From: Jasper
Date: 5/5/02
Time: 4:31:41 AM
Rovan,
You wrote:
Jasper-
Let's just start with what you have written here. It is difficult to understand what location you are talking about with what you have written, so I have put my questions in brackets within your paragraph.
"Schwab met the couple on Gorham between Gretna Green and Amherst. Check the transcript - it does not say that he met them on the corner of Amherst. If he had met them there [where is there? Corner of Gorham and Amherst?] and they were walking at the same pace Schwab was walking they would have been five minutes north of Bundy [since we generally talk about Bundy running north and south, how can they be five minutes north of Bundy?- Are you talking five minutes from the corner of Montana and Bundy?] when Schwab reached the dog. If he met them in the middle of the two streets [What two streets?] they would have been halfway to Dorothy. In either case they would have been on the opposite side of the street [what side would they have been on-East side? West side?] and nowhere near the dog [If he met them, they are near the dog].
My reply:
Rovaan,
Remember what Schwab said about being on the west side of Bundy. If I had intended to trick you into proving that you don't pay enough attention to context this would have been a good way to do it. But I assure you, ALL of my errors are just that, errors. No tricks
First bracket: Of course I meant the corner of Amherst and Gorham. He was already on Gorham walking toward Amherst. We talked bout this before and I referred you to the map. This was not an error. It was a logical inference that I expected you to make. It wasn't necessary to add Gorham because it couldn't have been any other corner.
Second bracket: This was an error - but a simple one to decipher from the context. I meant to say north of Dorothy on Bundy. That's the corner in dispute. What in the world does Montana have to do with where I said Schwab met the couple? I said that he met them near Dorothy. I thought that was the entire point of this exchange. In fact, you challenged the assertion that Schwab met the couple on Bundy just north of Dorothy because you didn't think they could get there that fast. The map shows you that they could get there with no sweat going clockwise along Schwab's route at the same pace, minus Schwab's first and last leg to his apartment on Montana east of Bundy.
Third bracket: No error. In my first draft I wrote "Gretna Green and Amherst" but changed it to "the two streets" just because I spell Amherst wrong every time and have to go back and correct it. This is another case of logical inference. I was talking about the point from which the couple started east toward Bundy when Schwab went west. It's on the map. It's in the hot spot. What other two streets could I have been talking about?
Fourth bracket: This is getting silly. I'm sorry but I can't think of a nicer way to put it. I said that Schwab reached the dog on the west side of Bundy. There has never been any question, dispute or confusion about it from any quarter. The opposite side of the west side is the east side. That was also in my original draft but I cut it out because I didn't want you to think that I was hammering you on a dead issue.
Your last bracket: Now I know you're not serious. If you truly believe that it deserves a serious response I'll give you one. But it's hard to believe that you do. --Jasper