... and why is this “extremely doubtful” ? Not because of some flaw in the narrative, but that liberal professors are PC in nature and this is something they would do.
Do we have any indication that Dymond IS a liberal professor ? Nope
Amazing that this civil engineering prof could come up with a narrative so detailed that you are able to come up with a psychological profile of his construct.
But I am curious though - just how would Dymond come up with the info that Waleed was shot twice ? A detail like that would have to come from someone who was there and told him ... someone who would know the sequence of events in the room and would also know that “A” did not exist.
AHA! it’s a co-conspiracy ! We have anonymous “B” who was the REAL survivor feeding Dymond the details to allow him to construct his story containing fictional anonymous “A”.
Congratulations Star Traveler ! You’ve cracked the case !
You said — “LOL - After “proving” that “A” had guilty feelings, you now claim that it is extremely doubtful that they exist !”
You seemed to have missed the repeated part in which I state that for sake of discussion, one only assumes that certain basic presented facts exist. It’s only for convenience of discussing and determining the validity of what is presented — nothing more. That assumption is simply an analytical tool; nothing more. And from that one can learn if the “story” actually holds together. And it appears that it does not hold together for the main premise of the news article.
And having seen that it doesn’t hold together, this questions the validity of the “anonymous student” ever existing in the first place. Since there is no way to even verify if he exists, what his name is, no way to question him — we can easily conclude that this can be a “literary invention” by the professor or by a “hoaxer” sent to the professor.
Of course — “news” — is something that is *verifiable*. It supplies facts that can be cross checked. It supplies names and addresses and/or phone numbers, etc. The whole purpose of that is for fact-checking that anyone would be able to do.
When one finds a news story that is not consistent within itself about the “main story” and then we have no way to verify that someone even exists — then we have good reason to suspect hoax.
That’s what Dan Rather did with the document that was fake but the story was true.
Likewise here, it appears that we have a student that was fake, while we are told the story is true.
.
You said — “Do we have any indication that Dymond IS a liberal professor ? Nope”
We don’t have any indication or proof that he even received an e-mail. We don’t even know if someone hoaxed him on the e-mail. We have a so-called “witness” that may not even exist and is a “literary invention”
If we can’t verify that, then we have the equivalent of an Aesop’s Fable. Until we get verification that the “anonynmous student” even exists, that he even said any of this — it’s simply a fable...
.
You said — “Amazing that this civil engineering prof could come up with a narrative so detailed that you are able to come up with a psychological profile of his construct.”
There was nothing any more detailed, in terms of the general facts of what Cho did in those classrooms than what already existed in the newspapers. Note that it’s not the specific facts of Cho existing that we’re talking about. It’s not the specific fact that Cho shot and killed students that we’re talking about. It’s not the specific fact that Cho returns to classrooms to shoot students again, that we’re talking about. It’s not that some students were playing dead (in other classrooms, too) that we’re talking about. No, this is all common knowledge in several classrooms.
There is only *one main thrust* to this story, that makes it specifically the type of story that it is — and it is simply an “anonymous student” saying that he “believes” (not fact, but belief) that Waleed moved and that resulted in him being saved.
So, there are no facts that we haven’t found in other classrooms. One could make up a story by reading the newspapers. They could use existing and “common” facts and do that.
Like I said before, all one has to do to try and creat an “unassailable” story is put out a “belief” — add the common fact, use an “anonymous student” (who doesn’t exist) and you’ve got your fiction for the news.
But, the story doesn’t hold water, basically in its bottom line analysis. And because of that and the anonymous student and no one being able to ask questions and verify anything — this is no more than Aesop’s Fables and not news...
.
And finally — “But I am curious though - just how would Dymond come up with the info that Waleed was shot twice ? A detail like that would have to come from someone who was there and told him ... someone who would know the sequence of events in the room and would also know that “A” did not exist.”
I don’t know that he was shot twice. I heard the report that everyone was shot three times. So, that’s not been stated. We don’t know if he was actually shot twice or three times or four times. If you find out, then let me know.
Again — keep in mind, as I’ve said all along — if one is to discuss the story “as given” — and then analyze the facts and see if they hold up, you start with what you are given. Then you look for inconsistencies. The main facts are simply generic and applicable to all the classrooms. One or two facts can be supplied by the other specific survivors (like Cho entering twice in this classroom).
However, this story doesn’t hold water within its own given facts and it certainly doesn’t hold water with an “anonymous student” that no one even know exists.
Regards,
Star Traveler