Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Charles Collins]

Oh boy.... What does it take to get through to you?

Let's try again, shall we? Here's the quote you refer to;

1. I made the comment that it was about Oswald's frame of mind, because you missed the point I had made.
2. I asked a question
3. I stated my opinion that I seriously doubted it.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was.

I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.

It was in response to your own question. Therefore, according to the definition of answer in the dictionary it is an answer.


The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was

Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. The question followed by: "I seriously doubt it..." appears to be definite and clear expression of your opinion. And you wrote both of them. Therefore it is a statement (by definition).


I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!

Okay, but you also brought Oswald's frame of mind into the conversation. And that is what I responded to.


I really hope you can understand this. Because I am tired of it and we are just going around in circles arguing the same stuff.

[John Iacoletti]

If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

Indeed.... or maybe you and I are not dumb enough to discuss things at his level.

How about this piece of amazing "logic"

The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was

Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. The question followed by: "I seriously doubt it..." appears to be definite and clear expression of your opinion. And you wrote both of them. Therefore it is a statement (by definition).

First he defines a statement as a definite or clear expression of something, then he goes on to say that what I wrote "appears to be definite and clear", only to conclude that because it appeared to be definite and clear it is somehow, by definition, a statement....

Do you think he understands that his bogus conclusion is only based upon his misguided opinion that what I wrote appears to be definite and clear? I seriously doubt it!

[Charles Collins]

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."

This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."

On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.

I got your point the first time:

Charles, do you really not see the difference between a positive claim ("His frame of mind was X"), and skepticism towards that positive claim?  One is a knowledge claim and the other is not.

I should have put the words "I think" at the beginning of my sentence. Are you happy now?

However, the problem with your post is that the "skepticism" was not towards the positive claim. (The "skepticism" was posted at least 6 minutes beforehand.) That is what we have been arguing about. Martin appeared to be confused about that.



On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out?  None whatsoever.


No one has said that it was anything but conjecture.

[Charles Collins]

This is futile.  He's not going to get it.

Indeed.... or maybe you and I are not dumb enough to discuss things at his level.

How about this piece of amazing "logic"

First he defines a statement as a definite or clear expression of something, then he goes on to say that what I wrote "appears to be definite and clear", only to conclude that because it appeared to be definite and clear it is somehow, by definition, a statement....

Do you think he understands that his bogus conclusion is only based upon his misguided opinion that what I wrote appears to be definite and clear? I seriously doubt it!

The point is that you didn't write "I sort of think that perhaps I might kind of doubt it a little tiny bit." The sentence "I seriously doubt it." is a definite and clear statement of your opinion. Therefore, by definition, it is a statement. Own up to it!

[Martin Weidmann]

The point is that you didn't write "I sort of think that perhaps I might kind of doubt it a little tiny bit." The sentence "I seriously doubt it." is a definite and clear statement of your opinion. Therefore, by definition, it is a statement. Own up to it!

Oh please, just stop the twisting and turning and give it up.

No, the point is that you did write "appears to be definite and clear"

Now you back away from that and present me with what, in your opinion, I should have written, and now you claim that, what I wrote, instead of what you previously thought it appeared to be, now suddenly is, again in your opinion of course (and thus contradicting yourself), a definite and clear statement after all....

In other words, it is a statement, not because it selfevidently is, but instead merely because in your opinion you believe it is a statement.

You're all over the place trying to salvage an already sunken ship. It's getting comical and tragic at the same time. What is it with you? Does your ego get in the way or what?

[Charles Collins]

Oh please, just stop the twisting and turning and give it up.

Now you present me with what I should have written, in your opinion, and you claim that, what I wrote, instead of what you previously thought it appeared to be, now suddenly is, again in your opinion of course (and thus contradicting yourself), a definite and clear statement after all....

In other words, it is a statement, not because it selfevidently is, but instead merely because in your opinion you believe it is a statement.

You're all over the place trying to salvage an already sunken ship. It's getting comical and tragic at the same time. What is it with you? Does your ego get in the way or what?

Now you present me with what I should have written

I didn't say that you should have written anything. The point of all the adjectives was to show what an unclear statement might look like. And to point out that your sentence did not contain any of the adjectives that would make it unclear what your opinion was. Are you really so dense that you didn't get that? Or is your addiction to arguing for the sake of argument overpowering you?

And the definition of a statement came from the dictionary, not from my opinion.

[Martin Weidmann]

Now you present me with what I should have written

I didn't say that you should have written anything. The point of all the adjectives was to show what an unclear statement might look like. And to point out that your sentence did not contain any of the adjectives that would make it unclear what your opinion was. Are you really so dense that you didn't get that? Or is your addiction to arguing for the sake of argument overpowering you?

And the definition of a statement came from the dictionary, not from my opinion.

And the definition of a statement came from the dictionary, not from my opinion.

You decided, in your opinion, that it fitted the definition of a statement.

I didn't say that you should have written anything. The point of all the adjectives was to show what an unclear statement might look like. And to point out that your sentence did not contain any of the adjectives that would make it unclear what your opinion was. Are you really so dense that you didn't get that?

Okay, clever dick... enlighten us all. When I said I seriously doubt it.... what exactly was the opinion I was expressing?