From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:21:51 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:31:24 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:44:18 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:07:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:    
   > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:29:47 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > > > > JFK has now been dead 14 years more than he was alive. As expected,   
   a few    
   > > > > > cable channels ran programs regarding the assassination which were   
   much less than they ran for the 50th anniversary which in turn were much less   
   than    
   > > > > > what was run for the 40th anniversary. Interest in the subject   
   continues to    
   > > > > > wane just as it has for the German's attack on Pearl Harbor. 99+% of   
   the    
   > > > > > population just doesn't give a shit about it any more. It's ancient   
   history.    
   > > > > > Almost nobody talks about it. Politicians aren't making an issue of   
   it. The    
   > > > > > news media has all but forgotten it. Only a few small niche groups   
   of    
   > > > > > assassination buffs continue to argue about it. For the rest of the   
   country,    
   > > > > > it just doesn't matter anymore. The general public doesn't give a   
   shit what we    
   > > > > > say in this group and the few other forums dedicated to the JFK   
   assassination.    
   > > > > Another of your lies.    
   > > > > No interest in the subject ?    
   > > > Another of your lies. I didn't say there was no interest in the subject.   
   I said interest was waning. Why do you have to lie to    
   > > > make your point.    
   > > > > If that's true, then why are you here ?    
   > > > For amusement only. I have no illusions that anything written here by   
   anybody is going to move the needle of public opinion.    
   > > > > Your presence here and those of your fellow trolls is proof that   
   that's a lie.    
   > > > Your statement is based on your lie that I said there was no interest in   
   the subject. What the hell did you think I meant when    
   > > > I wrote:    
   > > >    
   > > > " Only a few small niche groups of assassination buffs continue to argue   
   about it."?    
   > > >    
   > > > Everyone who contributes to this forum, outside of the spammers, ia part   
   of the niche groups of which I spoke.    
   > > > >    
   > > > > You're willing to waste your life coming in here arguing every day   
   with people you don't even know about a case ( according to you people ) that   
   was closed 60 years ago.    
   > > > The case was closed 59 years ago with the publication of the WCR which   
   remains the definitive explanation of the    
   > > > assassination. The HSCA reopened the investigation and got a lot wrong   
   although they did correctly ID Oswald as the    
   > > > assassin. Ever since then bozos like you have been trying exonerate that   
   little piece of shit without success.    
   > > > > Do athletes continue to play the game after the clock runs out and the   
   game is over ?    
   > > > Who said this was a game. It's a clown show. The LNs just keep pointing   
   that out to the clowns.    
   > > > > Do lawyers continue to debate a case after the jury has rendered its   
   verdict ?    
   > > > Actually, yes. It's called the appeals process.    
   > > > > Why would anyone continue to debate a case that has been closed ?    
   > > > To point out the futility of the clowns.    
   > > > > Does that make any sense ?    
   > > > Probably not but who says amusement has to make sense.    
   > > > > What the hell do you hope to accomplish by doing that ?    
   > > > I'm not here to accomplish anything. I don't expect to change the minds   
   of the clowns and I don't have any reason to believe    
   > > > there are undecided lurkers out there. However, I did play a part in   
   changing the mind of Dr. Bob Artwohl about 30 years    
   > > > ago on the old Prodigy board. He came to that group a CT and left an LN   
   and pointed to some of my arguments that had    
   > > > changed his mind.    
   > > I arrived after you did and I recall a conspiracy theorist accused Bob of   
   using an acronym backwards as his last name.    
   > >    
   > > That particular CT said Artwohl stood for Lee Harvey Oswald Was The Real   
   Assassin.    
   > >    
   > > Hey, who needs evidence when you can just make up stuff (the motto of CTs   
   everywhere).    
   > > > I'm sure other LNs influenced him as well. He later became a contributor   
   on the McAdams board but that    
   > > > was before I got involved back in 2008. I don't know if he ever posted   
   on this one.    
   > > At the time, Bob was an emergency room physician in Baltimore, MD, so no   
   doubt he saw his share of bullet wounds. Last I looked, he was in private   
   practice somewhere in Alaska.   
   > Here Nutter Loon Hank Sienzant cites "Bob" as a probable bullet wound expert   
   because he thinks "Bob" worked in an emergency room.   
      
   That’s the logical fallacy of a Straw Man argument - I never said that.   
      
      
   > And because "Bob" is a Nutter Loon, no doubt his primary qualification.    
      
   Name-calling is apparently one of your go-to logical fallacies. You ignore the   
   fact that Artwohl entered Prodigy as a conspiracy believer and left convinced   
   that Oswald was the lone assassin.   
      
      
   > Nutters really are insane. That's why they are called Nutters!   
      
   No, the name derives from the fact that we accept the evidence Oswald was the   
   ‘’lone nut” shooter of JFK and there is no reasonable evidence of a   
   pre-existing conspiracy. Hence, “Lone Nutters”.   
      
   In your haste to spit bile, you shorten the name to Nutters and call us insane.   
      
   You must really not have any evidence of a conspiracy you care to discuss.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)