On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:02:34 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 2/5/15 12:25 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:45:26 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
[…]
> >>>> You watched what happen? Ruby take payment from the mob for the killing
> >>>> of Oswald?
> >>>> No, you just saw Ruby kill Oswald.
> >>>> Like everybody else, by now.
> >>>> And I didn't say you had "no evidence" that Ruby killed Oswald.
> >>>> You want to hear something wild, Pamela? I myself fully believe that
> >>>> Ruby killed Oswald!
> >>>
> >>> McCroskey has created a strawman. The issue that is of concern to me is
> >>> the the govt/Dallas chose to not protect LHO until he stood trial for the
> >>> murder of JFK.
> >>
> >> This is your assertion, backed up by nothing but your conviction, which
> >> is based on nothing but the way you feel about what happened.
> >
> > That is my opinion. I am entitled. Take it or leave it.
>
> But you have no end of insulting things to say about anybody who doesn't
> share your opinion.
That is another strawman. i defend myself and my positions when attacked. I point out fallacies, which your posts seem to have no end of.
It is not entirely your fault -- LNTs are not taught critical thinking. WC defender profs will make sure of that. Therefore, falling into fallacies is the downside of not being able to think critically. That is a heads-up. Take it or leave it.
>You accuse people of wearing blinders because they
> aren't dazzled by the light of your own conviction, although it is backed
> by no evidence whatsoever.
False. I speak up when it becomes evident to me that people are not able to reason with issues that fall outside of their narrow little environment. Wearing blinders happens to be a common denominator with LNTs, unfortunately. It seems to go with the territory of *believing* what *experts* tell you rather than reasoning things through for yourself. It is not a hopeless condition, however. If one starts to test everyone and everything, it is possible to learn critical thinking.
You are creating another strawman if you say I make demands that others *believe* anything I say. That is entirely false, and goes counter to the historical method that I use, which is to present information and ask people to think for themselves. When a few with ill intent try to twist my words or make up strawmen about what I say, I defend my position. That is all.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If this had only been the work of one troubled young man,
> >>> they would have made certain to do that, imo.
> >>
> >> Yes, in your *opinion*.
> >> For once you stated the situation accurately.
> >>
> >> You have no *evidence* that Oswald was guarded laxly deliberately.
> >
> > I have ample evidence. Have you taken a look at the footage of LHO's
> > murder? Just where was any 'security'? He was led, handcuffed, into a
> > garage full of press and who knows who else? Anything could have happened
> > there. Curry was given ample warning ahead of time.
> >
>
> So you are accusing Curry of being part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy,
> and frame Oswald? That's why he had to let Oswald be killed?
Another strawman. I never said that. I said Curry was lax. He was given ample warning. He had the power to do something. He did not. I did not say I thought I knew why.
>
> Did you know that Curry later expressed doubts about the single-bullet
> explanation and that Oswald was a lone assassin? Why would he do that, if
> he was in on the conspiracy?
I have quoted from his book, so of course I know that. You are making a false conclusion from your previous false assumption that I *believed* Curry was part of the conspiracy.
>
> JFK also stupidly, as we now realized, exposed *himself* to danger in the
> motorcade. Was he part of the conspiracy?[...]
>
Another strawman. The issue of JFK's security has been discussed at great length. My position on this is that it was the SS's job to protect JFK no matter what he might have personally wanted or said. Can you see that you are making illogical and false jumps from one imagined *conspiracy* to another all on your own, without any help from me? It seems to be another problem with WC defenders that they make up all kinds of conspiracy theories and then try to blame them on the CTs. That is illogical and, imo, not ethical...and therefore not worth any more of my time today...
> On 2/5/15 12:25 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:45:26 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
[…]
> >>>> You watched what happen? Ruby take payment from the mob for the killing
> >>>> of Oswald?
> >>>> No, you just saw Ruby kill Oswald.
> >>>> Like everybody else, by now.
> >>>> And I didn't say you had "no evidence" that Ruby killed Oswald.
> >>>> You want to hear something wild, Pamela? I myself fully believe that
> >>>> Ruby killed Oswald!
> >>>
> >>> McCroskey has created a strawman. The issue that is of concern to me is
> >>> the the govt/Dallas chose to not protect LHO until he stood trial for the
> >>> murder of JFK.
> >>
> >> This is your assertion, backed up by nothing but your conviction, which
> >> is based on nothing but the way you feel about what happened.
> >
> > That is my opinion. I am entitled. Take it or leave it.
>
> But you have no end of insulting things to say about anybody who doesn't
> share your opinion.
That is another strawman. i defend myself and my positions when attacked. I point out fallacies, which your posts seem to have no end of.
It is not entirely your fault -- LNTs are not taught critical thinking. WC defender profs will make sure of that. Therefore, falling into fallacies is the downside of not being able to think critically. That is a heads-up. Take it or leave it.
>You accuse people of wearing blinders because they
> aren't dazzled by the light of your own conviction, although it is backed
> by no evidence whatsoever.
False. I speak up when it becomes evident to me that people are not able to reason with issues that fall outside of their narrow little environment. Wearing blinders happens to be a common denominator with LNTs, unfortunately. It seems to go with the territory of *believing* what *experts* tell you rather than reasoning things through for yourself. It is not a hopeless condition, however. If one starts to test everyone and everything, it is possible to learn critical thinking.
You are creating another strawman if you say I make demands that others *believe* anything I say. That is entirely false, and goes counter to the historical method that I use, which is to present information and ask people to think for themselves. When a few with ill intent try to twist my words or make up strawmen about what I say, I defend my position. That is all.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If this had only been the work of one troubled young man,
> >>> they would have made certain to do that, imo.
> >>
> >> Yes, in your *opinion*.
> >> For once you stated the situation accurately.
> >>
> >> You have no *evidence* that Oswald was guarded laxly deliberately.
> >
> > I have ample evidence. Have you taken a look at the footage of LHO's
> > murder? Just where was any 'security'? He was led, handcuffed, into a
> > garage full of press and who knows who else? Anything could have happened
> > there. Curry was given ample warning ahead of time.
> >
>
> So you are accusing Curry of being part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy,
> and frame Oswald? That's why he had to let Oswald be killed?
Another strawman. I never said that. I said Curry was lax. He was given ample warning. He had the power to do something. He did not. I did not say I thought I knew why.
>
> Did you know that Curry later expressed doubts about the single-bullet
> explanation and that Oswald was a lone assassin? Why would he do that, if
> he was in on the conspiracy?
I have quoted from his book, so of course I know that. You are making a false conclusion from your previous false assumption that I *believed* Curry was part of the conspiracy.
>
> JFK also stupidly, as we now realized, exposed *himself* to danger in the
> motorcade. Was he part of the conspiracy?[...]
>
Another strawman. The issue of JFK's security has been discussed at great length. My position on this is that it was the SS's job to protect JFK no matter what he might have personally wanted or said. Can you see that you are making illogical and false jumps from one imagined *conspiracy* to another all on your own, without any help from me? It seems to be another problem with WC defenders that they make up all kinds of conspiracy theories and then try to blame them on the CTs. That is illogical and, imo, not ethical...and therefore not worth any more of my time today...
No comments:
Post a Comment