Post by 19efpppPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by 19efpppPost by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by 19efpppPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by 19efpppDallas officer Stringfellow, who was an assistant chief or a patrolman or
something,
Don't you think your research skills could use some sharpening if you
cannot determine that?
Post by 19efpppand who frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Fair Park
on the day that JFK was killed, for some reason seemed to think that
something else was going on that day, something different from what all
the other Keystoners thought.
Texas is the Lone Star State. It's Pennsylvania that's the Keystone State.
I was under the impression Dallas was in Texas in 1963. In fact, I'm
pretty certain it still is.
Post by 19efpppApparently, he said that Oswald was arrested in the "balcony" of the Texas
Theatre, that Oswald had "confessed" to shooting JFK and JD Tippit, that
Oswald had defected to "Cuba" in 1959, and that Oswald was a
"card-carrying member of the Communist Party," all of which contradict
what everybody else was saying.
1. What is your source for claiming Stringfellow said these things?
2. What is Stringfellow's source for claiming these things (if indeed he
did)?
You raise questions but don't provide sufficient information to judge
whether your claims have any merit.
Post by 19efpppWhat was going on with Stringfellow? Is it
something a bout Fair Park? Were they doing bong hits in the radio room?
Or are there other explanations you don't suggest above?
Hank
Oh, I'm not a researcher, I'm a hobbyist. Though, a researcher would not
have to ask me where my information on Stringfellow comes from.
Logical fallacy of an attempt to switch the burden of proof. You made the
claims, you have the obligation to document them. Pointing out your
failure to document them in any fashion does not then make it my burden to
discover your source and provide it here, nor is it my obligation to
disprove your claims. The onus is still on you to substantiate your
claim.
Post by 19efpppYou must
be a hobbyist, too. Welcome, brother! I could explain stuff, but it's
just you, so I don't see the point.
And that's the logical fallacy of ad hominem, where you attack the person
and not the points made.
Sorry, none of your response is a meaningful rebuttal nor do you even
attempt to buttress the original claims by actually providing any support
to them. You make claims but don't back them up with anything resembling
evidence, so there is still no way to judge the merit of those claims.
Given your failure thus far to substantiate your claims in your less than
meaningful responses to my points, why should we put any credence into
your claims in your initial post above?
SO IF YOU CALL IT AN INSULT, YOU AEW ADMITTING THAT BEING ALONE NUTTER
IS SOMETHING BAD.
He didn't call me a lone nutter. Read for comprehension, rather than
speed. He said "I could explain stuff, but it's just you, so I don't see
the point."
He's singling me out and saying there's no point in explaining stuff to
me. That's the ad hominem.
Well, at least he wasn't allowed to call you stipid.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)I don't like the term "Lone Nutter". Never did. It's adequate shorthand
for someone who believes Oswald committed the assassination alone and
unaided (like "conspiracy theorist" for those who believe in a
conspiracy), but "lone nutter" implies Oswald was a nut. I don't believe
that was the case. Oswald knew right from wrong, and that's the typical
legal test (the McNaughton rule) for determining whether an insanity
defense is justified. I think Oswald was sane, but his politics, and his
character, and his situation at the time of the assassination led him to
commit the assassination. He no doubt felt it was wrong to kill, but he
certainly felt he was justified in doing so against General Walker,
President Kennedy, and Officer Tippit (much like Antifa members feel
justified in their acts of violence) because of the circumstances -- "the
end justifies the means" and all that entails.
Hank
Hank is not stupid.
Thank you for admitting that.
Post by 19efpppHe's something else I can't say here.
And there's the ad hominem we've come to expect from you.
Hank
But I believe I can say that you are inconsistent. I believe that is
allowed.
Sure. But critical thinking is the analysis of facts to present a
judgment. You present your judgment but devoid of any analysis and devoid
of any facts. We're still awaiting all of that. If you think I am
inconsistent, present the facts, make a reasoned argument from those facts
supporting your analysis of those facts, and then present your
judgment.
Claiming I am inconsistent is meaningless.
Post by 19efpppSaying that you are not stupid is just as ad hominem as using
another appropriate word which would send the Dungeon Master into a tizzy.
I recognized the sarcasm but chose to ignore it, believing it would drive
you to be more specific. As I expected, you did, alluding to the fact that
your "Hank is not stupid" was as ad hominem as your next statement, "He's
something else I can't say here".
Post by 19efpppApparently you like circle jerk ad hominems, but not those which
truthfully reflect negatively upon the Fake Diamond.
Let's clear up your misunderstanding of the facts first: Zircons are
natural crystals, not fake diamonds. You are thinking of Cubic Zirconia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia
Beyond that, I don't like ad hominems of any kind. I prefer to discuss the
facts and the analysis, and how our judgments differ from each other's
based on those facts and analysis.
You're the only one indulging in ad hominem. My judgment from that is that
you cannot argue with my analysis of the facts I present and therefore
prefer to wallow in the shallow end of the critical thinking pool and
resort to logical fallacies like attempting to shift the burden of proof
and ad hominem instead of discussing the evidence.
Post by 19efpppCan I say that? It
might be borderline, and it is admittedly ad hominem,
Yes, thanks for admitting that. It is ad hominem, as you recognize. Since
illogic is the antithesis of critical thinking, and you resort to illogic
in the form of logical fallacies frequently, admit it above, and even seem
proud of being able to sneak your ad hominem past the censor. And exactly
as I said: "And there's the ad hominem we've come to expect from you". As
is frequently the case, you resort to attacking the messenger instead of
the message. That's why we've come to expect it from you. Especially when
you flaunt it in subsequent posts, as if proud of those logical fallacies.
That leads reasonable people to conclude, after seeing this action
frequently on your part, and seeing you admit to it, as above, to reach
the reasoned judgment from their analysis of the facts that all you have
is logical fallacies to fall back on, since you seldom if ever display any
critical thinking skills here. If you disagree, respond to this post in a
manner that displays your critical thinking skills or cite where you've
done that in the recent past.
Remember: "Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to present a
judgment". Show us where you've actually done that, or do it now. Or
support the judgment that you can't by responding with more logical
fallacies.
Post by 19efpppbut in a
metaphorical way which might escape the censor's scalpel. Yes. Perhaps I
have even odds on this one.
Clearly. But it is still ad hominem. As you admit above. It is still an
attack on the messenger, and not the message. Surprise us all. Attack the
message for a change, and in a way that displays your critical thinking
you say I am not putting on display in my posts here.
Hank