From: chuckschuyler123@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:   
      
   > On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:    
      
   > > As Trump would say, "Sad."   
      
   > What's really "sad" Chuck, is people like you. What kind of a grown man   
   makes fun of another man's name ?    
      
   I dunno. Have you called me Chuckles? Not that I care, because I'm not a   
   thin-skinned little bitch like you.   
      
   > Congratulations Chuck, you've proven that you're the perfect definition of   
   an asshole.    
      
   Glad I'm still irritating you right until 02/22/24.   
   >    
   > It's sad that you refuse to see the truth.    
      
   The truth that on 11/22/63 some people did something?   
      
      
   > It's sad that you believe that there is no corruption in government.    
      
   There is corruption in government.   
      
   > It's sad that you believe that cops don't lie under oath.    
      
   Cops lie under oath.   
      
      
   > It's sad that you believe that evidence can't be tampered with.    
      
   Evidence can be tampered with.   
      
   >    
   > It's sad that you believe an accused is guilty because his accuser says so.    
      
   The accused legally have the presumption of innocence.   
      
      
   > It's sad that you believe that he has no right to a defense    
      
   "He" (Oswald) would've had a right to a defense at trial.   
      
   >and that anybody who questions the case against him suffers from   
   "conspiracism".    
      
   Not "anyone" but if you can't put up, maybe it's time to shut up. If you've   
   been assembling your JFK hobby points for decades and can't even begin to   
   eliminate what DIDN'T happen or who WASN'T involved, you're afflicted with   
   conspiracism.   
      
   > It's sad that you believe that an accused is guilty until proven innocent.    
      
   I believe you are innocent until proven guilty, and legally, that includes Lee   
   Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately, he never got his trial.   
   >    
   > That's just not how the American justice system works Chuck and anybody who   
   supports that type of justice system is Un-American.    
      
   You accuse countless individuals and groups of being behind the JFK   
   assassination yet don't recognize your own hypocrisy. You're a wholesome   
   seeker of truth, but the Democrats and Republicans on the Warren Commission   
   and the ordinary beat cops, FBI    
   agents, etc. are all liars trying to frame Oswald.   
   >    
   > It's sad that yours is a prejudice based on hate.    
      
   It's sad that you would take snippets of what I write here and claim that I'm   
   prejudiced with hate.    
      
   >When you refer to me as Oswald's "Johnny Cochran", you prove it.    
      
   And you prove how thin-skinned you are, Johnny Cochrane. Go ahead and call me   
   an asshole again. It won't bother me one iota because I take none of this   
   seriously. Your conspiracism-afflicted friend Ben regularly calls people child   
   molesters but none of "   
   us" throws a conniption fit over it. Sticks and stones. You're full of pompous   
   self-righteousness and the belief that you're doing "important" work and thus   
   anyone mocking you or poking fun at your expense is somehow "evil" or   
   "prejudiced." Grow up, old    
   man.   
      
   > It's sad that every post you make is some sort of an insult towards   
   somebody.    
      
   Every post? I'll settle for many posts.   
      
   > It's sad that you refuse to post evidence.    
      
   Evidence of what? I have posted quotes, links to research, WCR cites, etc. in   
   response to various thread topics and so on.   
      
   > It's sad that you ignore the inconsistencies in the evidence.    
      
   It's sad that you ignore the consistencies in the evidence, and it's sad you   
   ignore the fact that ANY major case like this, or the 9/11 attacks, etc. is   
   going to have inconsistencies. I'd actually be suspicious if everything in   
   evidence--like witness    
   accounts--was in perfect harmony. Now THAT would be suspicious.   
   >    
   > It's sad that you run from the evidence like a screaming hyena, then turn   
   and attack the messenger because you don't like the message.    
      
   No one runs from you guys.   
      
   > It's sad that the record of your childishness and ignorance of the subject   
   matter will be permanently available to anyone with a search engine.    
      
   Whether anything I've ever written here is brilliant, childish, ignorant, etc.   
   matters not a wit and this will be buried so far in the digital noise   
   background of a closed Google Groups usenet board that no one will ever   
   stumble upon anything any of us    
   have written here and be able to collate the posts and the responses in a way   
   that makes any sense.   
      
   > It's sad that any one searching the usenet will be able to see that after   
   all these years, you've accomplished nothing here.    
      
   I agree. You've accomplished nothing, either. You fancy yourself as an   
   important voice in the JFK "research" community. You're not. You're a clown   
   with big floppy clown shoes and a big red nose.    
   >    
   > It's sad that while you cry time after time like a baby for a "scenario",   
   history has shown that there's no alternative scenario that will satisfy you.    
      
   Perhaps I shouldn't be your audience? How about a dialog with real historians?   
   How about recreating the event to show what happened?   
      
   > So what's the point of trying to explain it to you ?    
      
   You can't even explain it to yourself, pal. You're on record as writing--and   
   I'm paraphrasing you--that your interest lies in the evidence that would find   
   Oswald not guilty at a criminal trial.   
   >    
   > Suffice it to say that this was a political murder to remove John Kennedy   
   from office.    
      
   Suffice to say this is the logical fallacy called Begging the Question.   
      
   > He was warned not to go to Dallas because it was too dangerous.    
      
   Moot as you haven't shown Oswald didn't act alone.   
      
   > He went to Dallas against those warnings and he was assassinated.    
      
   By Lee Harvey Oswald, no known help.   
      
   > And it wasn't by Oswald.    
      
   Lay out your positive case for what happened and stop pretending to be his   
   Johnny Cochrane.   
   >    
   > It's sad that you can't see that in the current political atmosphere in   
   America, the Democrats have tried everything in their power to first stop   
   Donald Trump from being elected in 2016,    
   > then impeaching him TWICE without his having committed a crime, rigging the   
   election of 2020 to get him out of office, indicting him for crimes    
   > they have yet proven, now Democrat donors are keeping Haley in the GOP   
   primaries in the hope that Trump goes to prison and she gets the nomination by   
   default.    
      
      
   Nothing to do with Lee Harvey Oswald.   
      
   > Then they'll have their two candidates running against each other and it   
   won't matter who wins.    
   > They'll have their candidate in the White House.    
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)