On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > >
> > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > >
> > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > >
> > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> >
> > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > how to bully dissenters.
>
> If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.
Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...
>
>
> > > He allows his minions to
> > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> >
> > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > to live with that.
>
> Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
>
>
> > >One of your
> > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > about something.
> >
> > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > in place.
>
> I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> blanks.
This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.
>
>
> > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > about their position.
>
> Make one, I dare you.
LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas. Based on the information available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
Your turn.
> > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
>
> You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina, their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E. So, start from scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.
The
> real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> nowhere for them to go.
The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of a dead end.
>Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> and that is what keeps them from making progress.
Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'
>
>
> > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
>
> The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> a different cut off the same dead horse.
That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.
>
> > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > if at all, in the assassination.
>
> Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
>
I don't have to. All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the thesis of the WCR.
>
> > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
>
> You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for themselves imo.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/world$20gone$20mad$20to$20a$20teaparty/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4/c06aQTc6SqcJ
>
>
> > Pamela Brown
> > mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
> On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > >
> > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > >
> > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > >
> > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> >
> > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > how to bully dissenters.
>
> If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.
Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...
>
>
> > > He allows his minions to
> > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> >
> > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > to live with that.
>
> Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
>
>
> > >One of your
> > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > about something.
> >
> > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > in place.
>
> I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> blanks.
This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.
>
>
> > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > about their position.
>
> Make one, I dare you.
LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas. Based on the information available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
Your turn.
> > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
>
> You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina, their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E. So, start from scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.
The
> real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> nowhere for them to go.
The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of a dead end.
>Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> and that is what keeps them from making progress.
Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'
>
>
> > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
>
> The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> a different cut off the same dead horse.
That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.
>
> > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > if at all, in the assassination.
>
> Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
>
I don't have to. All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the thesis of the WCR.
>
> > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
>
> You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for themselves imo.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/world$20gone$20mad$20to$20a$20teaparty/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4/c06aQTc6SqcJ
>
>
> > Pamela Brown
> > mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment