ChaseChat - Treasure Chat

Full Version: The Cipher debate
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Fundament.

I’ll discuss anything anywhere I choose thanks.

If you’re willing to post dozens of comments about my solution I thought you may have bothered to learn something about it. But I guess the facts aren’t that relevant.

That’s not how Trolls work.

In my last post I suggested you read one page (the comments on page 1) of my blog so that you may have been more informed about the subject you were commenting on.

The ‘keywords’ are listed there and have been listed on this blog by myself in part a number of times and in total by Bet and at least one other Searcher I think. So go find it.

All of your arguments have been shot to pieces. Your contradictions and position shifting have been exposed as has your inability to publish evidence to back up your claims. Yet you’re still trying to look for another 'Troll' angle. To prevent further embarrassment I think you should cut your losses at this point.
@White Knight,

Wrong again. Show me where code word= keywords. I don't want to put words into your mouth so I simply asked what codeword meant. If you haven't mentioned codeword(s) specifically on this thread then I'm not going to assume that what you mean by keywords is codeword(s). Show me where you have specifically mentioned the word codeword here on this thread and not in an edited post.

So, now you assume much more in your assumptions. You don't only assume a lot in your posts but on top of that you want other posters to assume for you...ridiculous but I predicted that.

If you are saying that reading the 40 pages or more of your solution and comments here isn't enough due diligence on my part or other searchers to get a good idea of what you're bringing to the table than you are bringing rubbish to this table just like many have been telling you. You can't have it both ways.
(12-01-2015, 04:57 PM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Fundament.

I’ll discuss anything anywhere I choose thanks.

If you’re willing to post dozens of comments about my solution I thought you may have bothered to learn something about it. But I guess the facts aren’t that relevant.

That’s not how Trolls work.

In my last post I suggested you read one page (the comments on page 1) of my blog so that you may have been more informed about the subject you were commenting on.

The ‘keywords’ are listed there and have been listed on this blog by myself in part a number of times and in total by Bet and at least one other Searcher I think. So go find it.

All of your arguments have been shot to pieces. Your contradictions and position shifting have been exposed as has your inability to publish evidence to back up your claims. Yet you’re still trying to look for another 'Troll' angle. To prevent further embarrassment I think you should cut your losses at this point.

I told you the one condition I have before posting my claim that the key ingredient in your solution was already used by another searcher and made ff publicly comment on it in a huge way. And that one condition is to bet me. Come on, put some skin in the game and see how confident you are that the mighty White Knight can take down a lowly troll. You like the spotlight...don't cower now.
Fundament,

A sensible contributor would find out as much information as possible about a subject before commenting.

A lot of the pages of this thread are taken up by your nonsense and that of other Trolls.

I don't think I've ever said 'codewords'. That was Richard Eeds on the Santa Fe radio show with Forrest. I think I've always called them 'keywords'. I'm not sure what the distinction is that you're trying to make or what relevance it has?

If you're willing to publish evidence for your claim about the key ingredient then just publish it. No-one is placing any restrictions on your here. I don't know what your 'bet' is relevant to. You don't have anything to bargain with.

It's interesting that you've repeated again that the key ingredient in my solution is correct whereas previously on this thread you've stated that everything in my solution was wrong.

Plus you've now agreed that indeed you are a Troll.
@FD

WK is calling Richard Eeds a liar. Richard: ... but he sent me this email saying he had come up with THE code word....
So if WK is denying he said that then whose email was Richard referring to? That raises a lot of doubt about the contents of the actual email forwarded to Fenn. Richard could have been referring to someone else's email which means Fenn's comment was meant for someone else and not WK at all. Without seeing the actual email sent to Eeds then whose to say what the truth is. And of course expect the usual histrionic response we know is coming from WK soon after this. The child's temper tantrum.. wait for it. Here it comes.

Richard 35:53 Alright, Andy, Andy, Andy Briggs the guy from United kingdom, the author who said he's found a code word. You overlay the code word, it solves the entire riddle, with the exception of one small thing that he couldn't quite get.
Why does Eeds repeat, "code word?" And why does he keep repeating, "Andy?" I wonder how much Briggs paid Eeds to make sure his solution was mentioned? We will never know the truth about that.
Cue WK temper tantrum again.
(12-02-2015, 06:13 AM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Fundament,

A sensible contributor would find out as much information as possible about a subject before commenting.

A lot of the pages of this thread are taken up by your nonsense and that of other Trolls.

I don't think I've ever said 'codewords'. That was Richard Eeds on the Santa Fe radio show with Forrest. I think I've always called them 'keywords'. I'm not sure what the distinction is that you're trying to make or what relevance it has?

If you're willing to publish evidence for your claim about the key ingredient then just publish it. No-one is placing any restrictions on your here. I don't know what your 'bet' is relevant to. You don't have anything to bargain with.

It's interesting that you've repeated again that the key ingredient in my solution is correct whereas previously on this thread you've stated that everything in my solution was wrong.

Plus you've now agreed that indeed you are a Troll.
White Knight just said "I don't think I've ever said 'code words'."

That's exactly my point above and it's easy to grasp. You're looking bad if you can't grasp it. You want me to assume that when Richard Eeds said codeword that he meant keyword. I'm not assuming anything in this chase and I encourage you to start not assuming anything in the Chase too. You admonishing me by telling me to research the 40 pages here and your blog for a crucial word that you just admitted you have never spoke of makes you look foolish. This lowly troll is looking untarnished in all of this as predicted.

It's pretty easy to see what the relevance of the bet is for. To see if you have enough confidence in your solution and comments regarding your solution. I've shown multitudes of ways that your comments have been illogical. Then you want to say I'm having delusional fanasies about my solution and other hidden gems. I've shown you are the one with the delusional fantasies and I look forward to showing more. So yeah, I do have something to bargain with. You have to except the bet to bargain with.

If you are hanging your hat on silly, shallow and incorrect victories I can play that game all day. It makes you look bad, not me. Put some more substance behind your hollow and incorrect victories.
(12-02-2015, 03:43 PM)njfl Wrote: [ -> ]@FD

WK is calling Richard Eeds a liar. Richard: ... but he sent me this email saying he had come up with THE code word....
So if WK is denying he said that then whose email was Richard referring to? That raises a lot of doubt about the contents of the actual email forwarded to Fenn. Richard could have been referring to someone else's email which means Fenn's comment was meant for someone else and not WK at all. Without seeing the actual email sent to Eeds then whose to say what the truth is. And of course expect the usual histrionic response we know is coming from WK soon after this. The child's temper tantrum.. wait for it. Here it comes.

Richard 35:53 Alright, Andy, Andy, Andy Briggs the guy from United kingdom, the author who said he's found a code word. You overlay the code word, it solves the entire riddle, with the exception of one small thing that he couldn't quite get.
Why does Eeds repeat, "code word?" And why does he keep repeating, "Andy?" I wonder how much Briggs paid Eeds to make sure his solution was mentioned? We will never know the truth about that.
Cue WK temper tantrum again.
Njfl, I see what you ar saying. Also, Richard the interviewer doesn't even get Andy's solve right. Richard mentions codeword- singular and Andy used keywords- plural. So Andy should pick a better interviewer next time as Richard doesn't even get th crucial part of Andy's solve correct. That's a major diservice to Andy that even he didn't catch yet...ridiculous.
Njfl and Fundament,

You are both so full of it it’s untrue. It’s like listening to two children making up a story then trying to convince themselves that it's true.

Richard was trying to give a simple summary of the solution to listeners. He didn’t quite get it all right though he’d grasped the concept of overlaying keywords on text to unlock the riddle.

Overlaying a ‘code-word’ (in his words) to solve the riddle is kind of right but at one point I think he said I overlaid a ‘codeword’ on the text of the poem which isn’t correct It should have been on the text of the answers but I guess such distinctions would be difficult to get across to listeners who weren’t involved in the Chase.

Richard also seemed to think I was a famous science fiction author from the UK as did a couple of Searchers who post on Dal’s blog. They must all have done some loose searching on the Internet and concluded there could only be one Andy Briggs in the UK who’d written a book.

One of the Searchers I mentioned above requested from Richard a copy of the two emails I sent to him. It was something of a surprise to myself that Richard forwarded these emails and the contents ended up posted on Dal’s blog.

Richard and the Searcher didn’t cover themselves with glory there as my private emails should not have been made public particularly as they contained my home phone number and other personal details.

But, the result was that the contents of both emails was posted on Dal’s site so you two Trolls can 'pass the Vaseline to the non-Troll Searchers then bend over'. You won’t be able to reinvent the contents of the emails.

I said very recently that it’s time for you two Trolls to cut your losses to avoid any further embarrassment or humiliation. After your last two posts I think that’s long overdue.
@White Knight...as usual I stand by my last post that says the interviewer got your solution wrong. Then you say I'm wrong. Then you point out the mistakes the interviewer made. You're not making sense as predicted. But that's par for the course.

I'm stealing your breakfast here, Andy...no really I am.
Why do you guys keep talking to him? If people stop talking to him he will fade away. His armour will rust , his sword will get corroded, his horse will die. Just don't feed the publicity seeking hustlers.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43