1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • HUCKSTER'S BACK - And Still A Coward...

    From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 27 09:26:41 2023
    Huckster's back, and clearly still a coward who will REFUSE to answer
    Gil's questions.

    Does this surprise anyone?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Sienzant@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Oct 27 11:56:42 2023
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:27:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Huckster's back, and clearly still a coward who will REFUSE to answer
    Gil's questions.

    You mean Gil’s Gish Gallop, don’t you?

    “The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.”



    Does this surprise anyone?

    Do you think I have an *obligation* to answer any and all questions Gil can dream up?

    If so, please explain why I have such an obligation, but Gil has no obligation to support the assertions he himself makes. I’m still waiting for him to show evidence of the DPD “chain of custody forms” he insisted should have been completed for the
    evidence gathered, and asked us to explain where they are. Does Gil have an obligation to support his own claims, and if not, why not?

    But if I have no such obligation to answer Gil’s Gish Gallop, please explain why you’re pretending I do. And why you’re insisting I’m a coward for not doing what I have no obligation to do.

    Feel free to add any possibilities I may have overlooked.

    Thanks in advance for your reasoned response, but if you simply do a fringe reset and post the same inane false claims you’ve been posting for over a month, you’re the one running away from a reasoned discussion. And admitting once more you’d
    rather talk about me than the assassination.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 27 12:04:17 2023
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:56:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:


    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
    and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Sienzant@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Oct 27 13:59:07 2023
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:04:22 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:56:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
    and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    Ben has no reasoned rebuttal to Gil’s Gish Gallop, so he resorts to his fringe reset and simply posts his false assertions once more.

    As expected. Even though I invited him to post a reasoned rebuttal:

    “Thanks in advance for your reasoned response, but if you simply do a fringe reset and post the same inane false claims you’ve been posting for over a month, you’re the one running away from a reasoned discussion. And admitting once more you’d
    rather talk about me than the assassination.”

    Ben would rather talk about me, and make up claims I never said, and attribute them to me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to hsienzant@aol.com on Fri Oct 27 14:15:47 2023
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:59:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:04:22?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:56:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
    and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    Ben has no reasoned rebuttal to Gils Gish Gallop...

    Of course I do. But this is merely an evasion from answering
    questions on your part.

    Run coward... RUN!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Sienzant@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Oct 27 14:49:39 2023
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:59:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:04:22?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:56:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
    and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    Ben has no reasoned rebuttal to Gil’s Gish Gallop...

    Of course I do.

    You have yet to share it here.


    But this is merely an evasion from answering
    questions on your part.

    You never explained why I have an obligation to answer any questions from Gil.


    Run coward... RUN!!!

    The only running is by you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to hsienzant@aol.com on Fri Oct 27 14:52:16 2023
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:15:52?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:59:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:04:22?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:56:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, >>>> and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    Ben has no reasoned rebuttal to Gils Gish Gallop...

    Of course I do.

    You have yet to share it here.

    You have yet to answer the above... Why do you whine about answers to questions when you refuse to answer any???

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com on Fri Oct 27 14:55:27 2023
    On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:26:41 -0700, Ben Holmes
    <Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

    Huckster's back, and clearly still a coward who will REFUSE to answer
    Gil's questions.

    Does this surprise anyone?


    And despite three evasions here, he STILL proves himself a coward!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoTrueFlags Here@21:1/5 to Hank Sienzant on Fri Oct 27 15:47:47 2023
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:27:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Huckster's back, and clearly still a coward who will REFUSE to answer Gil's questions.
    You mean Gil’s Gish Gallop, don’t you?

    “The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.”
    This Gish Gallop thing is exactly what coward and hypocrite Hank Sienzant does!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Sienzant@21:1/5 to NoTrueFlags Here on Sun Oct 29 18:20:56 2023
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:27:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Huckster's back, and clearly still a coward who will REFUSE to answer Gil's questions.
    You mean Gil’s Gish Gallop, don’t you?

    “The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.”
    This Gish Gallop thing is exactly what coward (*ad hominem*) and hypocrite (*ad hominem*) Hank Sienzant does!

    Cite an example of my Gish Gallop. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoTrueFlags Here@21:1/5 to Hank Sienzant on Sun Oct 29 18:34:16 2023
    On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:20:58 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
    On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:27:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Huckster's back, and clearly still a coward who will REFUSE to answer Gil's questions.
    You mean Gil’s Gish Gallop, don’t you?

    “The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.”
    This Gish Gallop thing is exactly what coward (*ad hominem*) and hypocrite (*ad hominem*) Hank Sienzant does!

    Cite an example of my Gish Gallop. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
    I'd have to go down in the basement and find it. I think everybody knows I'm right.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 30 06:19:37 2023
    On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
    and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Sienzant@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Mon Oct 30 19:11:38 2023
    On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

    You've claimed …

    Ben attempts to change the subject to something he pretends I said because he apparently can’t discuss this topic knowledgeably.

    He claimed I was a “coward who will REFUSE to answer Gil's questions.”
    But as anyone can see, I’m responding to them here.

    He’s reduced to trolling.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to hsienzant@aol.com on Tue Oct 31 06:29:57 2023
    On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 19:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

    On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:45?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

    You've claimed

    Ben attempts ...

    Ben doesn't "attempt"... he succeeds at proving your cowardice:

    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
    and exited the back of his head.

    More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

    Are you proud of yourself?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)