy is guilty, it's simple'. But as soon as people dare to think or ask questions, people like you come on here trying to stir up trouble and that makes me question why you're doing that. Are you hiding something? It's just a natural question to ask.
It's ironic that pro-guilt people in this case have got themselves so wound up with it all, that they defeat their own cause.
Another irony of this is that I'm not even saying Jeremy is innocent. I'm not even in his camp. All I'm doing is asking questions. What's your issue with that Hartley?
If you and Steve had two brains cells to rub together, you'd just ignore people like me. Instead, you spend a large part of your time - in Steve's case, until recently, pretty much all his time - coming on here picking fights with people.
Jeremy Bamber runs your life, Hartley. Your life is based around Jeremy Bamber. That means Jeremy Bamber has won.
I find that really, really sad.
Heck, I can take that. Anything else?
Seriously dude, try and find some joy in your life, there has to be more than this for you.
-
Heck, I can take that. Anything else?
Seriously dude, try and find some joy in your life, there has to be more than this for you.
They'll be more.
-
What you should do is go away and bother somebody else. Do something more constructive with your sad life, Hartley.
If you continue to disrupt this thread, I'll just involve the moderators or start another thread, or ultimately I'll just stop posting and pursue my inquiries in a more direct fashion - which won't be good news for the people you are trying to protect.
I'm a very determined person.
You are nasty. Your threads have sometimes been entertaining and I'd be reluctant to see you go, but the way you are proceeding this may be inevitable. Show some common courtesy and a little humility if at all possible for new and longstanding members alike.
-
It is Ron Cook.
Yes and here is many years later. He was the one who moved Sheila's hand. He made a witness statement on 25 September 1991 and there's also a reference in CAL's book to Ron Cook, "Bamber: Facts not Fiction", April 1990, though CAL describes is an an "unpublished manuscript." https://www.google.co.uk/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01WQmXSLuQvbpAA7DBJRfP0RvZBjA:1596074085634&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=ron+cook+essex+police+photos&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO7qKn7_PqAhUERhUIHcWHB54Q420oCnoECAoQGA&biw=1349&bih=638#imgrc=h-zBljCEY9wUIM
-
My post is concise.
Concise =/ = Short
Buy a dictionary.
Also, I don't post here to your order, Hartley.
I've seen your posting history. I know what your agenda here is. If you plan to disrupt this thread, my advice is don't even think about it. I'll dissect you.
If you availed yourself of one you would have learned that incommunicado is one word, not two. It's not a typo because you made the same error several times in a previous thread.
-
You are nasty. Your threads have sometimes been entertaining and I'd be reluctant to see you go, but the way you are proceeding this may be inevitable. Show some common courtesy and a little humility if at all possible for new and longstanding members alike.
I am not nasty at all. I am extremely nice and civil to people who are nice and civil to me.
I am just being nasty to you and Hartley, because you yourselves are nasty, abusive, dishonest liars. You deserve it because you are nasty. That's my approach to things,. Steve.
To me, two wrongs do make a right.
Want to be nasty to me? Then I'll be nasty back.
I actually find your hypocrisy and gall breath-taking, Steve.
I also perceive a threat in what you say. If the moderators have an issue with me, then let them speak now and if they want me gone, I'll definitely go.
Fine. I'll leave you all to Steve and Hartley's monkey grunts.
Free speech is for monkeys and Steve and Hartley prove it.
Again, Steve, because you have a second-class mind, you fail to appreciate these distinctions. You are blind to your own behaviour.
I may not be educated, but I am far more nimble than you, Steve.
For those who doubt the above, I'll just leave you with an assessment of Steve from back in 2012 by a "Martin". I find it particularly apt.
Your agenda and purpose here is clear, Steve. You're not fooling me. Martin nails it.
Steve_uk is on this forum to do a job. The obvious intention behind this stupid post is to distract attention from the matter under consideration, namely, the fact that Anthony Pargeter’s statement appears to support Jeremy’s claim that the silencer was handed back to the relatives before David Boutflour allegedly found it.
From a statement by Anthony Pargeter.
“Sometime after the 10 August 1985, I received a telephone call from David Boutflour who is a cousin of mine. He told me the silencer had been returned to the family, presumably by the police. He said there was a large scratch on it, some red paint on the knurled end and what appeared to be blood. I advised David to return it to the police straight away.”
Bamber’s allegations.
1 That police officers returned the sound moderator to members of his family, where with police knowledge it was tampered with and then returned to the police, where evidence was found. (statement pages 2 - 5)
2 That collusion took place between police officers and witnesses to put paint on the silencer. (statement page 9)
…...
7 That collusion took place between police officers and David Boutflour in making a statement which contains false evidence.
-
If you availed yourself of one you would have learned that incommunicado is one word, not two. It's not a typo because you made the same error several times in a previous thread.
Again, you lie. This time about something very trivial and insignificant, but a lie all the same. I've just looked back through my posts. It's a typographic error I make, I think, twice, in the Thomas Mair thread. I then type it correctly in another post, which shows that I do know how it is spelt, it was just a typo.
You lie about everything, Steve, even things that don't matter.
You're a liar. You're a hypocrite and you're full of gall and double standards, going round judging everybody else while abusing people.
It's the behaviour of an abuser.
-
I am not nasty at all. I am extremely nice and civil to people who are nice and civil to me.
I am just being nasty to you and Hartley, because you yourselves are nasty, abusive, dishonest liars. You deserve it because you are nasty. That's my approach to things,. Steve.
To me, two wrongs do make a right.
Want to be nasty to me? Then I'll be nasty back.
I actually find your hypocrisy and gall breath-taking, Steve.
I also perceive a threat in what you say. If the moderators have an issue with me, then let them speak now and if they want me gone, I'll definitely go.
Fine. I'll leave you all to Steve and Hartley's monkey grunts.
Free speech is for monkeys and Steve and Hartley prove it.
Again, Steve, because you have a second-class mind, you fail to appreciate these distinctions. You are blind to your own behaviour.
I may not be educated, but I am far more nimble than you, Steve.
For those who doubt the above, I'll just leave you with an assessment of Steve from back in 2012 by a "Martin". I find it particularly apt.
Your agenda and purpose here is clear, Steve. You're not fooling me. Martin nails it.
Yes we have free speech in this country, though care should be taken not to gratuitously offend. Everyone has the right to post here and I will defend that right.
-
To be clear, as Martin said back in 2012, Steve is on this Forum to do a job. So is Hartley.
-
Yes we have free speech in this country, though care should be taken not to gratuitously offend. Everyone has the right to post here and I will defend that right.
Steve, Steve, Steve....You are not in a position to lecture anybody about causing offence. Nearly everything you do is abusive and intended to stir up aggro.
You are a classic abuser.
As for free speech, I repeat that I do NOT believe in it.
Free speech is for monkeys. It's for regressive people. That's why you believe in it. You're just a monkey making grunting noises.
-
Again, you lie. This time about something very trivial and insignificant, but a lie all the same. I've just looked back through my posts. It's a typographic error I make, I think, twice, in the Thomas Mair thread. I then type it correctly in another post, which shows that I do know how it is spelt, it was just a typo.
You lie about everything, Steve, even things that don't matter.
You're a liar. You're a hypocrite and you're full of gall and double standards, going round judging everybody else while abusing people.
It's the behaviour of an abuser.
I'm quite comfortable in my own skin, unlike yourself. https://youtu.be/yq0XSX8j7gs
Now instead of starting enigmatic threads which you rarely follow through, how about developing it a little more, or maybe you do need some excuse to depart this Forum, however ignominiously?
-
I'm quite comfortable in my own skin, unlike yourself. https://youtu.be/yq0XSX8j7gs
Now instead of starting enigmatic threads which you rarely follow through, how about developing it a little more, or maybe you do need some excuse to depart this Forum, however ignominiously?
I am sorry but you are an utter liar. The reason this thread will not be "followed-through", as you say, is because you and Hartley have INTENTIONALLY worked together to ruin it.
You're a disgrace, Steve. You are a sanctimonious hypocrite, a transparent liar and you are just shameless.
-
Steve, Steve, Steve....You are not in a position to lecture anybody about causing offence. Nearly everything you do is abusive and intended to stir up aggro.
You are a classic abuser.
As for free speech, I repeat that I do NOT believe in it.
Free speech is for monkeys. It's for regressive people. That's why you believe in it. You're just a monkey making grunting noises.
I'll let the membership decide. At least you are showing your true colours.
-
I'll let the membership decide. At least you are showing your true colours.
Free speech is a myth in the first place, Steve. You don't realise that, Steve, because you're actually quite thick. You don't know anything and you haven't read anything. Like a lot of middle-class people, your qualifications are just a false passport.
I have no qualifications but I have read thousands of books and I have thought and reflected.
Besides which, free speech as any sort of practical idea is not viable. It's for monkeys. It's for primitive people who sit round fires and live in caves. It's not for advanced people. Surely your behaviour is a demonstration of this? For evidence, I refer members to Steve and Hartley's respective posting histories. It's like trying to reason with a little kid.
Just a moment's thought should tell you that free speech is a bad idea. It can't work as a practical notion.
What happens is that you end up impotent and labouring under the lowest common denominator, pursuing useless avenues and pointless discussions, like this one has turned into due to your abominable behaviour.
As for other member's judging me, again you show your second-class intellect. I don't depend on other people's judgements, Steve. I judge things for myself. That means I reject pro-Bamber arguments as much as anti-Bamber arguments. That's why I dissected Gringo, because he showed that he does not actually believe in justice, he only believes in revenge. Justice is for people Gringo likes. Just like the relatives of Jeremy Bamber, who just want to keep him confined as a sort of revenge with no regard to temperate justice and Jeremy's own needs as a human being.
Now, will you continue disrupting this thread Steve and carry on with your lying and childishness, or will you now behave as an adult?
-
I'm curious about the image below. I believe it is a photograph of D.I. Cook. It looks like it is taken at a crime scene somewhere.
Is it at White House Farm? If so, I'm just wondering why he, or any other police officer, would be photographed at this or any crime scene? It seems like a curious thing. Are the police in the habit of photographing themselves when at work?
Who took the photograph and why and with what equipment, and on whose authorisation? Did that person provide a statement of truth?
What exactly is Ron Cook doing in the photograph? What is he looking at or for? Why would he be looking out of that particular window? Why is it of interest to him? Or is he walking through a door and just stooping?
Is the photograph a close-up of a larger image? If so, if we were to look at the fuller image, would we see Ron Cook wandering around a sensitive crime scene without wearing gloves? Is Ron Cook holding something? If so, what?
Were other similar photographs taken of Ron Cook and other police officers at the scene? If so, where are these photographs?
Are such photographs situated in the forensic files and if so, what is the name of that file or album and has it been disclosed?
We would all like to know the answers to these important questions.
-
We would all like to know the answers to these important questions.
Thanks Adam. I think in light of my posts you should now change stance.
You may wish to PM me for friendly guidance and a 'listening ear' before this very public volte-face.
-
One possibility---that the pic may have been taken at Sheila's flat in Maida Vale ?
-
One possibility---that the pic may have been taken at Sheila's flat in Maida Vale ?
Now that's a good idea.
Yours is the first relevant post on the entire thread, Lookout - and it's a good post.
-
http://
They'll be more.
;) ;) ;)
-
To be clear, as Martin said back in 2012, Steve is on this Forum to do a job. So is Hartley.
Always. The timing is obvious
-
I'm quite comfortable in my own skin, unlike yourself. https://youtu.be/yq0XSX8j7gs
Now instead of starting enigmatic threads which you rarely follow through, how about developing it a little more, or maybe you do need some excuse to depart this Forum, however ignominiously?
Steve you cannot be serious??? QC has livened this forum up no end and I look forward to his posts every day.
Your posts and hero worship of Julie Mugford are beyond boring
-
Jeez QC you must be doing something right 226 people viewing the forum on a Thursday afternoon want to join the party
-
I've popped in now and again with my sixpenn'orth Jackie ;D When the fit takes me.
-
Always. The timing is obvious
Timing for what?
-
I've popped in now and again with my sixpenn'orth Jackie ;D When the fit takes me.
;D ;D ;D always
-
Steve you cannot be serious??? QC has livened this forum up no end and I look forward to his posts every day.
Your posts and hero worship of Julie Mugford are beyond boring
I suppose none of us is perfect. What I object to is his hypersensitivity to criticism, along with his personal bile towards other members. Post by all means, but if you stick your head above the parapet be prepared to be held to account.
-
I suppose none of us is perfect. What I object to is his hypersensitivity to criticism, along with his personal bile towards other members. Post by all means, but if you stick your head above the parapet be prepared to be held to account.
I give as good as I get, and then some. If you attack me, I will go to war against you. But that is not the same as sensitivity to criticism. I don't mind constructive criticism, though I have to say, I often find that most criticism is either a disguised personal attack or it reflects the misunderstandings of the reader more than the writer.
If I am being sensitive at all, it is sensitivity to your personal attacks and your toxic attitude. A forum can't work in that way. All that happens is that people leave.
This is just more hypocrisy from you, Steve.
You are a classic abuser. You abuse people, you show no self-awareness that you are doing it - instead you blame the victims - then when the victims stand up to you, you start with the gaslighting and accuse them of the very things that you have just been doing five minutes ago!
You're a disgrace, Steve. You've been here since 2012 and at that point the Forum was in its 'golden' period. It then went downhill as you dragged everybody down with you. I's obvious your presence here is by design.
People who were on here back then had you sussed and by all means I can quote from some of the comments about you at that time.
Here's just one example from many:
Just pointing out a 'fact' Steve! You are quite obviously here to disrupt the board - I noticed it almost immediately and other people can see through you also. It is one thing to have an opposing view but quite another to treat people in your patronising manner. You can accuse me of being hostile towards you and I will admit to feeling exactly that because I feel you have an ulterior motive for being here!
-
I'm glad that you've done some research at last on the Forum. There are many more threads for you to peruse at your leisure, instead of jumping gung-ho into subjects, spouting Shakespeare or relating your Latin terms when you can spell them correctly. As for the specific post you quote, Caroline certainly doesn't feel that way eight years on. I have had personal messages of support since your arrival here, though I won't divulge their opinion of you. As for your threads, you never follow through with anything and I repeat: you are hypersensitive to the slightest criticism whilst purporting otherwise to be a hardened man of the world.
-
I'm glad that you've done some research at last on the Forum. There are many more threads for you to peruse at your leisure, instead of jumping gung-ho into subjects, spouting Shakespeare or relating your Latin terms when you can spell them correctly. As for the specific post you quote, Caroline certainly doesn't feel that way eight years on. I have had personal messages of support since your arrival here, though I won't divulge their opinion of you. As for your threads, you never follow through with anything and I repeat: you are hypersensitive to the slightest criticism whilst purporting otherwise to be a hardened man of the world.
That must be a different Caroline, then. I think there are two. I am quoting "Caroline R."
I mistyped a Latin term once or twice, then typed it correctly long before being pulled up by you. It was a typo. You make it out to be indicative of something more because you're just a nasty disingenuous liar and you are here to cause trouble.
Face it Steve - you're sussed. You were sussed years ago. The reason you are still here is that people gave up and left, including some high quality posters. Instead of their contributions, we have yours - the gruntings of a monkey.
-
Here's another interesting thread about Steve, dating back to February 2013: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3904.0.html
-
That must be a different Caroline, then. I think there are two. I am quoting "Caroline R."
I mistyped a Latin term once or twice, then typed it correctly long before being pulled up by you. It was a typo. You make it out to be indicative of something more because you're just a nasty disingenuous liar and you are here to cause trouble.
Face it Steve - you're sussed. You were sussed years ago. The reason you are still here is that people gave up and left, including some high quality posters. Instead of their contributions, we have yours - the gruntings of a monkey.
No a typo is misspelling a word: for example recieve for receive. For you to get incommunicado wrong you had to pause for reflection before you typed it as two words. I was going to let it pass but since you advised a member to buy a dictionary it's time you were pulled up on the beam in your own eye, before commenting on the mote in others.
-
No a typo is misspelling a word: for example recieve for receive. For you to get incommunicado wrong you had to pause for reflection before you typed it as two words. I was going to let it pass but since you advised a member to buy a dictionary it's time you were pulled up on the beam in your own eye, before commenting on the mote in others.
A typo is also a misspelling, but there is additionally a distinction to be made between the two terms.
A typo is hitting the wrong key or accidentally misspelling something - perhaps due to tiredness. That's not what you were implying, is it, Disingenuous Steve.
It seems that Teacher Steve is in need of a good dictionary too.
Let's also consider the background to my advice to Hartley to buy a dictionary, which Disingenuous Steve omits to mention.
Hartley, like you, is here to disrupt the Forum. He has done so under multiple identities. The case is made and we can send the jury out on that one.
The point in issue is that I told Hartley to buy a dictionary because he was slovenly with this language when launching his latest attack. I pointed out that he had not quite understood the meaning of the word 'concise'. Normally I wouldn't bother. In this case I only did on account of Hartley's obvious malignant motives.
-
A typo is also a misspelling, but there is additionally a distinction to be made between the two terms.
A typo is hitting the wrong key or accidentally misspelling something - perhaps due to tiredness. That's not what you were implying, is it, Disingenuous Steve.
It seems that Teacher Steve is in need of a good dictionary too.
Let's also consider the background to my advice to Hartley to buy a dictionary, which Disingenuous Steve omits to mention.
Hartley, like you, is here to disrupt the Forum. He has done so under multiple identities. The case is made and we can send the jury out on that one.
The point in issue is that I told Hartley to buy a dictionary because he was slovenly with this language when launching his latest attack. I pointed out that he had not quite understood the meaning of the word 'concise'. Normally I wouldn't bother. In this case I only did on account of Hartley's obvious malignant motives.
But you didn't hit the wrong key, did you? You made an extra effort by pressing the space bar, which rules out fatigue. Let's face it: you've been hoisted on your own petard.
-
But you didn't hit the wrong key, did you? You made an extra effort by pressing the space bar, which rules out fatigue. Let's face it: you've been hoisted on your own petard.
It was tiredness. Evidence: I typed it correctly later, before you corrected me.
And again you attempt to change the subject, Disingenuous Steve. Very sly.
Let me drag this little exchange back to the point: Hartley and Steve are here to attack the forum, thus I corrected Hartley as a way of paying him in kind for his own facetiousness.
You ignore this Disingenuous Steve, because you yourself have the same motives as Hartley!