CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[John Iacoletti]

Stop squirming and tell us who the 'you guys' you called 'lemmings' (in your post to me) are.

I didn't call "you guys" lemmings.  Don't they teach reading comprehension in Canada?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Bill Chapman, et al.,

When dealing with obnoxious people like Kleinschmidt in day-to-day life, just make it a habit to say, "That's a suggestion I refuse to accept".

--  MWT 

Don't volunteer to advise him or he will keep getting caught contradicting himself.  He is 100% sure that he probably believes in something. That is almost 100% perfect, I think but I don't know. Do you follow?

[Bill Chapman]

You are only confusing yourself.
You are playing games.
You are terrified of being pinned down.
So being a chameleon is normal for you.
It is just how you adapt.
You are just making a case for Oswald's innocence.
Just as you did when you started weakening your stance to 100% sure LHO Probably did it.
No big deal,
A reversal of sorts.
It is your current trend
One day it's about literal reasoning.
The next day it's about contextual reasoning. 
I hope that helps because I like helping people

Tell us what stance I've 'reversed'

[Bill Chapman]

Bill Chapman, et al.,

When dealing with obnoxious people like Kleinschmidt in day-to-day life, just make it a habit to say, "That's a suggestion I refuse to accept".

--  MWT 

'Peter' sounds a lot like a certain 'Eddie Haymaker'who posted here for a while.
 
No worries...

[John Iacoletti]

Tell us what stance I've 'reversed'

He didn’t say “reversed”. Fake quoter!

[Bill Chapman]

He didn’t say “reversed”. Fake quoter!

Supply what stance I changed to arrive at 'probably', SemanticSuckJohnny.
'Peter' has failed to do so...

[John Iacoletti]

Supply what stance I changed to arrive at 'probably', SemanticSuckJohnny.

What does that have to do with you fake quoting Peter?

Sauce for the goose, quote-boy..

[Rick Plant]

You're talking about formal debate
This forum is the Wild West by comparison

Point out what I 'made up' other than clever mockery.

You didn't answer my question. It's apparent to me, that you feel a person can post any untrue ridiculous comment without having to provide any evidence for that claim. Correct? If that's the case, the poster shouldn't be taken seriously who only makes up fraudulent statements. Basically, you don't care what is being said, as long as it fits with your false narrative and you can use it to make a false point. Correct?