Snow, Snow, Snow,
You're really something.
I bring nothing new to the table so you say?
1) How about the DNA info?
2) How about the daisy-chain info (even Fryar thinks this needs to be explained)?
3) How about the cufflink info?
This is just part of it. The rest is all put together in a neat 128-page report with my name on it.
It doesn't appear that you have read the report because you have asked several questions that I specifically address in the report. If you haven't read my report then how do you know what I've brought to the table?
My suspect profile was derived based upon my experience reading people...which arguably has made me a fair amount of money over the years. Would you like more specifics in that area? Ask 377. I'm usually correct.
Let me give you an example of reading people. I'll read you:
You are engaging in a territorial pissing match. You are trying to reclaim the Sheridan Peterson is DBC mantle. Kids nowadays would call that being "butthurt."
It bugs the shit out of you that you dropped Sheridan as a suspect--probably because of the DNA story that you swallowed but I later disproved--and someone else came along and discovered Sheridan too. But instead of just dropping him, I investigated and questioned and ultimately crafted a strong circumstantial case pointing to Sheridan.
You can't claim squat. Great, you uncovered other people's writings but to what end? Did you put it together to make a case either for or against Sheridan as DBC? Did you challenge anything that others said or wrote that contributed in any meaningful way to the Sheridan Peterson discussion?
My report and case, which relies upon the writings and words of others going back to 1971, as well as, my own investigation and research stands as my testimony. I point to Sheridan Peterson. I could care less whether you find it compelling or not. I stand by my work.
A friendly piece of advice: Stop being an ass. It's unnecessary and tiring.
Poll