phatphuk said:

I gotta say. I'm proud of yall

Not a single person — {not counting the ones I'm intentionally Eyes-Wide-Shutting out} — have tried to twist Chazz Smith's well-informed words around…

Prince's death raises numerous questions about prior health — By Jeff Baenen & Amy Forliti — Associated Press — April 22, 2016:

…Prince's cousin Chazz Smith said he could not comment on reports about Prince's health and would not say when he last saw his cousin…

…“I can tell you this: What I know is that he was perfectly healthy,” said Smith, who formed a band with Prince when they were kids…"

That's a positive sign that at least some of yall might have graduated to the "Acceptance" stage of grief.

Congratulations!

Charles back tracked in another interview and once again for the 1,000 time no one has said Prince was not dependent on pain killers. He had surgery in 2010 and according to Billy Sparks it was not for hip replacement surgery but just surgery. If he had surgery he was given pain meds.

Also see this all topic about Charles he has been quite bitter over the years.

http://prince.org/msg/7/36695?p

laurarichardson said:

precioux said:

I just copied and paste what was on the website of the local T.V. station.

See below from MSN a little more clear at least to me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us...ar-AAjoEiw

Authorities apparently won't be shedding any light on the death of music legend Prince anytime soon.

The investigation into the "Little Red Corvette" singer's death earlier this year has been placed under seal until April 17, 2017.

The search warrant for the investigation was due to expire on Monday; however, on Friday, a judge in Minnesota extended the seal "until commencement of criminal proceedings" or April 17, "whichever comes first." ( Means they are looking to move on to criminal proceedings if they have the evidence to do so)

The seal covers the warrant and "all accompanying documents involved in this death investigation, because disclosure of these documents could create a substantial risk of a search or a related search to become unsuccessful or severely hamper an ongoing investigation," the suit states.

The order notes that "state and federal law enforcement agencies continue an active, multi-state investigation into the death" of Prince.

Prince died in April at age 57 at his Paisley Park home in Minnesota of what was found to be an overdose of the opioid painkiller Fentanyl.

His death occurred just days after he was reportedly treated for an overdose of the opioid painkiller Percocet. Prince was found unresponsive in the elevator of the mansion, which has since been converted to a museum honoring the musician's life.

Do you think the ongoing investigation is for grins and giggles? Police departments launch investigations to gather evidence to decide if they are going to bring criminal charges against individuals or groups. Do you think the police would continue this investigation for more than six months continue the seal for another six months if they did not have some leads? If this turns into a criminal investigation and goes to trial the files will be unsealed at that time. I would not be surprised if they could continue to seal it after 2017 even if they have not concluded or moved forward with the investigation.

Thank you for correcting your statement from "in the event a criminal investigation is opened"(which it already is)...to "until commencement of criminal PROCEEDINGS"..HUGE difference, and rewording makes all the difference in the definition of when the seal will be lifted.

"grins and giggles"??? seriously? I'm quite aware of what constitutes an investigation, hence my questioning of your wording. I was honestly just tryin to get clarity in case I missed something. There is no need for trying to demean others here. We are all here trying to figure this out on this forum with the best of intentions. You do some amazing research, and I appluad you for it. And btw, thanks for the clip yesterday of the interview with P's childhood friend and DJ in the Twin Cities.

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

True...also the case is now being investigated as a homicide. Thanks Dibblekins for pointing out that errors do occur on autopsy reports. There was no way for them to tell how P was given that fatal dose of fentanyl

You're welcome, PD...I carefully chose the thread: 'Information and Theories' in which to post what I thought was an interesting piece of (factual) information which might theoretically have some relevance to discussion here - and once again it leads to personal criticism about one's psyche and motives...All very unnecessary.

.
I have to admit, I find myself wondering what are the motivations of those seeking to shut down perfectly innocuous discussion? To me, that's more worrisome - but I won't say any more about it.

.

precioux said:

laurarichardson said:

If they thought he knew he was taking a posion pill then it would be a suicide. Case closed. If they believed it was a simple o.d. they might spend some time looking for the pusher but come on six months! People die from drug overdoses every day and police departments do not spend months looking for the dealers. Police departments want to close cases quickly. They don't keep case open unless it is an active investigation with leads. They are looking to arrest someone and I am tired of people blabbering on about how it is going 3rd degree murder. It is still going to be a murder charge and the police are calling it a homicide investigation.

My point being that regardless of the supplier's intent, this would be an open criminal investigation, period. Do YOU know that he did or did not take the pill on purpose, knowing it's contents, no...no one does, and regardless of whether he did or not (I'm NOT implying that he did), the result being his death would be investigated, as it is now. IF someone was supplied a pill that results in a death, EVEN IF it was a suicide, it would STILL be investigated, and the suspect would be charged. Look it up

"Do YOU know that he did or did not take the pill on purpose, knowing it's contents, no...no one does,"

I don't but the ME does or they would not have ruled it accidental. Remember the police and ME have information we do not have. Something made them not rule it a suicide.

What is your point? My point is they would have closed this investigation a long time ago if it was a simple accidental o.d. They are keeping this investigation open because they have a lead on who provided these pills. Maybe even a motive that may have nothing to do with what Prince wanted.

I realize that all deaths are investigated but why would a simple o.d. investigation be open this long with the file being sealed another six months.

More to this thing then we know at this time.

Dibblekins said:

petalthecat said:

Dibblekins said:

Thanks, Sunset.
.

In that case, I'd wager that the US and UK are quite similar in the sense that 'accident' is the default position. And that (publicly-issued) certificates are not obliged to include extraneous details, if they aren't the DIRECT causation of death.
.

It seems in the UK, 'natural causes' is another statement made which can subsequently prove to be inaccurate in a statistically significant proportion of cases.
.

Indeed. My dad battled several auto immune diseases, including Lupus that sadly attacked his lungs putting extra strain on his heart. His death certificate simply said Cardiac arrest. That isn't what caused his death, though it is what killed him if u get my drift. I'm in the UK.

Bless your heart, Petal...Lupus is a horribly misunderstood disease, often downplayed by those who know nothing about it.

.
My situation with my Dad was similar to yours: he had very aggressive bladder cancer - and the doctors offered him a choice - either we attempt to prolong your life by a few days / weeks by attempting to treat the cancer (ie unblocking the kidneys it had invaded) which will mean a lot of suffering and a painful death, or we leave your kidneys as they are so you die of kidney failure (which means lapsing into a coma as your body becomes consumed by toxins that the kidneys can no longer filter). The second option presented a far more peaceful way to go.
.

Naturally, he opted for the latter. His death certificate therefore cites kidney failure as cause of death, not the bladder cancer which triggered it.

disch said:

I guess you're getting at a semantic issue -- a difference between "someone struggling with addiction" vs "drug addict." I myself don't know if there's a practical difference between those 2 terms, other than whatever stigma-based connotations some people may have around them (which, as I've said many times when we were discussing stigmas, I don't share personally and I feel are regressive relics. I do think generally it's nice not to use nouns -- "drug addict" -- when you can use adjective-type descriptors -- "a person struggling with addiction" -- as the noun version makes it sound like the person's entire identity is synonymous wth this one aspect of their life. But I digress).

-

As far as how people will remember Prince, I look toward other rock stars who met drug-related ends. Jim Morrison, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and many more. I think these people are regarded as rock legends (Hall of Fame inductees, adorning teenagers' walls for decades, etc.) and their music is still held in high esteem by most (Prince himself had Jimi Hendrix painted on his Paisley Park "influences" wall, plus there was an illustration of Hendrix laying on Prince's office table for some reason when I went on the PP tour). I don't think their legacies were destroyed because of what caused their death.

-

If some people are saying hurtful things on the internet -- I mean, that's kinda part for the course generally online (hell, look at stuff hurled around on this thread ). I don't sweat that too much myself. And frankly those people were probably saying very rude things about Prince when he was alive too. I've seen FAR more outpouring of love and respect myself. Where I live (New York City) there have been many different kinds of tributes, all just overflowing with people who adore Prince (I've attended several myself).

cloveringold85 said:

.

.

I'm not saying Prince didn't struggle with addiction (dependency). I'm just saying that Prince wouldn't want his fans to remember him as a drug-addict, because he wasn't one. The media has talked a lot of trash about him, and mostly untruths. Let me rephrase, "some" of the media (not all). Please, don't take that the wrong way.

.

I don't think that because he struggled with prescription drug use for his pain that he could not be remembered as a legend. I'm sorry you got that impression. I don't see where I said that.

.

What I mean is that most people will remember him as another rock star who overdosed, and not remember him for all he gave to us through his music and humanitarian efforts. I've seen really hurtful things being said about Prince around the internet, saying things like "glad he o.d., another drug addict, the purple rain singer"......No, he was more than the person who sang Purple Rain. Some people are ignorant, but what can you do?

.

I think these forums are not the best way to communicate, as people's words can be so easily misconstrued.

.

[Edited 11/2/16 16:04pm]

.

Disch: Sorry for my double post, but I wasn't sure if you read my response. I understand where you are coming from. I know the internet has a wealth of valuable information, as well as a lot of stuff that is pure garbage.

.

Thing is, Prince never lived the rock n roll lifestyle, as we've seen so many other's. He was all about healthy living. I mean, he looked amazing for being 57 years old, imo. Maybe a little bit too skinny, but other than that, he still had it going on.

.

I know there will be some haters, but I think that there are more people who loved him than did not, and so his legacy will continue -- as long as there are people like us!

.

.

[Edited 11/3/16 11:23am]

PennyPurple said:

CooperC62057 said:

cloveringold85 said:

.

Cooper: I totally agree with you. We don't have all the facts, and the death of Prince is still an ongoing homicide investigation, and we will probably keep getting fed tidbits for a while. Things do get heated here sometimes, but I think it's only because we love Prince and are passionate about finding the truth about what happened to him. Prince did not like drama and there is no need for fighting here; we all have our own strong opinions and we should just respect one another. I'm not saying you, but just in general here in this forum. I think we can all use our energies, in a positive way, towards seeking the truth. That is what I want.

.

What we do know for a fact is that Prince died of a deadly cocktail of illegal Fentanyl that was laced with other deadly drugs. I entrust the authorities to leave no stone unturned, and I appreciate all of their efforts and hard work on finding the answers.

.

Just my thoughts.

.

.

Agreed, cloveringold85. I am a peaceful person who hates drama but I have to say that there are times here when I just have to walk away for a breath of fresh air. God grant me the serenity to remain calm, cool and collected.....

.

Yes, I So agree with you!

Dibblekins said:

Dibblekins said:

Over the months, there has been some discussion around the accuracy of the ME's report on the cause of Prince's death.
.

In light of that, I thought you might all be interested in the following:

.
This week I attended a two day public health conference. Admittedly, I am in the UK not the USA but nevertheless, one of the speakers was instrumental in the creation of the Death Certification Review Service.
.

He told us that 48% of death certificates required some form of correction; 10% complete re-issue.
.

I think those statistics are quite startling - and surely evidence of the fact that a good proportion of death certificates / reports may have errors and not be quite as accurate as one would like to imagine.
.

It may yet transpire that categorically stating P's death to be a 'pure accident' was erroneous (no, I'm not making the case for murder, or suicide even, just that we may be mistaken in relying too heavily on that particular statement).

.

.

Very good point you make, Dibbs!! Mistakes are very common on Death Certificates. Hospitals do make mistakes and doctors do make mistakes, as they are only human.

.

I hate to bring this up, but I had a very personal experience with this when my Mom passed away. She passed way in the hospital and when I read the documents, there were so many mistakes and wrong information on it and I was outraged!! I actually had to meet with hospital staff and have all these mistakes corrected. It was hell, I tell you! And, even on her death certificate, there is stuff on there that I don't agree with, as there was no evidence of certain conditions at her time of death. What I had to go through with this hospital (which I won't mention), I would not wish on anyone!! It was a nightmare for me and my family.

.

If anyone has questions on a loved one's death certificate or they think the information is wrong, they can insist that it be changed.

Dibblekins said:

Superconductor said:

Dibblekins said: You are making a ton of generalisations here. And provide very little context or the original source. Firstly, UK is equal to US? No. Second, 48 percent of death certificates need some sort of correction. Do you mean every second death certificate in the UK has the wrong cause of death on it? Or is it that some other detail had a mistake? Or only some type of death certificates issued under certain circumstances? You are drawing a long bow here that Prince's death certificate might be wrong. So you are insinuating that he may have not have died of fentanyl overdose? But what then? Wasn't murder or suicide either you state. Ok what then? Where is your proof, even a shred of proof for anything you are spinning here. So we rely too heavily on the one and only official record? Why shouldn't we? What shall we do instead? Make stuff up? Oh I forgot we are in the thread where people make stuff up. Just one last question: do all deaths in the UK undergo an autopsy?

.
For heaven's sake - I just thought it was a snippet of information in which people might be interested! Do you really have to be so aggressive and downright rude? I'm not bloody well 'spinning anything'! I'm sharing something I found quite startling and of which I wasn't aware - simply as an interesting point of information which I thought others might find similarly fascinating!

.
Does everything on here have to be posted with a disclaimer about 'spinning' or agendas or anything else??? Or do MOST people have the intelligence just to read what's written and give people the benefit of the doubt, without imbuing it with their own unpleasant way of looking at things? To ME, this was startling statistic which might - or might not - have some bearing on our reading of other nation's death certificates. I made it PLAIN this was about the UK, and I have written down exactly what was shared at the conference.

.
YOU might want to see that as 'spinning' or 'insinuating' - but, believe it or not, not all of us have such a devious mind. SOME of us don't have agendas, you know. SOME of us aren't that way inclined.

.
As always, I have couched my post very carefully, explaining exactly what we MAY wish to consider, and what MAY transpire in the long run. I don't require 'proof' of anything because I am not making a CASE for anything (quite the opposite in fact). I am merely suggesting we MAY want to keep an open mind about all manner of issues, given this startling statistic which MAY or MAY NOT have a bearing on things.

.
Now either be polite and civilised or move on. Good grief!

.

[Edited 11/3/16 6:12am]

[Edited 11/3/16 6:13am]

.

Dibble: Very well-said, indeed.

.

I didn't think you were "spinning" or "insinuating" anything either; you were simply stating a FACT.

.

The FACT is; mistakes happen on Death Certificates A LOT.

.

I don't know why people here have to be so quick to judge and fly off the handle when someone is just trying to share information, geesh!! SMDH

.

sunset3121 said:

Dibblekins said:

.
For heaven's sake - I just thought it was a snippet of information in which people might be interested! Do you really have to be so aggressive and downright rude? I'm not bloody well 'spinning anything'! I'm sharing something I found quite startling and of which I wasn't aware - simply as an interesting point of information which I thought others might find similarly fascinating!

.
Does everything on here have to be posted with a disclaimer about 'spinning' or agendas or anything else??? Or do MOST people have the intelligence just to read what's written and give people the benefit of the doubt, without imbuing it with their own unpleasant way of looking at things? To ME, this was startling statistic which might - or might not - have some bearing on our reading of other nation's death certificates. I made it PLAIN this was about the UK, and I have written down exactly what was shared at the conference.

.
YOU might want to see that as 'spinning' - but, believe it or not, not all of us have such a devious mind. SOME of us don't have agendas, you know. SOME of us aren't that way inclined.

.
Now either be polite and civilised or move on. Good grief!

.

They are just very defensive of their position Dibblekins. Evidence of the accuracy of ME's decisions on overdose deaths in the US has been posted here before. How can an ME know what was in someone's head? The default position is 'accidental' unless there is proof to the contrary. It is often hard enough for an ME to determine the physical cause of a death never mind what a peron was thinking when they took some pills!

The ME's report proves nothing either way but does tell us there was no evidence of suicide. No suicide note, no previous attempts, no friends or family that said he had been suicidal and no consumption of huge numbers of pills. It doesn't tell us whether he had any underlying health issues or what he knew or was thinking when he took the fentanyl.

.

Sunset: Agreed.

laurarichardson said:

Superconductor said:

Dibblekins said: Both of you are perpetuating wild speculation around the circumstances and causes of Prince's death by now questioning the accuracy of the ME death certificate and even the autopsy. With red herrings galore. If it's not suicide or murder then ingesting a deadly dose of fentanyl is an accident. Related to dependence on opioid painkillers and sourcing them from non doctor sources. Why is this so hard to accept?

The pills he took were mis-labled and they did not find the Fentenyl in his system from prior medical test. He never appeared hight to numerous people who worked for him and those that did not work for him. Did not have a rep for being a recreational drug user. I don't think he knew he was taking a deadly cocktail of drugs that were in those pills and the police don't think so either or this case would be closed.

.

Dibblekins said:

There is some amazing irony going on in here...A poster whose username is a childish mis-spelling of a derogatory term declaring himself the arbiter of maturity...

Whatever next!?

.

Yea, and don't forget the childish cartoons & animations & having Prince's Urn as his avatar, but okay, whateva!!

.

Different stroke for different folks

.

[Edited 11/3/16 12:57pm]

Dibblekins said:

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

True...also the case is now being investigated as a homicide. Thanks Dibblekins for pointing out that errors do occur on autopsy reports. There was no way for them to tell how P was given that fatal dose of fentanyl

You're welcome, PD...I carefully chose the thread: 'Information and Theories' in which to post what I thought was an interesting piece of (factual) information which might theoretically have some relevance to discussion here - and once again it leads to personal criticism about one's psyche and motives...All very unnecessary.

.
I have to admit, I find myself wondering what are the motivations of those seeking to shut down perfectly innocuous discussion? To me, that's more worrisome - but I won't say any more about it.

.

.

All I can say here is that some people need to chillax!! Not you, Dibbs or PurpleD, but just saying -- some people here don't have the ability to keep an open mind about things and act as though we are sitting in a Court of Law, which we are not. Geeze, chillax people! It's a conversation, not the Spanish Inquisition!!

.

[Edited 11/3/16 12:06pm]

Dibblekins said:

petalthecat said:

Dibblekins said: Indeed. My dad battled several auto immune diseases, including Lupus that sadly attacked his lungs putting extra strain on his heart. His death certificate simply said Cardiac arrest. That isn't what caused his death, though it is what killed him if u get my drift. I'm in the UK.

Bless your heart, Petal...Lupus is a horribly misunderstood disease, often downplayed by those who know nothing about it.

.
My situation with my Dad was similar to yours: he had very aggressive bladder cancer - and the doctors offered him a choice - either we attempt to prolong your life by a few days / weeks by attempting to treat the cancer (ie unblocking the kidneys it had invaded) which will mean a lot of suffering and a painful death, or we leave your kidneys as they are so you die of kidney failure (which means lapsing into a coma as your body becomes consumed by toxins that the kidneys can no longer filter). The second option presented a far more peaceful way to go.
.

Naturally, he opted for the latter. His death certificate therefore cites kidney failure as cause of death, not the bladder cancer which triggered it.

.

Dibble & Petal: I'm so sorry for both of your losses.

cloveringold85 said:

.

Dibble & Petal: I'm so sorry for both of your losses.

Thank you, Clover, love.

Mkilpatrick74 said:

PennyPurple said:

I never professed to be a licensed medical expert. What I am an expert in is, my hubby suffering everyday with chronic pain since 2002. And what we've been thru with the opioids and trust me, opioids do in fact cause more pain.

I'm not piecing together anything. I'm telling you for a fact these opioids DO cause pain, and they do cause damage to the body.

Perhaps that is dependent on type of pain and the individual??? I say this BC ur husband has experienced increased pain BC of opiates, however, I myself have not and I've been on them 10 years BC of multiple spine surgeries and the chronic/debilitating pain from my issues. I also haven't experienced any damage to my organs BC my pain. Dr moved me off all meds that had the Tylenol in it.

Hubby has had several failed spinal surgeries that failed and he also has had decompression surgery and a metal plate in the back of his head.

Cloveringold85 - I just wanted to say thank you, I appreciate the interesting and thought provoking information you've been posting. The trouble with some people on here (a limited few) are unable to articulate a disagreement, opposite opinion without being overly aggressive which is one of the reasons why I do not post very often.

precioux said:

Dibblekins said:

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

True...also the case is now being investigated as a homicide. Thanks Dibblekins for pointing out that errors do occur on autopsy reports. There was no way for them to tell how P was given that fatal dose of fentanyl

You're welcome, PD...I carefully chose the thread: 'Information and Theories' in which to post what I thought was an interesting piece of (factual) information which might theoretically have some relevance to discussion here - and once again it leads to personal criticism about one's psyche and motives...All very unnecessary.

.
I have to admit, I find myself wondering what are the motivations of those seeking to shut down perfectly innocuous discussion? To me, that's more worrisome - but I won't say any more about it.

.

.

All I can say here is that some people need to chillax!! Not you, Dibbs or PurpleD, but just saying -- some people here don't have the ability to keep an open mind about things and act as though we are sitting in a Court of Law, which we are not. Geeze, chillax people! It's a conversation, not the Spanish Inquisition!!

.

[Edited 11/3/16 12:06pm]

Mkilpatrick74 said:

cloveringold85 said:

You're welcome, PD...I carefully chose the thread: 'Information and Theories' in which to post what I thought was an interesting piece of (factual) information which might theoretically have some relevance to discussion here - and once again it leads to personal criticism about one's psyche and motives...All very unnecessary.

.
I have to admit, I find myself wondering what are the motivations of those seeking to shut down perfectly innocuous discussion? To me, that's more worrisome - but I won't say any more about it.

.

.

All I can say here is that some people need to chillax!! Not you, Dibbs or PurpleD, but just saying -- some people here don't have the ability to keep an open mind about things and act as though we are sitting in a Court of Law, which we are not. Geeze, chillax people! It's a conversation, not the Spanish Inquisition!!

.

[Edited 11/3/16 12:06pm]

[/quote It's really sad that almost every thread now turns into an argument or involves personal attacks. I am afraid to even post my opinion bc I can't handle the level of hatefulness and belittling that way too many times comes if someone does not agree. I love this place and iv3 met some amazing people, so I try to ignore it; however, it's just out of control here lately. Truly sad bc I know it has to hurt Prince to be looking down on us from Heaven and seeing everyone turning against each other. Not pointing out anyone in particular at all ....it's a general observation [Edited 11/3/16 14:45pm] [Edited 11/3/16 14:46pm]

.

The personal attacks are coming from the people who perpetuate speculation or what you call "keeping an open mind" and these ad hominem attacks are directed at the people who are challenging the speculative statements and logical fallacies.

.

Dibblekins for example attacked me personally and became defensive when I challenged his/her statement.

.

So the people who perpetuate speculation around Prince's death not being an accident and clutching to everything they can find to support their speculation suggests to me that these people are not able or willing to accept that it was an accident and are trying to find someone to blame.

.

I don't know why there are arguments. WE DON"T KNOW ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE ME'S IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF DEATH DETERMINATION. Everything else is speculation. Yes, we can try to figure things out, but we don't have the facts.

The name of this thread is:

Prince's Death: Information & THEORIES; Pills Seized From Paisley Park contained illicit fentanyl

//////////////////////

Full Definition of theory plural

theories

I was going to 'defend myself' against accusations of attacking someone personally on here - but then I remembered being criticised for doing so earlier (by the same poster) so I'm not going to bother.
.

Thank you Zena for providing some useful reminders as to the dictionary definitions of the thread-title's terminology. Even if I (or others) were 'speculating' (something I dispute in regards to my most recent contribution) that action would indeed seem to be covered by the nouns used, ie 'information' and 'theories' - so I'd argue that the complainants don't really have a leg to stand on.

.
Of course, they could start their own thread where only categorically confirmed FACTS are allowed - no personal opinion, no recounting of unverifiable subjective emotion or thought, no anecdote, nothing that can be remotely disputed, and where there can be absolutely no scope for argument (or even meaningful discussion). It would be a short thread but at least it would keep them happy.
.

Sad

SALT LAKE CITY – Toxicology tests confirm two 13-year-old boys in the Utah ski-resort town of Park City overdosed on a new synthetic drug that is available online and was also found at the estate of entertainer Prince after he died, police said Thursday.

Ryan Ainsworth and Grant Seaver died of acute intoxication of a drug called U-47700, sometimes known as "pink," Park City Police Chief Wade Carpenter said in a statement, citing results from the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner.

It's among a new generation of opioid drugs being synthesized in labs overseas and is too new as a recreational drug to be listed as illegal.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/11/03/tests-confirm-utah-teens-overdosed-on-new-synthetic-drug.html

Dibblekins said:

zenarose said:

The name of this thread is:

Prince's Death: Information & THEORIES; Pills Seized From Paisley Park contained illicit fentanyl

//////////////////////

Full Definition of theory plural

theories

1. 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2. 2 : abstract thought : speculation

3. 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4. 4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5. 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6. 6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigationb : an unproved assumption : conjecturec : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Dibblekins, there it is. Theorising about facts is completely different to speculating about Prince's death not being accidental.

.

Instead, you employ strawmen arguments (i.e. people could start their own thread, I am only providing information), you use ad hominem (accusing me of being rude etc when I simply asked you analytical questions about your original statement) and logical fallacies (i.e. your claim - in the UK 48% of death certificates contain a mistake. Prince has a death certificate. Therefore Prince's death certificate must have a mistake). But with the latter you were careful enough to say "may" but that didn't stop others here to question the validity of the death certificate. For which there is absolutely no proof. And you also offered no valid link between the 48% in UK having any relevance to death certificate issued in the US or in MN or in relation to high profile celebrity cases with autopsies. This is called a red herring.

Superconductor said:

Dibblekins, there it is. Theorising about facts is completely different to speculating about Prince's death not being accidental.

.

Instead, you employ strawmen arguments (i.e. people could start their own thread, I am only providing information), you use ad hominem (accusing me of being rude etc when I simply asked you analytical questions about your original statement) and logical fallacies (i.e. your claim - in the UK 48% of death certificates contain a mistake. Prince has a death certificate. Therefore Prince's death certificate must have a mistake). But with the latter you were careful enough to say "may" but that didn't stop others here to question the validity of the death certificate. For which there is absolutely no proof. And you also offered no valid link between the 48% in UK having any relevance to death certificate issued in the US or in MN or in relation to high profile celebrity cases with autopsies. This is called a red herring.

You're quite right - that's precisely what I was doing.

Thank you for educating me on thread protocol. It's much appreciated.