Originally Posted by Iconoclast
I put a version to you that I believe to be the truth because of what people have told me. You might call my version a theory, but it is the only theroy that fits the facts as I know them.
The big problem is that your "facts" are completely based on the subjective account given to you by one side of the arguement, so they are not "facts", but hearsay.
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
Now you have put forward a "theory" that starts with "...I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves..." Then you ask me to "prove [you] wrong." Maaaate, get a grip.
That is because how things stand right now my theory fits with, and takes into account the versions put forward by both sides. Therefor it has at least as much (or even more)credibility as yours. So if you cannot porve my theory wrong you cannot present your version as the only true and righteous one.
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
You need to show that my version of events is incorrect, first.
No, I just have to show reasonable doubt, and I have.
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
Good for you, Egor. So were the people I spoke to - Lyons and Parr. You need to name names too - or STFU.
That is a fair response (minus the "STFU". I don't know it means, but I'm fairly sure it's rude.
) and I should. Being that it was a while ago, my memory is not great. I'm sure that Bill has given me his version of events, I'm also sure I talked to Norm. Others I'm fairly sure I have heard comment on it are Keith F, Shane B & Peter C, apart from that I've read pretty much all that has been posted on the internet about it.
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
The people you say you spoke to were, as you sarcastically say, Gletsos controlled agents. It appears now that you too are one of the controlled.
Are you big on conspiracy theorys?:rolleyes: