The 1826 Flood Of St Louis Destruction of the Unintelligible Writing Key

[masterpoe]

So you're suggesting that every claim of remedy ever made are also facts. Applying your sense of logic and reason then the struck by lightening suggestion is also fact if someone wants it to be fact. Instead of a trading post it is also fact that the holder of the letter was living in canoe, all fact, as you call it. That's interesting, way-way out there in fantasy space, but interesting all the same. And this is why nobody will ever take your professor seriously and why he is struggling to build an audience, because he's simply manufacturing a fictional remedy.

Just more concrete proof that the Beale Papers "will be" whatever anyone desires them to be. Thanks you for supporting that "true" conclusive fact.

Sounds like a staw man argument!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[masterpoe]

So you're suggesting that every claim of remedy ever made are also facts. Applying your sense of logic and reason then the struck by lightening suggestion is also fact if someone wants it to be fact. Instead of a trading post it is also fact that the holder of the letter was living in canoe, all fact, as you call it. That's interesting, way-way out there in fantasy space, but interesting all the same. And this is why nobody will ever take your professor seriously and why he is struggling to build an audience, because he's simply manufacturing a fictional remedy.

Just more concrete proof that the Beale Papers "will be" whatever anyone desires them to be. Thanks you for supporting that "true" conclusive fact.

Your anti-Beale Papers sediment is noted!

 

[bigscoop]

Sounds like a staw man argument!

You guys keep coming with all of this slang retaliation for lack of any facts whenever you're speculation/provenance is questioned or whenever actual facts clearly shoot your certain conclusions down. It's like you're all out of the same mold, everything so predicable and routine one can just sit back and wait on it with no doubt whatsoever that it's coming....and why. It's like handing an elementary classroom one of those bedtime stories with all of the fill in the blanks so they can create whatever fantasy scenarios they desire.

 

[ECS]

Would that be on some other thread? This is just the FLOOD thread and we are posting about the FLOOD here.

Its all about the "key" letter, if it was sent or not. The flood is immaterial to this discussion.

Once again, what is your opinion of the "Beale letter" that Ebenezer Nelms killed a man at the Blackhorse Tavern on Tinker's Creek to keep it from being delivered to Robert Morriss?
Doesn't seem this "Beale letter" was destroyed in a flood at some unnamed trading post per your current claim.

 

[ECS]

Sounds like a staw man argument!

Strawman got swept away in a flood on his way to the red herring fish fry!

 

[bigscoop]

Sounds like a staw man argument!

You're making this way too easy....

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

• 1.
  an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
  
  "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
• 2.
  a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
  "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
  
  Note, "an intentionally misrepresented proposition" as you continue to keep pointing fingers at yourself again and again. Allow me to explain it to you yet again;
  
  If you read the story you'll discover that Morriss was just an alleged executor, but "only if" his services are to be required "within a ten year period." This is not the same thing as an executor at the time of death, or until time of death, Morriss was only allegedly made an executor within a ten year period and "only if" his services were required within "that ten year period." This is your first straw man inaccurate judgement..
  
  You second straw man inaccuracy involves the alleged party and the "required sum" which they were allegedly after which is never detailed so that remains an unknown. But let me submit to you the following scenario......what if the party realized their desired amount the next year and simply took it upon themselves to divide said funds evenly and go their merry way? In this scenario Morriss wouldn't be entitled to his share because, and here it comes, "his services were never required." And all of this even before your flood........now then straw man, can you say "Oopsie" yet again..... Yes, your certain claim just went down in flames once more.

PS: The above executor arrangement is what your "honest author" detailed in his narration so don't blame me.........blame yourself for not reading the narration just as it is written and then placing trust in your oh-so honest and truthful author. No wait a minute, if you don't believe the author, which you apparently don't, but claim that you do believe him, then does this make your "intentional misrepresented and easily defeated proposal" something from a straw man? Yep!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Wizard of Oz...?

 

[masterpoe]

Its all about the "key" letter, if it was sent or not. The flood is immaterial to this discussion.

Once again, what is your opinion of the "Beale letter" that Ebenezer Nelms killed a man at the Blackhorse Tavern on Tinker's Creek to keep it from being delivered to Robert Morriss?
Doesn't seem this "Beale letter" was destroyed in a flood at some unnamed trading post per your current claim.

We're Shaggy and Scooby Doo at the Blackhorse too?
I think I have seen this one!

 

[masterpoe]

You're making this way too easy....

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

• 1.
  an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
  
  "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
• 2.
  a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
  "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
  
  Note, "an intentionally misrepresented proposition" as you continue to keep pointing fingers at yourself again and again. Allow me to explain it to you yet again;
  
  If you read the story you'll discover that Morriss was just an alleged executor, but "only if" his services are to be required "within a ten year period." This is not the same thing as an executor at the time of death, or until time of death, Morriss was only allegedly made an executor within a ten year period and "only if" his services were required within "that ten year period." This is your first straw man inaccurate judgement..
  
  You second straw man inaccuracy involves the alleged party and the "required sum" which they were allegedly after which is never detailed so that remains an unknown. But let me submit to you the following scenario......what if the party realized their desired amount the next year and simply took it upon themselves to divide said funds evenly and go their merry way? In this scenario Morriss wouldn't be entitled to his share because, and here it comes, "his services were never required." And all of this even before your flood........now then straw man, can you say "Oopsie" yet again..... Yes, your certain claim just went down in flames once more.

PS: The above executor arrangement is what your "honest author" detailed in his narration so don't blame me.........blame yourself for not reading the narration just as it is written and then placing trust in your oh-so honest and truthful author. No wait a minute, if you don't believe the author, which you apparently don't, but claim that you do believe him, then does this make your "intentional misrepresented and easily defeated proposal" something from a straw man? Yep!

You need start your own thread. I think this one is about a certain flood of a certain year?

 

[masterpoe]

You're making this way too easy....

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

• 1.
  an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
  
  "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
• 2.
  a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
  "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
  
  Note, "an intentionally misrepresented proposition" as you continue to keep pointing fingers at yourself again and again. Allow me to explain it to you yet again;
  
  If you read the story you'll discover that Morriss was just an alleged executor, but "only if" his services are to be required "within a ten year period." This is not the same thing as an executor at the time of death, or until time of death, Morriss was only allegedly made an executor within a ten year period and "only if" his services were required within "that ten year period." This is your first straw man inaccurate judgement..
  
  You second straw man inaccuracy involves the alleged party and the "required sum" which they were allegedly after which is never detailed so that remains an unknown. But let me submit to you the following scenario......what if the party realized their desired amount the next year and simply took it upon themselves to divide said funds evenly and go their merry way? In this scenario Morriss wouldn't be entitled to his share because, and here it comes, "his services were never required." And all of this even before your flood........now then straw man, can you say "Oopsie" yet again..... Yes, your certain claim just went down in flames once more.

PS: The above executor arrangement is what your "honest author" detailed in his narration so don't blame me.........blame yourself for not reading the narration just as it is written and then placing trust in your oh-so honest and truthful author. No wait a minute, if you don't believe the author, which you apparently don't, but claim that you do believe him, then does this make your "intentional misrepresented and easily defeated proposal" something from a straw man? Yep!

I don't really read post that are not on the right thread!

 

[bigscoop]

You need start your own thread. I think this one is about a certain flood of a certain year?

No, no it isn't; it's about a "certain" claim you're making that a flood was reason for the failed delivery of the alleged key, below is a copy of "your selected title" for this thread, your post standing as "real evidence" as to the "true context" of this thread...... Have you even read your own "wildly speculative" thread and post?
The 1826 Flood Of St Louis Destruction of the Unintelligible Writing Key

 

[ECS]

We're Shaggy and Scooby Doo at the Blackhorse too?
I think I have seen this one!

So, you admit that you are unfamiliar with the find of the letter claimed by Claudine Fulton Ellis?
It contradicts this speculative flood story you are presenting as to why the "key" letter was never delivered.
A little research on this would do you some good.

 

[franklin]

ECS, I think we best either believe the Beale Treasure Story or we do not.

I hate to say it but your last post to verify your claim you are taking another claim by someone which you have already disclaimed. Does not make sense to take a disclaimer's information to verify that another claim is untrue? Just my thoughts but carry on.

 

[ECS]

Franklin, if one is to create new alternative additions to the Beale "after story", ie, the missing "key" letter, then one should be aware of previous versions that counter that claim.
It is apparent that M Poe is ignorant of the book by Claudine Fulton Ellis and its content concerning this "key" letter he now states was destroyed in a flood.

 

[masterpoe]

Franklin, if one is to create new alternative additions to the Beale "after story", ie, the missing "key" letter, then one should be aware of previous versions that counter that claim.
It is apparent that M Poe is ignorant of the book by Claudine Fulton Ellis and its content concerning this "key" letter he now states was destroyed in a flood.

So, you do like to argue so much you would use a previous Aff as a Neg for this thread? Problem is I am not here to argue anything! I am just posting here to put out information I come across that is interesting. I believe the rules of this site say no arguing? How is it you are still here arguing with everything people say?

 

[ECS]

Before you play the "argue card" on another poster, you need to take a trip down memory lane and review some of your remarks and retorts.

 

[Cryptography]

Yet we have proof that there was a flood that did not kill Beale or his men, but washed a letter away. This originated with NSA Beale site. I trust the annalist have done there research well. I can ask them if you wish?

 

[ECS]

The flood did not kill and his perilous adventurers because they are fictional characters in a job print pamphlet, AND, a flood was never mentioned in the Beale Papers.

 

[bigscoop]

Yet we have proof that there was a flood that did not kill Beale or his men, but washed a letter away. This originated with NSA Beale site. I trust the annalist have done there research well. I can ask them if you wish?

I think you'd better ask them for their provenance that establishes it to be a conclusive fact that the flood washed that alleged letter away. Bet you never get it. In fact, I'm 100% sure you won't. You see, the only way you could you get it is if they had provenance that the said letter ever existed at all, which they simply ain't got. I'm sure they'll be happy to explain the difference between hypothesis/theory VS fact to you as well, should you dare to ask them. I'm 100% sure "they're" not trying to sell that opinion as fact, as you are trying so desperately to do. "100% certain!" Heck, you never know, if you ask for it they might even contact me to see if I have it?

 

[masterpoe]

The flood did not kill and his perilous adventurers because they are fictional characters in a job print pamphlet, AND, a flood was never mentioned in the Beale Papers.

That is what you aways say, a bad opinion!