Post by bob on Sept 4, 2015 7:46:07 GMT
During the rapes in Sacramento ear/earons made a variety of statements that were possibly red herrings. Some examples are paraphrased here in italics:
Something happened to my chin. (or jaw)
They kicked me out. (he was speaking about the military)
I'm going back to my camp.
I hate you Bonnie. (Spoken from another room while sobbing).
LE decided this was all bs* and misdirection. In looking at the current POI on Quester Files, it seems like Gian has found someone of whom all these statements were true. So if GQ is correct, it wasn't bs or misdirection.
Ergo, Gian's POI is earons, or he was framed by earons.
Considering the changes in MO and outcome between the VR, ear, and ons, I propose an exercise in dialogue analysis for anyone who has his dialogue from all the rapes.
I'll explain the exercise. In analyzing the biblical account of the flood, it appears that the northern and southern dwellers of Israel blended their written tradition of the flood into one long account (now in the common bible). But if you know the characteristics of the two groups at the time their exile ended, you can easily go through the flood story and separate them line by line into the two separate accounts. (This is a well held theory of biblical redaction, but not all scholars agree on it.)
So my question for those who have the ear dialogues is, if you develop a suspect profile of someone who cries at his rape scenes and says revealing things about his scout camp, his jaw, his relatives, etc. Do you end up with a pile of dialogues that are separate from a pile in which there's no crying or personal info? Can you separate these rants into two separate people? Or do they appear as one?
Something happened to my chin. (or jaw)
They kicked me out. (he was speaking about the military)
I'm going back to my camp.
I hate you Bonnie. (Spoken from another room while sobbing).
LE decided this was all bs* and misdirection. In looking at the current POI on Quester Files, it seems like Gian has found someone of whom all these statements were true. So if GQ is correct, it wasn't bs or misdirection.
Ergo, Gian's POI is earons, or he was framed by earons.
Considering the changes in MO and outcome between the VR, ear, and ons, I propose an exercise in dialogue analysis for anyone who has his dialogue from all the rapes.
I'll explain the exercise. In analyzing the biblical account of the flood, it appears that the northern and southern dwellers of Israel blended their written tradition of the flood into one long account (now in the common bible). But if you know the characteristics of the two groups at the time their exile ended, you can easily go through the flood story and separate them line by line into the two separate accounts. (This is a well held theory of biblical redaction, but not all scholars agree on it.)
So my question for those who have the ear dialogues is, if you develop a suspect profile of someone who cries at his rape scenes and says revealing things about his scout camp, his jaw, his relatives, etc. Do you end up with a pile of dialogues that are separate from a pile in which there's no crying or personal info? Can you separate these rants into two separate people? Or do they appear as one?