Does it have some kind of relevance that it's people he works with? What, he was only an "contemptuous, arrogant loser" while working?
Yes John, the whole point I'm making revolves around the relationship between Oswald and his work colleagues as revealed in the various testimonies. He is not stood on the steps with friends from his school days or old teachers. He is not stood on the front steps with old army buddies or family. In the scenario being suggested he is stood outside with work colleagues, specifically Bill Shelley, watching the motorcade pass by. The point I was making referred to the unlikelihood Oswald would have joined in with such a thing (obviously you twisted it into me saying it couldn't possibly have happened but this has become a feature of your campaign to misrepresent what I'm saying). I cannot explain it any clearer than this - the point being I was making is absolutely relevant, and specific to, his work colleagues. It is unlikely Oswald would have joined his work colleagues on the steps because of his documented relationship with his work colleagues. How this was not clear to you I don't know, I can only assume you don't read my posts correctly.
"Exactly. You're projecting your attitudes onto them."I use the word 'antisocial' to describe Oswald's behaviour and you accuse me of 'projecting my attitudes'. Here is the dictionary definition of the word 'antisocial' -"not sociable or wanting the company of others". And you don't think that describes your friend Oswald? I'll only use a few of quotes to make my point:
"... he didn't associate with us too much ... He didn't like to talk too much to us"
" Never did say anything to anyone. He never did put himself in any position to say anything to anyone."
"We play dominoes and eat our lunch. He might walk in and lay around with us and he would walk out. He didn't stay in there too long. I guess he didn't like crowds."
These quotes, and others, from his work colleagues clearly describe someone who is unsociable and not "wanting the company of others" but I have no doubt in your twisting misrepresentation you will find a way to disagree. I stand by the use of the word 'antisocial', not as something I'm projecting but as an accurate description of Oswald's behaviour as described by his work colleagues. I don't expect you to retract your accusation.
" Did any of his work colleagues describe him as arrogant and contemptuous?"No John, not one of his colleagues used the words 'contemptuous' or 'arrogant' to describe him. But I never said they did, those are my words to describe him (more misrepresentation). I was struck by the testimony of Geneva Hines, who specifically describes Oswald as 'unfriendly', and in which she described trying to interact with him by saying "Good Morning" or "Hello", the usual pleasantries normal people use on a daily basis, and how he would literally blank her existence, as if she wasn't worth responding to. I used the word 'contempt' to describe this behaviour. The dictionary definition of 'contempt' - "the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or beneath consideration".
This is the perfect word to describe Oswald. In your defence of him you have this to say -"Well, since you asked, "contempt" is the last word I would use. Perhaps if they sneered at me and said "what's it to you?" or if they "sarcastically" said caustic things like "I wonder if you're familiar with the concept". But not saying anything?"
I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of 'contempt'. It appears not. To treat someone with contempt is to treat them as if they're not there - exactly how Oswald treats Hines.
"Is somebody likely to notice a shy, nonsocial person standing *behind* them at the moment a parade is passing in front of them? I would say no."It seems you would like to believe Oswald's unwillingness to talk to people makes him invisible but this is not the case. In her excellent 'Living History' interview, Karen Westbrook Scranton makes the following point:
"He wasn't terribly friendly but we, being teenagers, we saw this guy, all alone and we felt sorry for him. We just thought 'He doesn't have any friends' or 'He doesn't make friends very easily', so he was very much in our scope even though there wasn't any kind of a friendship between any of us." (13:22 to 13:41)
Oswald's antisocial behaviour made him stand out in the TSBD. He wasn't some invisible figure standing behind everyone (how do you know where he was standing by the way?) and you completely ignore all the people coming up the steps because it suits you to do so.
My point, all along, was that I felt it very unlikely the antisocial and unfriendly Oswald would join his colleagues on the steps. The fact that not one witness places him there strengthens this observation. Oswald was not invisible, his antisocial behaviour made him stand out.
You seem determined to place him on the steps for the motorcade, you must have some very strong evidence for doing so. I will keep looking until I find it.
