On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:55:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<
hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:51:12?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Title says it all.
We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
believers refuse to address them.
Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
This tells the tale.
It sure does. The serious researchers post facts and cite their sources while the clowns do no such thing.
“Clowns” is ad hominem, not a fact. Ben’s post that starts this thread is entitled “Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem”. You proved Ben wrong with the above. Thank you.
Notice folks, that all Huckster posted was ad hominem...
You would think that even though they don't have to research anything and can just agree with the Warren Commission, that they'd at least cite the evidence in the Report to support their arguments.
But they won't even do that.
I don't know which they're more of: stupidity, ignorance or laziness.
Probably all three.
“stupidity, ignorance or laziness” is ad hominem. Ben’s post that starts this thread is entitled “Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem”. You proved Ben wrong with the above. No facts, just ad hominem. Thanks again!
Not a JFK case fact in sight...
Huckster is TERRIFIED of discussing the evidence in this case.
At any rate, they come in here every day with the intent of trying to make fools out of other people and end up making fools out of themselves.
Because they're L-O-S-E-R-S. They have been caught in lies time and time again. They have ZERO credibility.
“L-O-S-E-R-S” is ad hominem. Still proving Ben wrong. I can't thank you enough.
More ad hominem.
They claim they come in here for entertainment, but they're the ones who are doing the entertaining.
It's a laugh and a half to watch them dodge answering questions by using comments, insults and questions.
Their use of terms like "common sense" and "reasoning" are buzz words that reveal they're speculating.
And they think those speculations outweigh evidence. Very funny.
Having a battle of wits with them is like going to war against an unarmed enemy.
They're THAT impotent as debaters.
Yes, I'll miss the "know nothings" after Feb. 22nd, but I'm sure there will be other idiots, outside of Google, to entertain us on the Usenet.
“Other idiots” is ad hominem. You proved Ben wrong in his claim almost immediately after his post. Great job, keep up the good work!
More ad hominem. Don't you read your posts before posting them,
Huckster?
Can you find enough courage to answer this:
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)