On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 2/9/15 9:47 PM, 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. He allows his
> > minions to call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > One of your guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out
> > that he was wrong about something.
> >
>
> This is just a paranoid rant.
Only in Sandy's world...to the rest of the world it is called 'another opinion.'
>McAdams doesn't "bring in" anybody, and
> you call people liars all the time, Marsh, by blatant innuendo.
Really? Marsh has to be careful what he says or his posts are rejected. Those of the WC defenders who call CTs 'liars' are not. In addition, doesn't trying to dump strawmen on CTs and make them stick eerily equate to calling them 'liars' by 'blatant innuendo'? If so, wouldn't that be the pot calling the kettle black?
>
> Now, if you want a level playing field, why don't you "bring in" some CTs
> who know how to evaluate evidence, who give proper weight to hard evidence
> (as opposed to, say, purported "witness" testimony that is decades old),
> and who can recognize when things are physically impossible and when
> theories are absolutely preposterous?
That is hilarious, from one who seems to have a challenge playing on a level field. And also somewhat inappropriate from one who seems to have a penchant for developing complicated strawmen and then making demands that CTs answer from them...LOL...
>
> Instead, look at whom you've got on your side.
Well, reason, for one.
>
> It's not a level playing field at all, I'll grant you that.
> But, hey... that ain't the LNs' fault.
>
No it isn't. LN's are trained to be 'sheeple'. It is, however, the fault of anyone who understands critical thinking who then uses their influence to train people to be sheeple.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4
Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
> On 2/9/15 9:47 PM, 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. He allows his
> > minions to call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > One of your guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out
> > that he was wrong about something.
> >
>
> This is just a paranoid rant.
Only in Sandy's world...to the rest of the world it is called 'another opinion.'
>McAdams doesn't "bring in" anybody, and
> you call people liars all the time, Marsh, by blatant innuendo.
Really? Marsh has to be careful what he says or his posts are rejected. Those of the WC defenders who call CTs 'liars' are not. In addition, doesn't trying to dump strawmen on CTs and make them stick eerily equate to calling them 'liars' by 'blatant innuendo'? If so, wouldn't that be the pot calling the kettle black?
>
> Now, if you want a level playing field, why don't you "bring in" some CTs
> who know how to evaluate evidence, who give proper weight to hard evidence
> (as opposed to, say, purported "witness" testimony that is decades old),
> and who can recognize when things are physically impossible and when
> theories are absolutely preposterous?
That is hilarious, from one who seems to have a challenge playing on a level field. And also somewhat inappropriate from one who seems to have a penchant for developing complicated strawmen and then making demands that CTs answer from them...LOL...
>
> Instead, look at whom you've got on your side.
Well, reason, for one.
>
> It's not a level playing field at all, I'll grant you that.
> But, hey... that ain't the LNs' fault.
>
No it isn't. LN's are trained to be 'sheeple'. It is, however, the fault of anyone who understands critical thinking who then uses their influence to train people to be sheeple.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4
Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment