From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > < the usual nonsense >    
   >    
   > Here's a bulletin for you Hank:    
   >    
   > At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.    
      
   Your scoring is biased.    
      
      
   >    
   > I posted 5 questions at a time and gave you idiots 5 days to answer them,   
   plenty of time to look up the answers and reply. And in spite of all that   
   flexibility, you could only respond to 6 questions out of 40.    
      
   Again, I don’t live here. I answered more than six, but not all, as my time   
   allowed.   
      
      
   >    
   > When you can't outscore morons like Bud and Corbett on a simple test, you   
   don't know shit.    
      
   Your scoring is biased.    
      
      
   > One correct answer out of 19 might be borderline genius for WC supporters in   
   your world, but in the real world it sucks.    
      
   Your scoring is biased.I note you fail Togo into any detail about what I got   
   wrong.   
      
      
   > You couldn't even answer simple "yes" or "no" questions.    
      
   I don’t recall seeing any.    
       
       
   > You ran like a little bieotch from 34 of the 40 questions and most of your   
   responses weren't given until the questions were closed.    
      
   No, you are pretending there is some artificial time limit to submitting   
   answers, as a way to exclude those responses you don’t want to count.    
      
      
   >    
   > Your problem is that you depend in your arguments too much on testimony you   
   copy and paste from the St John of McAdams website.    
      
   You mean the Warren Commission testimony that McAdams’ new website -   
   migrated over from the Marquette website upon McAdams’ death - faithfully   
   reproduces? It’s the only place I know where I can copy and paste the   
   testimony I wish to quote.   
      
      
   > Warren Commission testimony that has been shown at times to be less than   
   truthful.    
      
   Did some individuals lie on occasion? No doubt.    
      
   But that has no bearing on whether there was a conspiracy or not. I’m   
   certain some individuals giving testimony in any case will lie. But I don’t   
   assume that means a conspiracy or coverup.   
      
      
   > Like the testimony that Oswald had no access to sensitive material while he   
   worked at Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, testimony that conflicts with the record.    
      
   It doesn’t. Stovall testified that a minority of the work they did for the   
   AMS was secret, confidential, or classified.   
   == quote ==    
   > > Mr. JENNER. Is it secret or confidential work or classified work of any   
   kind?    
   > > Mr. STOVALL. On occasion we do. Most of it is not…    
   == unquote ==   
      
   > A record that indicates Graef and Stovall lied about Oswald's access to   
   sensitive work done for the US Army Map Service.    
      
   You are assuming what you need to prove. Establish that Oswald’s timesheet   
   is referring to secret, confidential, or classified materials.    
      
   Go ahead, we will wait. Your assumptions are not evidence.    
      
      
   >    
   > Anyway, we tested your knowledge and found out the truth.    
   > You're not "more knowedgeable" than anybody.    
      
   Tell me, in detail, what I got wrong. Start with how the law deals with chain   
   of custody issues. Cite your sources.    
      
      
   > In fact, you're not much smarter than Corbett and way dumber than Bud.    
      
   That very well could be true. I’m a high-school dropout, after all.   
      
      
   >    
   > So go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on and lick your wounds, Hank.    
      
   And we’re back to the insults instead of the issues.   
   Why can’t conspiracy theorists simply discuss the issues civilly?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)