On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 6:34:00 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 11:04:19 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 11:49:30 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-5, 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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. The
> > > > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > > > nowhere for them to go. Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > > > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> > > >
> > > > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Pamela Brown
> > > > > mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > Nobody on this forum gets straight to the point more concisely than Bud.
> >
> > Amen to that. I've said the same thing in the past about Bud.
>
> As uncomfortable as I am with praise I suppose that it is true that one
> thing I picked up doing this for over ten years has been to try to present
> my ideas clearly and concisely (I think coming across Joe Zircon`s posts
> in the archives had a lot to do with it). I`ve found that if you don`t hit
> CTers directly between the eyes with an idea they are likely to miss your
> point. Of course there are those like Tony Marsh who will almost always
> deliberately miss your point no matter how you phrase it. Thats what makes
> Pamela such a good opponent, there is no guile or deceit, she doesn`t hide
> her terrible ideas because she doesn`t realize how bad they are.
This has to be about the most interesting criticism I have received so far. I would like to know just which of my *bad ideas* is *terrible*? Let me give you a few to work with...
1 -- There is nothing to substantiate LHO being involved in intelligence work. In fact, what is demonstrated is that he was a traitor...
2 -- If LHO had lived to go to trial and be found guilty by due process, I would not question the jury's decision.
3 -- There is so little damage to the limo that it is virtually impossible to connect this to what would have occurred had LHO in the SN with the old M/C with its skewed site been the cause.
4 -- Because the SS had the limo for 12 hours after the assassination prior to turning it over to the FBI for a forensic exam, there is every reason to question the validity of the *evidence* they and the FBI later found...
Pamela
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
>
> > Here are seven of Bud's concise gems from the past....
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > "When kooks look at the evidence, anything involving Oz's culpability is
> > "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He
> > can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter
> > Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the
> > boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so
> > far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June 18, 2006
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > "Way too much attention has been given to conspiracy theorists and Warren
> > Commission critics. CTer [web] sites aren't worth reading because they
> > have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot Kennedy, you've
> > identified yourself as someone not worth listening to." -- Bud; July 16,
> > 2010
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > "Correcting kooks is a full time job that not many are willing to take on.
> > I'm not, that's for sure. .... Ultimately, kooks will believe what they
> > want to believe." -- Bud; January 15, 2006
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > "Obsessing about conspiracy, and seeing evidence of conspiracies
> > everywhere, has become a major part of many people's lives. .... None of
> > these things have anything to do with whether Oz took his rifle to work
> > and shot JFK. I could give far more examples of unstable human beings
> > doing unstable things than you could ever produce examples of
> > conspiracies." -- Bud; August 23, 2004
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > "If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would investigate the firemen
> > who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of
> > gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > "Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all
> > walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day.
> > Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." --
> > Bud; August 11, 2007
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > "There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is
> > evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > 17 more from Bud here.....
> >
> > http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4%5B76-100%5D
> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 11:04:19 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 11:49:30 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-5, 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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. The
> > > > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > > > nowhere for them to go. Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > > > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> > > >
> > > > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Pamela Brown
> > > > > mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > Nobody on this forum gets straight to the point more concisely than Bud.
> >
> > Amen to that. I've said the same thing in the past about Bud.
>
> As uncomfortable as I am with praise I suppose that it is true that one
> thing I picked up doing this for over ten years has been to try to present
> my ideas clearly and concisely (I think coming across Joe Zircon`s posts
> in the archives had a lot to do with it). I`ve found that if you don`t hit
> CTers directly between the eyes with an idea they are likely to miss your
> point. Of course there are those like Tony Marsh who will almost always
> deliberately miss your point no matter how you phrase it. Thats what makes
> Pamela such a good opponent, there is no guile or deceit, she doesn`t hide
> her terrible ideas because she doesn`t realize how bad they are.
This has to be about the most interesting criticism I have received so far. I would like to know just which of my *bad ideas* is *terrible*? Let me give you a few to work with...
1 -- There is nothing to substantiate LHO being involved in intelligence work. In fact, what is demonstrated is that he was a traitor...
2 -- If LHO had lived to go to trial and be found guilty by due process, I would not question the jury's decision.
3 -- There is so little damage to the limo that it is virtually impossible to connect this to what would have occurred had LHO in the SN with the old M/C with its skewed site been the cause.
4 -- Because the SS had the limo for 12 hours after the assassination prior to turning it over to the FBI for a forensic exam, there is every reason to question the validity of the *evidence* they and the FBI later found...
Pamela
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
>
> > Here are seven of Bud's concise gems from the past....
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > "When kooks look at the evidence, anything involving Oz's culpability is
> > "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He
> > can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter
> > Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the
> > boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so
> > far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June 18, 2006
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > "Way too much attention has been given to conspiracy theorists and Warren
> > Commission critics. CTer [web] sites aren't worth reading because they
> > have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot Kennedy, you've
> > identified yourself as someone not worth listening to." -- Bud; July 16,
> > 2010
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > "Correcting kooks is a full time job that not many are willing to take on.
> > I'm not, that's for sure. .... Ultimately, kooks will believe what they
> > want to believe." -- Bud; January 15, 2006
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > "Obsessing about conspiracy, and seeing evidence of conspiracies
> > everywhere, has become a major part of many people's lives. .... None of
> > these things have anything to do with whether Oz took his rifle to work
> > and shot JFK. I could give far more examples of unstable human beings
> > doing unstable things than you could ever produce examples of
> > conspiracies." -- Bud; August 23, 2004
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > "If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would investigate the firemen
> > who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of
> > gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > "Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all
> > walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day.
> > Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." --
> > Bud; August 11, 2007
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > "There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is
> > evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > 17 more from Bud here.....
> >
> > http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4%5B76-100%5D
No comments:
Post a Comment