One: I clearly wrote what I meant. Nothing "implied" in it. I said nothing about you "never" challenging the conspiracists. I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know?.
My claim is right there for everyone to read. I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't. I never wrote "enough" either. I said with the same standard. It's all right there.
End of story.
Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question your logic.
As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?
And that is that.
I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't. Now isn't that amazing. Just after saying that you don't know if I ever challenge CTs, because;
I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know?.
you now claim that, despite that, you do know that I don't use the same standard (whatever that might be).
You are not making sense. You either have read all my post, and you do know, or you haven't and you are just making stuff up.
Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question your logic.I don't need your permission to do whatever I want here and I certainly do not need your whining whenever you feel that I am not doing what you want me to do. There is a double standard here and it's obvious to all, but it's yours and not mine.
Your so-called "logic" doesn't make any sense. If I am only interested, as I am, in finding out for myself if the case against Oswald holds up under scrutiny, then I don't have to bother with conspiracy theories nor do I have to be a conspiracy theorist. There is no such requirement, except perhaps in the feeble mind of a die hard LN who considers anybody who does not agree with him a conspiracy theorist.
As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. Hilarious. I am not going to watch whatever Stone has to say, when I have already told you that I am not interested in that and nor was I impressed with his original JFK movie. So, why would I waste my time? To please a pathetic LN who demands that I not only watch it but also respond to Stone's claims? I don't think so...
you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK.If Stone was a member of this forum, I might also respond to what he has to say, but he isn't and you and "Richard" are, and you guys are not only making hilarious claims but also fail to back then up with anything of substance, which is why I reply. Get it?
Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?Neither. Stone isn't here and you bring nothing to this forum, by way of defense of the evidence against Oswald. But, as I said before, Stone is not here and you are.
And that is that.Say who?
