• Websleuths is under Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Attack. Please pardon any site-sluggishness as we deal with this situation.

Linguistics

Well thanks.

I always give credit where it is due, friend.

I'm really hoping to get some feedback as to specific expressions in the ransom note that we could expect to see in other writings by the same person.

And I'm hoping that I won't let you down.

Does PR begin letters with 'listen carefully' or end them with 'Victory!'?

Not specifically, HOTYH. But it's interesting to note that "listen carefully" sounds more like something you'd expect from somebody who was dictating, or was used to dictating...like a major corporate exec, for instance. As for ending with "victory!" PR was known to use strong punctuations. We'll examine that more in-depth as we go along.

Has she ever started a sentence with 'At this time...'?

I'm not sure.

What are the specific expressions in the ransom note that match some of PR's preexisting writings?

Ah, the key question!

Well, let's take this one step at a time. The note ends with "Victory! S.B.T.C." Note the use of SBTC, or in this case, S.B.T.C. Did you notice the difference? There are periods between the letters in the ransom note. As a rule, modern English writing does not incorporate periods into the spelling of acronyms anymore. That particular style faded out around the early 70s. So, it is reasonable to think that perhaps the writer is someone who learned their writing sometime before that. PR was born in 1956 and would have been in high school by the time that manner ceased to be taught. I realize that's a somewhat broad net to cast. So let's narrow it a bit. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was "To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J." That meant "To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism."

Then, let's consider that the note has several uses of exclamation points. PR was know to do that.

Then there's the term "fat cat." While I don't know of any instance where PR used this phrase in her writings, since linguistics is based on the idea that we write the way we speak, it's helpful to remember that "fat cat" was a nickname for John Ramsey that was used by Patsy's mother and father.

More tellingly, the note instructs JR to use his "good Southern common sense." JR is not from the American South. He comes from Michigan, near Canada. PR's family were Southerners. They started in West Virginia and lived for a long time in Atlanta, Georgia, what some would call the Deep South. Patsy's mother Nedra was often heard to say that John had "good Southern common sense" as a joke because he was a great businessman and for marrying her daughter, Patsy.

Then, there's the use of the word attache, meaning a carrying case. The word is of French origin and even contains the proper accent mark over the "e", to denote the sound of an "a". PR had studied French and lived in Atlanta, which has a strong undercurrent of French heritage. JonBenet's own name is a pseudo-French version of her father's first and middle names, John Bennett. It is always spelled with the accent over the second "e."

Also, the RN deals in percentages. That's the kind of talk one tends to get around cancer patients and survivors. They talk about the percentage of survival. I ought to know. It's taken up a good portion of my life. Linda Wilcox, the Rs' former employee stated publically that PR had a tendency to express her ideas in percentages.

Then there's the section dealing with "proper burial." I've devoted whole THREADS to that!

These are just a few examples. If taken from the Rs' spoken words, the comparisons become even more apparent. There used to be a website that listed all of the times the Rs spoke in terms that mirrored the structure of the RN. Sadly, it's no longer up, and that's a damn shame, because it would save all of us a lot of work. But if you go over the transcribed conversations, certain patterns appear. The note says that the writer does not "respect the country" JR's business serves. He seems to like that word, "country." He often talks about "this country," "the country," and so on. That's only one of many examples it listed.

Now, let's examine what professional examiners had to say. One of the themes you'll find in listening to what they have to say is that the RN contains a very maternal, almost nurturing tone. IDI vehemently tries to deny this, saying that such an assertion is "stupid." Problem is, their denials are quite tenous. The note contains no real violent language. Yes, it warns that "she dies," but look at how that phrase is used. It doesn't say "she WILL die." It's almost passive. The entire note is written in passive voice. There's no real dynamism to it. As for the statement that JB will be "beheaded," given the passive nature of the note overall, it seem more likely that this was used by someone speaking in the abstract rather than someone getting their jollies from either imagining the actual act of decapitating her, or from their imagining the parents' reactions when they read it.

Roger DePue is the former head of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. In 2006, he went public with what he had told Alex Hunter in private:

--"The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested," the note says. Depue called that an unusual instruction. "The statement sounds caring, motherly,"

--The note warns that if the instructions are not carried out precisely, "You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." Depue said. "In my opinion, proper burial is of more concern to a female than to a male," Depue said.

--"The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them," the note says. The idea of "gentlemen watching over" has a feminine tone, Depue said. "Watching over" is also a caring concept," he said. That one makes a lot of sense.

"We're watching you" conjures up feelings of being hunted and paranoia. It's something you'd expect to hear from the Thought Police in Orwell's 1984 or the Pinkerton Detective Agency of 100 years ago. "We're watching over you" suggests something much different, as if to say, "don't worry. We're there if you need us." It's something you'd expect to hear from an insurance company, or a pastor reassuring his flock that God was looking out for them.

--In Depue's opinion, "The writer is a well-educated, middle-aged female."

Former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt said that he and several other profilers had studied the note and concluded that "despite threats of violence throughout the note, Van Zandt says, it has a 'softness' suggesting its author was a woman or perhaps a 'genteel man."

Finally, we have Robert Ressler, the founder of the Behavioral Sciences Unit:

--There's an almost maternal quality to comments like, 'the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms."

--He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was "FBI."

Also, I came across this website a few days ago. Anyone who wants to can have a look:

http://alinguistic.blogspot.com/2007/10/becker-barbara-j.html

I know how you like to focus on PR as RN author...

For good reason, might I add. (Pity you don't see that.) And you've given me a good opportunity!
 
Tapu, can you help me on this or not?

Hi, Hat! Yes. I realize that that is the question you're asking, and that it's different from what I wrote above (though not in all details completely, for example, prominent use of pronouns rather than names). I mention above that I'll hit on that type of thing next. I can't right now, though. Later today. I see a few of the types of things you want, I believe.
 
'so I advise you' is repeated, is a word combination, and omits the comma punctuation (no pausing). Can you find this in PR's preexisting writing?

I haven't exactly been looking, HOTYH. Although, just speaking from a gut feeling here, that sounds like something a corporate executive would say or have said to them.
 
I always had the feeling that there are actually two parts

1.Mr. Ramsey: Listen Carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business, but not the country it serves.
At this time, we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.
When you get home, you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence and earlier pickup of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for a proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in way marked or tampered with, she dies. You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics.
You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities.



2.Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us, John. Use that good, Southern common sense of yours. It's up to you now John! Victory! S.B.T.C."


To me it sounds like nr.1 and nr.2 are from two different stories.The tone is totally different.Nr.2 is full of ego,nr.1 is instructions.

I was thinking the same thing. It almost sounds like two people arguing.
 
SuperDave--First, I had no idea so many professionals had analyzed the note, but I realize that is totally naive of me. I mean, I just hadn't thought about it, I guess, or I would have realized. One of the surprises for me was the number of FBI profilers who weighed in.

That said, I have absolutely no confidence in those profilers and no respect for their awareness of research in the area. They have revealed that they have no knowledge whatsoever that academic research in the subject has been done! Let alone understand why they would be expected to counter or concede.

i used the "quick reply"; will continue momentarily
 
ah. big box. better.

anyway, I don't mean to argue with you, SDave. I am very interested in discussing it all, certainly.

Damn, though--I don't have the drive or whatever you guys have to type all this out! :) I'll try to gear up.....

I should go back to Hat's specific question before commenting on your points. Next. Really.
 
RDI will please explain how PR was lucky, knows how RN authors write because all RN authors write 'to the letter', or had just read L & L's ransom note?

Hey, if you want to have a discussion about it, I'll oblige you.
 
Well, let me make this point now at least, about Hat's endeavors: I think that in some cases you are working at too fine a grain. What I mean is that looking for "I advise," as a particular lexical item, is not too fruitful a direction. I consider the following observation to be apparent when stepping back a bit, away from the specific vocabulary.

The writer repeats words in a very individualistic style: early x 4; john x however many. That sort of repetition for emphasis, drama, maybe a sort of literary style would be a feature of the person's speech and writing to look for.
 
SuperDave--First, I had no idea so many professionals had analyzed the note, but I realize that is totally naive of me. I mean, I just hadn't thought about it, I guess, or I would have realized. One of the surprises for me was the number of FBI profilers who weighed in.

That said, I have absolutely no confidence in those profilers and no respect for their awareness of research in the area. They have revealed that they have no knowledge whatsoever that academic research in the subject has been done! Let alone understand why they would be expected to counter or concede.

anyway, I don't mean to argue with you, SDave. I am very interested in discussing it all, certainly.

Damn, though--I don't have the drive or whatever you guys have to type all this out! I'll try to gear up.....

I should go back to Hat's specific question before commenting on your points. Next. Really.

Hey, I'm not arguing. If anything, I'm even more curious. I wish to know more about your field, why you take the stance you take, why you feel the way you do about these profilers (I'm not even sure what some of the language you used means). Generally speaking, I'm anxious to continue the conversation.

Also, to answer your question, "What do people mean when they suggest that this is a "script"?" Speaking purely for myself, I tend to think of it as a guideline for how the writer intended things to go. But that opens up a lot of new ideas in and of itself.
 
Dave, one thing about some of the points you make above about Patsy Ramsey's writing style (exclams, periods in abbreviations, uh... some other stuff I can't remember now) are true about many, many people. They are not of much use in pinpointing one person.


Otherwise, I notice that many people posting here are firmly entrenched in one of two possibilities, which to me looks like Patsy did it, or Someone Who Is Not Patsy did it. RDI and IDI are the names of your two groups? What or who do they stand for??


I also want to suggest, with great respect to the work so many have done here, that if you are "in a camp," then you may not be able to look at new perspectives. It's hard to keep your mind open once it's bitten down and taken hold. Well, just wanted to say that. It's something that seems to have a strong current in this thread.
 
Dave, one thing about some of the points you make above about Patsy Ramsey's writing style (exclams, periods in abbreviations, uh... some other stuff I can't remember now) are true about many, many people. They are not of much use in pinpointing one person.

I realize that, tapu. You're right. By themselves, none of them are very specific. But (and you know more than me, so correct me wherever I go wrong), to me, it's a question of combined probabilities. That is to say, taking everything all together. IOWs, here we have all of those points combined into one person who can be PROVEN to have been there when the killing took place. I'm sort of the "big picture guy" around here.

Otherwise, I notice that many people posting here are firmly entrenched in one of two possibilities, which to me looks like Patsy did it, or Someone Who Is Not Patsy did it.

Yeah, we're pretty much in a rut.

RDI and IDI are the names of your two groups? What or who do they stand for??

RDI=Ramsey(s) Did It.

IDI=Intruder Did It.

I also want to suggest, with great respect to the work so many have done here, that if you are "in a camp," then you may not be able to look at new perspectives. It's hard to keep your mind open once it's bitten down and taken hold. Well, just wanted to say that. It's something that seems to have a strong current in this thread.

Yes, we're certainly no stranger to that idea. And, much as I hate to admit it, it's at least partly true. Odd, really: I used to be firmly in the IDI camp. Obviously, that's no longer the case.
 
Well, let me make this point now at least, about Hat's endeavors: I think that in some cases you are working at too fine a grain. What I mean is that looking for "I advise," as a particular lexical item, is not too fruitful a direction. I consider the following observation to be apparent when stepping back a bit, away from the specific vocabulary.

The writer repeats words in a very individualistic style: early x 4; john x however many. That sort of repetition for emphasis, drama, maybe a sort of literary style would be a feature of the person's speech and writing to look for.

Repeating words to what extent? Beyond what was necessary to convey the point? Sacrificed good writing style with redundancy? Can you elaborate a bit? This is good, the repetition argument.

But I am also looking for specific expressions or style that is evident in the ransom note to use as a basis for comparison of other documents. A filter. The word 'the' or the expression 'I will' isn't a very good filter because there would be too many hits. But the word 'Victory!' with exclamation appearing at the end of a letter would draw very few hits. See what I mean? Aren't there any distinctive words or phrases that would make a good filter? What about the positioning of a phrase, e.g. beginning sentences with a preposition? What about grammatical and composition errors?
 
RDI means one of the R family did it. It need not mean Patsy exclusively, nor even limited to just the parents. People who believe Patsy did it call themselves PDI sometimes. IDI means an intruder did it.
I am RDI. I have several theories, not limited to the parents. I don't see this as a stranger/foreign faction crime. I am not completely excluding that someone OTHER than a family member is responsible, but in that theory, it is someone who knows the family well and has regular, repeated access to JB. (no other way to explain the chronic sexual contact (as noted by the coroner). Someone who JB would not be afraid to see in her home. I really have only 2 people in mind for this theory. But I must say my consideration of others is compromised by the lack of ANY DNA/fiber/fingerprint/hair evidence from someone other than the parents ANYWHERE in the home or crime scene with the exception of two places on JB's clothing. On the clothes, but NOT on the body or crime scene indicate to me that this DNA, which is male) may not be related to the crime at all.
DNA found under her fingernails was degraded and yielded only partial profiles, and must be discarded because the coroner was found to have used the same nail clipper he used on JB on other decedents without sterilizing them between autopsies, as well as using the same clipper on all 10 of JB's fingers, violating protocol which requires a different, sterile clipper for each finger.
On the other hand, an ancillary hair from Patsy's forearm was found on the blanket JB was wrapped in (at first thought to be a pubic hair until tested. And fibers from the parents' clothing worn THAT DAY were found on items specific to the CRIME- the knot of the garrote, the paint tote from which the paintbrush used to make the garrote handle was taken (and which may have been used in a sexual assault, real or staged), on the inside (sticky side) of the tape found on JB's mouth, and inside the crotch of the panties she was found in (these were fibers sourced to a wool shirt JR wore that day).
It would be extremely difficult for the donor of that male DNA to have left skin cells on JB's clothing and not on any of these previous items. There are other items that should have that same male DNA also, if it belonged to the someone who was there at the time of the crime.
While some say that parental hairs and fibers would be expected on JB or her clothes or blanket, they would NOT be expected on items used to kill her or stage the death (the tape, cord and panties). IDI deny the police claims that such fibers exist, while RDI do not.
Either way, I believe Patsy wrote the note, regardless of her role in the death of her daughter, and I believe both parents know what happened that night.
I have a hard time believing Patsy would write the note or cover up what happened for anyone other than a family member. That's why I consider myself RDI.
 
RDI means one of the R family did it. It need not mean Patsy exclusively, nor even limited to just the parents. People who believe Patsy did it call themselves PDI sometimes. IDI means an intruder did it.
I am RDI. I have several theories, not limited to the parents. I don't see this as a stranger/foreign faction crime. I am not completely excluding that someone OTHER than a family member is responsible, but in that theory, it is someone who knows the family well and has regular, repeated access to JB. (no other way to explain the chronic sexual contact (as noted by the coroner). Someone who JB would not be afraid to see in her home. I really have only 2 people in mind for this theory. But I must say my consideration of others is compromised by the lack of ANY DNA/fiber/fingerprint/hair evidence from someone other than the parents ANYWHERE in the home or crime scene with the exception of two places on JB's clothing. On the clothes, but NOT on the body or crime scene indicate to me that this DNA, which is male) may not be related to the crime at all.
On the other hand, an ancillary hair from Patsy's forearm was found on the blanket JB was wrapped in (at first thought to be a pubic hair until tested. And fibers from the parents' clothing worn THAT DAY were found on items specific to the CRIME- the knot of the garrote, the paint tote from which the paintbrush used to make the garrote handle was taken (and which may have been used in a sexual assault, real or staged), on the inside (sticky side) of the tape found on JB's mouth, and inside the crotch of the panties she was found in (these were fibers sourced to a wool shirt JR wore that day).
It would be extremely difficult for the donor of that male DNA to have left skin cells on JB's clothing and not on any of these previous items. There are other items that should have that same male DNA also, if it belonged to the someone who was there at the time of the crime.
While some say that parental hairs and fibers would be expected on JB or her clothes or blanket, they would NOT be expected on items used to kill her or stage the death (the tape, cord and panties). IDI deny the police claims that such fibers exist, while RDI do not.
Either way, I believe Patsy wrote the note, regardless of her role in the death of her daughter, and I believe both parents know what happened that night.
I have a hard time believing Patsy would write the note or cover up what happened for anyone other than a family member. That's why I consider myself RDI.

DeeDee249,
Consicely put. Looks to me as if JR molested JonBenet, followed by some rage incident, with PR inadvertently killing JonBenet down in the basement, her fibers are entwined in the garrote.

.
 
Whoa! All good information, I'm sure, but I made myself stop reading it. I look forward to learning about other aspects of the investigation, but for now I'm going to try to concentrate solely on the language of the "ransom" note.

Hat, my first thoughts on your last comment are that individual items like "Victory" and other single vocab items ("faction") or even sentence starters ("I advise") can appear in a text like this--obviously written in some very strange circumstances--randomly. There is conflicted intention behind this note: it's not true, or natural, and may be even more complicated by multiple persons' input and fluctuating emotions. I see that as potentially reducing the determining value of any one particular choice of expression. "Victory" in particular I would not expect to appear anywhere in this person's writing except here in this novel situation.

That said, the repetition of words within a sentence seems like a person's style in a way that they would be less conscious of or be able to control. I'm not sure of the source of your confusion regarding the repetition. Look at the sentence that has a form of "early" appearing 4 times. I would expect the person who wrote that to say, "We're going to the beach later, because later is when I have time to go, so get used to the idea that we're not getting into that car until later." Also, like the repetition of "John," this person might repeat their interlocutor's name more than others might.

Maybe "more than others" is a useful concept here. I'm not looking at things like overuse of exclamation marks because that could be anybody. I'm looking for things that stand out as being something this writer does more than others, generally. (Of course, I determine there what is done generally, but hey, I am a linguist! That's my cred in this area. I could be dead wrong, of course. Linguists have been.)
 
Criminal Profiler Roger L. Depue, Chief of the FBI's Behavioural Science Unit, at Quantico, who on retirement, went onto setup an elite forensics company The Academy Group, was requested by Bert Brown, who was acting as a consultant on behalf of Boulder DA's office, to review and offer an opinion on JonBenet's homicide, specifically with respect to the ransom note. The following is a summary account.

Roger was sent a photocopy of the two and half page note, written on a legal pad. The question asked , was what type of person might have written it?

Roger's view was that the ransom note was a crime scene in and of itself, hard physical evidence that remained as fresh as it was on the day it was found. And it could be interpreted. The written word word is human behaviour, like any other behaviour, and it will betray the traits and characteristics of the writer.

In two decades of analyzing written crime scene evidence I'd never seen a two-and-a-half-page, hand printed ransom note. Never. Thats how unusual it was. Criminals who write ransom notes are trying to get across only the information that they need to. Anything else is superfluous, and only going to give more clues about their identity, and theres no need need to write an opus. A real kidnapper has no interest in revealing the kind of information that this note did. According to my analysis, here are some telling characteristics:

The note begins with a formal salutation, followed by an exclamation point. The author wants the reader to 'hear' the message, as if the material will be spoken or read to someone.

"a group of individuals" - this usually means one person trying to appear as a group.

"a small foreign faction" - foreign to whom? A meaningless phrase.

"respect your bussiness" - misspelled, but shows an awareness of John Ramsey's business.

"posession" - again, shows the authors proclivity for pisspelling double S words.

"but not the country it serves" - a political staement inappropriate to the goal of ransom.

"withdraw $118,000.00 from your account" - shows proprietary information, i.e. knowledge of the precise amount of John Ramsey's bonus, and that it is in a bank account rather than somewhere else, as in other investments.

"Make sure you bring an adequate size attache to the bank" and "I advise you to be rested" - both maternal sounding remarks. Shows motherly. Also, why 'attache' and not the more common 'attache case'?

"You will...be...denied burial" - more likely to be said by a female than a male. Also suggests the victim is already dead. If the victim is still alive, burial would be the least of anyones concerns.

"gentlemen" and "watching over" - again, more likely to be used by a female.

"fat cat" - an expression common in the 1950's and 1960's. Indicates a writer in the forty-something bracket.

"Use that good southern common sense of yours" - a phrase not likely to come to mind from a Northerner. The writer is likely from the South, and knows that Ramsey is too.

"Victory!" - Inappropriate. Meaningless for a kidnap ransom note. A clumsy attempt to sound like a terrorist.

"S.B.T.C." - no known organization, and no explanation of the acronym.

"at this time," "to the letter" "hence" - habitual expressions.

In addition, the three exclamation points and other punctuation indicate a relatively educated, literate writer. The sophisticated vocabulary (faction, monitor, deviation, provoke, countermeasures, etc) and grammar (largely correct) also point to a educated person.

The gradual shift from "I" to "we" in the second paragraph makes it doubtful that the writer is from a group, let alone a group of terrorists. In addition, the note doesn't demand enough money (considering the Ramsey's wealth) for taking a kidnapping risk. And its overall tone, which becomes more threatening throughout, suggests someone on intimate terms with John ramsey to chide him. "Dont try to grow a brain John". My overwhelming feeling about this note is that there is too much Hollywood in it. Good people make bad criminals, and the note smacks of inauthenticity. It shows a low level of criminal sophistication, and was most likely witten to distract authorities from conducting an immediate investigation of the complete, which it did.

There was certainly a lot of crime scene information, other than than this note, to process. We know for example, that the killer apparently took the time to write a practise note which began: "dear Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey.". But just sticking to the written material given to me, I could tell a lot. My analysis indicated that, operationally, the note was prepared without much planning, and contained inconsistencies not expected in a bona fide kidnap demand note; psychologically the perpetrator was sane and stable, but distressed, and of low criminal compotence. Furthermore, my profile of the writer revealed someone who was in all likelihood white, female, Southern, well educated, middle-aged, and ewho knew John Ramsey, his personal life, and business, quite well.

A similar account and profile was transmitted to the DA's office via Bert Brown.
 
UC Linguist? Really?

Have at the ransom note then. Are there any repetitions of grammatical errors? These reveal the misconceptions held by the originator, and generally the error will repeat until the misconception is cleared up.

If we were to find another document where business is spelled 'bussiness' and ends with 'Victory!' what would you believe? Striking coincidence or a linguistic match?

Is there a collection of phrases that you would expect to see in another document authored by the same person? This is a key question.
 
SNIPPED QUOTE from DAVE's post:

I realize that, tapu. You're right. By themselves, none of them are very specific. But (and you know more than me, so correct me wherever I go wrong), to me, it's a question of combined probabilities. That is to say, taking everything all together. IOWs, here we have all of those points combined into one person who can be PROVEN to have been there when the killing took place. I'm sort of the "big picture guy" around here.


2 things that pop up for me:

1) The features of the writing may be more common than you think. Even when combined, I don't think they would constitute anything like evidence in a court. Tying them to Patsy would not be incriminating then. Sure, it might say that Patsy would be more likely than anyone else we know is there, but someone else still could have been there and written it.

2) I sense a fallacy in your reasoning about "one person who can be PROVEN to have been there when the killing took place." It's like in the last part of (1) up there, I'm thinking now. Anyway, even if Patsy can be proven to have been there, that in no way implies that other(s) could not have been. Unless I misunderstand. I'm kind of wearing out here. :)
 
I (obviously) agreed with about 1/2 the profiler's points; and vigorously disagreed with several others.

I'm not sure how to keep going on all this, though. I think I'll mark the profiler's points with Agree or Disagree. Then if someone is interested in discussing the different sides of a point, they can start.


Hat, I think I'm already saying some things you ask about above. Related: Just out of curiosity, did you only now discover I said I was a linguist out of UC? :waitasec:
 
Just reread some myself.... Hat, the "to the letter" expression seems to me to be meaningfully characteristic. It's an established idiom, but the fact that the writer uses it here more than once makes it more likely to be characteristic of their speech and writing.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
845
Total visitors
1,035

Forum statistics

Threads
625,850
Messages
18,511,915
Members
240,860
Latest member
mossed logs
Back
Top