The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
17 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »    Reply to this topic

So Why Did Film Director Tony Scott Kill Himself?

Myths About The States In His Films Made Him Jump

Jamtjim
post 21.Aug.2012, 03:41 PM
Post #31
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
You certainly have shown that you are an untested researcher as you just constantly repeat your denials about anything while hiding as best you can who you are for fear that if your vapid nonsense was shown to be yours, you would become the laughing stock of everyone who knows or has heard about you.

Denying something which hasn't been proved does not indicate that I am an "untested" researcher as you so daftly claim, but that I remain sceptical on subject which are not borne out by the evidence. If anything is illustrated the exact opposite as a sceptical starting point, without preconceived ideas is the very essence of good research! I don't expect you to understand this as it is apparent that you are unaware of what "research" really is, closing to apply it incorrectly as a label for the process you employ when writing fantasy.

Nor does me posting on an internet forum using a pseudonym imply an "untested" research ability. That is simply a non-sequitur. Once again, you illustrate that you make statements of apparent "fact" without any knowledge of their veracity. Thank you Fraudie, you have amply demonstrated why not a word from your ridiculous posts should be believed.

QUOTE
At least I always use my own name with whatever I write, and am not the least concerned what ignorant posters like you think about. I have come to realize that it comes with the territory if I ever want to improve people's understanding of anything.

Using your name alone to support your claim is a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Authority. It means nothing and does nothing to back up your assertions which are incorrect as they are either totally unproven or else positively dis-proven. As such, nothing you write improves anyone's understanding of anything although it may I suppose, trick equally gullible and weak minded people into believing untrue conspratorial nonsense.

QUOTE
The second volume of the Brougham biography was published in 2001 when I was well over 70 years of age, so I cannot have changed all that much.

That's very nice, but as you said that you had written three books all of which were still in print, then I should be able to purchase copies of them directly from the publisher. After all, that is what "in print" means. A book published in 2001 is not necessarily in print, so I ask again, from which publishers would I be able to buy these "in print" books?

QUOTE
And your trashing the Dicey biography because its editor, Barnaby Rogerson, thought that I must be a professor because of all my publications, and printed so, though wrongly, demonstrates you know nothing about the difficulties of getting a book published.

Passing the buck again are we Fraudie. Nope, it has already been established that an author is presented with a final draft of a book before it goes to print in order for him to make last minute corrections, check that his name is spelled correctly and that his credentials are correct etc. There is no reason to think that you would have been an exception and thus we must conclude that you knowingly and willingly let the book go to the printers bearing a false and fraudulent academic title. Shame on you!

As for your assertion that I have never had anything published, perhaps you would like you to inform me how you claim to know this to be the case? Of course, if you cannot do so then once again we must assume that you have made an unsubstantiated claim totally in lieu of evidence as is your standard modus operandi and as you have done with your baseless assertion that I am an "untested" researcher. Another good example of Fraudie interpretation of the concept of "research"?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 22.Aug.2012, 06:53 AM
Post #32


Since no one else has posted anything about Tony Scott's suicide, and I have some additional thoughts about it, I shall add them:

1. English film director Tony Scott is about the last person to commit suicide, one can think of. He has had a most successful career, and could get funding for just about anything he wanted to do. He was even thinking of doing a sequel to Top Gun, so if he even had some dark secret that he wanted to expose in a film, why didn't he.

2. It seems that it would just be seen as another unexpected thriller, so he decided to make it more convincing by killing himself under very special conditions which no thinking person could miss.

3. Instead of taking an overdose of something, and dying in some secluded corner, he made killing himself a public spectacle by jumping off the San Pedro bridge - what many persons saw, and could not be made into any kind of murder by conspiracy theorists. There would be nothing here for the David Ickes et al. And it would not be a murder like that of David Kelly, cadet parachutist Stephen Hilder, or MI6 agent Gareth Williams which could be made to look like suicide.

4. Scott even provided notes which would quash any claims that he killed himself for physical reasons - what ABC conveniently did as suspected, and was soon shot down.

5. Scott had a deep personal complaint which he hoped to alert the country about by killing himself in a most obvious, convincing way - what he accomplished.

6. His suicide seems a most obvious complaint of how the Los Angeles County's Coroner Office dealt with the apparent murder of FBI Special Agent Stephen Ivens whose skeleton was found on July 30th, and LA County Detective Coroner Courtney Morrow ruled that he died by his own hand on that day - what has had his wife Thea complaining about ever since, and Scott, of all people, could not have noticed it.

7. Ivens was allegedly part of the security detail which covered the Obama fund-raising event at George Clooney's house in Hollywood on May 10, 2012, the last time Ivens was allegedly seen alive. Scott must have been invited to the event since his support would have been most helpful to the Obama campaign, but Scott officially has not contributed, as far as I can find, but he still could have given money secretly. In any case, Scott knew about the event, and Ivens' disappearance.

8. While Ivens' disappearance may have been forgotten about by Scott, the Coroner Office's handling of his death could not have, given the condition of his body - what surely showed that he had been killed somewhere else and much earlier, especially since it was found only a hundred yards from the Catholic Church he attended, and only three-quarters of a mile from where he lived - what the alleged manhunt would have found if it had been serious to find him after the fundraiser at Clooney's.

9. This fumbled inquest over Ivens' suspected murder goes a long way in explaining not only why Scott killed himself but also how. The LA Coroner's Office could not mess it up into some kind of murder this time or some kind of personal suicide, given the way he killed himself, and Deputy Chief Coroner Ed Winter isn't in the process of doing so. as his denial that Scott was suffering from an inoperable brain tumor shows.

10 In short, this time the death was a suicide in no uncertain terms.

More later, probably a full article.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 22.Aug.2012, 07:41 AM
Post #33
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 22.Aug.2012, 06:53 AM) *
1. English film director Tony Scott is about the last person to commit suicide, one can think of.

That is just Your opinion.

In April this year the fabulous guitarist Ronnie Montrose comitted suicide. He had been given the all clear from cancer, a new tour was planned. I saw him the year before and he was fantastic. ... His relatives said that he had battled depression throughout his lifetime, and finally could not continue. sad.gif

Brad Delp, excellent singer, on/off with the mega-famous band Boston, comitted suicide. It was later revealed that it had been discovered by one of his relatives that he had put a hidden camera in the bathroom, and She was going to possibly report it to the police ... he left a note saying He wouldn't be able to live with the shame. sad.gif

...there are 2 I think were the last person's to commit suicide.

Every year out of the 30.000+ deaths caused by guns in the USA, approx 53% are suicides ... how many of those were unexpected! sad.gif

(the rest of what you wrote deserves no comment as it is just drivel.)
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 22.Aug.2012, 07:54 AM
Post #34
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
That is just Your opinion.

Exactly Yorkshireman and an opinion made totally without sufficient or indeed any information to ever be able to draw such a conclusion. The veracity of claim cam be evaluated by the number of assumptions made and by the nature of these assumptions. If even one of these assumptions is unsafe, then the whole claim is unsafe as a direct consequence. This silly conjecture is nothing more than frivolous gossip.

Trowiebabes? Why are you being so evasive regarding to your "in print" books? For once you have made a claim which is testable so how about informing me which three books you are referring to, and the name of the current publisher so that the claim may be tested? Of course there is the possibility that your claim is not true, that the books are not in print any longer, and you have lied about them being so. I wonder if the fact that you ignore the question is because you have had yet another Mr Bean moment and been caught out making yet another fraudulent statement? Over to you...
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 22.Aug.2012, 08:43 AM
Post #35


Just more increbible crap from our two leading raving loonies.

It is not just my opinion that Tony Scott was a most unlikely person to commit suicdie - it's almost everyone's except the two above.

As for the publisher of my books, Barry Rose Legal Publishers, it no longer exists since he died back in 2005 or so, and his daugther, barrister Diana - who has defended Julian Assange in his attempts not to be extradited back here from the UK - declined to take over the business.

I have seen several sites where the books can be bought, and so it technically is in print. The stocks, as far as I know, were sold off to book sellers so that they could help reduce the company's debt.

Barry was able to run up debts of around £700,000 to air the work of professionals like me. He was one of a kind who the world sorely misses. The meals at Chichester's The Anchor, and London's Garrick Club and Simpson's were events I shall always cherish. He had me write an essay about law reform in America for the 150th anniversary of his leading publication, The Justice of the Peace, the publication of record for all of Britain's local and county courts.

He was no cheapskate by any means.

In any case, the books are still in print, available for purchase.

As for the case in point - Scott's suicide - I should explain that it was ín the hopes of getting back at Obama for trying to improve his re-election prospects by setting up a fake assassination attempt at FBI SA Steve Ivens expense, and life - what the world still seems oblivious of.

Scott hopes that in death, he will achieve some kind of rectification of the set up - like what Denzel Washington did in Man on Fire. Only in this real life case, Obama's WH are the drug lords, getting money under false pretences, and Scott, unlike Washington in the real life, is trying to get it back and save the country in the process.

We shall have to wait and see how it all works out, but it is by no means over yet.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 22.Aug.2012, 08:54 AM
Post #36
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 22.Aug.2012, 08:43 AM) *
It is not just my opinion that Tony Scott was a most unlikely person to commit suicdie - it's almost everyone's except the two above.

I would counter that point by claiming that there is most likely more people in the World that have heard of the Queen of England, than ever heard of Tony Scott. If a poll had been conducted last week with the question, which of these 2 people would be most unlikely to commit suicide, Tony Scott, Queen of England?
I suspect the answer would not be Tony Scott!

(and again...the rest of what you wrote is drivel)
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 22.Aug.2012, 08:55 AM
Post #37
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
It is not just my opinion that Tony Scott was a most unlikely person to commit suicdie - it's almost everyone's except the two above.

Once again, how can you claim to know the opinion of "almost everyone"? More unwarranted conjecture...

QUOTE
I have seen several sites where the books can be bought, and so it technically is in print. The stocks, as far as I know, were sold off to book sellers so that they could help reduce the company's debt.

No! Being able purchase from a book seller is not what "in print" means. In fact "in print" is a term used to mean available to purchase from the publisher of the works.

Here is a definition of the term taken from an online dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/In+...=ref&ch=dic:

Attached Image

Your books are not in print by definition as the publisher no longer exists. They are "out of print" (see point 36) as they are no longer available from the publisher. Case closed; you have been caught out yet again claiming something which is provably and demonstrably untrue. Honestly Trowiesbabes, you are the Mr Bean of conspiracy!

QUOTE
In any case, the books are still in print, available for purchase.

Nope! Out of print for at least seven years as I suspected and as you lied about!

QUOTE
As for the case in point - Scott's suicide - I should explain that it was ín the hopes of getting back at Obama for trying to improve his re-election prospects by setting up a fake assassination attempt at FBI SA Steve Ivens expense, and life - what the world still seems oblivious of.

You have no idea as to the reasons behind Scott's suicide. You know absolutely no more than the rest of us. You just make up contrived and highly suspect fairy stories around them.

QUOTE
Scott hopes that in death, he will achieve some kind of rectification of the set up - like what Denzel Washington did in Man on Fire. Only in this real life case, Obama's WH are the drug lords, getting money under false pretences, and Scott, unlike Washington in the real life, is trying to get it back and save the country in the process.

Haha, yeah right. Scott was a story teller, that didn't mean that he, unlike you (you would like us to think at least), believed that the fiction he was presenting was true. Utter nonsense!
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 22.Aug.2012, 09:08 AM
Post #38


The first volume of the Brougham biogrqaphy is still in print, and can be bought at this link, like the two other books at other links:

http://www.amazon.com/Henry-Brougham-His-W...IN%3D1872328407

You, at best, have latched onto an unusual aspect of this case to make me look falsely like a liar.

So what else is new!

Here is a link where all three books are in print, and can be purchased:

http://www.fishpond.com.au/c/Books/a/Trowbridge+Ford

Why are you deliberately full of shit always when it comes to me?

Again, I am hoping to have nothing more to do with you, so don't expect any more replies to your deliberate lies!
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 22.Aug.2012, 09:21 AM
Post #39
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
The first volume of the Brougham biogrqaphy is still in print, and can be bought at this link, like the two other books at other links:

Fraudie, it doesn't matter if the book is on Amazon or any other reseller. Being so is not what "in print" means! Can you not read? I have provided you with a definition of what both the terms "in print" and "out of print" You cannot go around redefining terms every time you get caught out making a false statement. So unless you are now claiming that Amazon publishes your "works" the fact that they sell your books is irrelevant. As you have admitted that the publisher of your books no longer operates, then by implication one is unable to purchase the books from them. Therefore your books are out of print which is in direct contradiction to what you falsely claimed.

Case closed!

QUOTE
You, at best, have latched onto an unusual aspect of this case to make me look falsely like a liar.

I have "latched on" to a claim I believed, correctly as it turned out, wasn't true. You have shown yourself, once again, to be a liar. I suspected as much when you initially avoided answering my questions regarding the status of your books. This indicates to me you were fully aware of your attempted deception and were hoping the questioning about it would blow over. It is not my fault that your make fraudulent claims!

QUOTE
Just more hijacking of my work and posts for your own covert agenda.



Nothing covert about it. I examine your claims for their veracity or lack of. Mostly these are unsupported, but occasionally they are testable like this one. It is not my fault that whenever these testable claims are examined, they invariably turn out to be untrue!

QUOTE
Again, I am hoping to have nothing more to do with you, so don't expect any more replies to your deliberate lies!

Ah bless, so when caught out in a deception, you claim that I am lying, even thought the evidence (not that you would understand what that really is) shows that not to be the case. Then you have a hissy fit and say that you won't have anything more to do with me.

Well from my side that makes no difference. I can continue to analyse and debunk your silly fabrications and untruths without your participation or involvement.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 22.Aug.2012, 09:44 AM
Post #40


Just more examples of your making up anything to suit your covert agenda.

Since the 14th century when printing was started in Western Europe, "in print" has meant that something is in print - not hand-written - like printed material in libraries.

No wonder that you remain your anonymous cowardly self when you just deliberately spew shit like this.
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 22.Aug.2012, 09:52 AM
Post #41
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 22.Aug.2012, 09:44 AM) *
Since the 14th century when printing was started in Western Europe, "in print" has meant that something is in print - not hand-written - like printed material in libraries.

Nope, out of print means it is no longer printable or being printed. It is different to being 'in stock' or 'out of stock'. I suspect that you haven't sold that many and that they didn't print that many, otherwise they might have been pulped! smile.gif

Some companies such as Kessinger Publishers(kessinger.net) digital scan and reprint scare or hard to find books that re-discover a new market. Obviously yours is newer so provide they kept everything when the company collapsed they might not need to scan it. I have a recently printed book from them that was original done in 1887.

You can tell us how many they have sold if they have been so popular? Ideally with a split percentage that went to librarys who always have demand for new fiction. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 22.Aug.2012, 10:27 AM
Post #42


Just more irrelevant shit from jamtjim's sock, skogsbo.

I just got my first definition of "in print" from a dictionary.

In my case, my books being in print means that they have been printed, by a publisher (someone else), and are available for purchase, new or used. You can also find them in libraries.

As for how many were printed, I really don't know - you can ask Barry. if you run into him, and while your are at it, ask him what he knows about Scott's suicide.

As for how many were sold, more than you might think because I assigned the Dicey biography for my course on The Troubles, and I sent all those copies about Henry Brougham to Bubba and his bums, and my law libaries when he was undergoing impeachment, and possible removal from office.

I would guess 2,500 copies, but don't forget that I had two years off with fellowships and two more with sabbaticals to research them, and didn't have to teach all the morons who only wanted to know how to get a respectable grade in my courses.

Must have gotten about $75,000 in all, and it was quite worth it. laugh.gif

Would you trolls have me say that the books are "out of print" but can still be purchased? blink.gif

Knowing you, you would! biggrin.gif

Oh, and about the books being pulped, there were still enough of them when Barry Rose went into liquidation, and I recall being offered copies at a fraction of what they cost purchasers but I had no use for them. I was told that they would be pulped if I dind't buy them, but I didn't. The administrators of the liquidation must have sold them to places like Amazon for Barry's lenders to get some of their money back. As I recall, he even owed me over a hundred quid in the end - the least I could give back to the great guy.

Now anything relevant to this thread?
Go to the top of the page
+
mångk
post 22.Aug.2012, 10:30 AM
Post #43
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

Now we have your definition of 'in print' and 'out of print'!

What is your definition of a 'print run'? laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 22.Aug.2012, 10:43 AM
Post #44
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
Since the 14th century when printing was started in Western Europe, "in print" has meant that something is in print - not hand-written - like printed material in libraries.

When talking about the current state of publication as you were by stating that your books are "still in print", the term "in print" means available for purchase form the publisher. Your books are not available from the publisher. They are not "in print", they are clearly "out of print".

So first you try to redefine the term. When that doesn't work, you try to use the term out of context. All you are doing is compounding your first lie with a new one. Nice try, but still failed!

QUOTE
No wonder that you remain your anonymous cowardly self when you just deliberately spew shit like this.

No, the fact that I choose to use a moniker on this forum as, in case you have not noticed, do the majority of posters has nothing to do with, as you put it "spew[ing] shit". Indeed quite the opposite as I have no need to rely on any inferred authority which my real name may confer in order to back up arguments that I make or to debunk false claims made by people such as yourself. I see no reason to expose my true details to anyone, as it is not a prerequisite for posting on this site.

QUOTE
In my case, my books being in print means that they have been printed, by a publisher (someone else), and are available for purchase, new or used. You can also find them in libraries.

No it doesn't mean that at all. Finding a book in a library does not make it "still in print" nor does that fact that it was printed at one time or that copies are available for sale. The current status of your books is "out of print" in direct opposition to what you fraudulently claimed!

QUOTE
Would you trolls have me say that the books are "out of print" but can still be purchased?

Yes, because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. What we would not have you say is a lie, which is what you have done repeatedly in this case.

QUOTE
Oh, and about the books being pulped, there were still enough of them when Barry Rose went into liquidation, and I recall being offered copies at a fraction of what they cost purchasers but I had no use for them. I was told that they would be pulped if I dind't buy them, but I didn't. The administrators of the liquidation must have sold them to places like Amazon for Barry's lenders to get some of their money back. As I recall, he even owed me over a hundred quid in the end - the least I could give back to the great guy.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it rather interesting how the lack of interest in Trow's books have contributed directly to the liquidation of a publisher. A publisher who is sadly now dead and so can't defend himself from Trow's vain attempts to shift the responsibility of his fraudulent professor claim on to him...

@mångk

QUOTE
What is your definition of a 'print run'?

Smudging I would guess. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 22.Aug.2012, 10:46 AM
Post #45
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 22.Aug.2012, 10:27 AM) *
I just got my first definition of "in print" from a dictionary.

you just can't admit you are wrong; taking first on google http://www.google.se/search?q=books+out+of...f+print+meaning

in print
1. In printed or published form: denials that were to be found in print.
2. Offered for sale by a publisher: books that are still in print.
out of print
No longer offered for sale by a publisher: books that are
out of print
Adj. 1. out of print - (of books) no longer offered for sale by a publisher; "that edition is out of print"
discontinued - stopped permanently or temporarily; "discontinued models"; "a discontinued magazine"; "a discontinued conversation"

OR

As an author, I presume your contract has or had quite clear word on who retains the copyright if your book goes 'out of print' etc.. especially if this company crashes? http://www.keepyourcopyrights.org/copyrigh...n/out-of-print- if you don't it's probably a good idea to read it and understand the wording so you don't lose out.
Go to the top of the page
+

17 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: