From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, 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   
      
   Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can   
   learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by 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. You apparently don’t   
   want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.   
      
   Do I understand your point correctly?   
      
      
   > because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.   
      
   Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.    
   Go ahead, we’ll wait.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)