Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.conspiracy.jfk    |    Discussing the assassination of JFK    |    99,700 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 98,271 of 99,700    |
|    Chuck Schuyler to NoTrueFlags Here    |
|    Re: "Historically Guilty" Is An Arbitrar    |
|    23 Nov 23 08:11:44    |
      From: chuckschuyler123@gmail.com              On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:02:11 AM UTC-6, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:       > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:        > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here       wrote:        > > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant       wrote:        > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here       wrote:        > > > > > It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is       that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe       the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did       it. Everybody knows that.        > > > > What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas       Tower shooter?        > > > > Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?        > > > > If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?        > > > >        > > > > If not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was       framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant       sheeple and just believing their rulers?        > > > > If not, why not?        > > > I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.        > > Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the       Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills       to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at       people who were far more        distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the       assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of       committing the assassination.        > >        > > You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?        > > > I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which       interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that       Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be false        > > Straw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.        > > > only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.        > > The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical       fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not       made.        > > > Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.        > > And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.        > >        > > Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and       claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the       Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to       draw parallels        between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.        > >        > > How CT of you.                     > Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because       you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.                     What about your theory? I'm not asking you to defend it, but what should the       punishment have been for Oswald shooting at the motorcade from the grassy       knoll?              Are you thinking a life sentence or the death penalty or something else?              Maybe some combination of prison and being forced to befriend Gil or at least       clean his trailer once a week?               Is Oswald "historically guilty" of some sort of involvement in JFK's death on       11/22/63?              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca