Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

But Martin, if you receive no reply, how on Earth can you claim that I will "find out soon enough"?

JohnM

Go waste somebody else's time.

[John Mytton]

Go waste somebody else's time.

C'mon Martin, just a couple of posts ago you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?

You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive, because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply" but instead you wanted to prolong this, insult me and fight me which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.

Anyway thanks for playing.  

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

C'mon Martin, just a couple of posts ago you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?

You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive, because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply" but instead you wanted to prolong this, insult me and fight me which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.

Anyway thanks for playing.  

JohnM

you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?

No it didn't backfire at all. You just want to spin it that way. Having fun watching you being an idiot has it's limitations. Besides I have far more interesting things to do.

You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive,

You said I should contact the National Archive and I replied that I already did. There's nothing dishonest about that.

because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply"

Sure, but that would be dishonest, so it's no surprise that you think of something like that.

insult me and fight me

I was fighting you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.

Delusions of grandeur. Stop humiliating yourself. You were going from half page long replies to a simple and pathetic one liner, losing every argument along the way.

Did you contact the National Archives already to "clear up" whatever it was you wanted to clear up?

Don't bother to reply (but knowing you, you will nevertheless), because I won't respond anymore.

Play your silly games with somebody else.

[John Mytton]

you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?

No it didn't backfire at all. You just want to spin it that way. Having fun watching you being an idiot has it's limitations. Besides I have far more interesting things to do.

You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive,

You said I should contact the National Archive and I replied that I already did. There's nothing dishonest about that.

because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply"

Sure, but that would be dishonest, so it's no surprise that you think of something like that.

insult me and fight me

I was fighting you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.

Delusions of grandeur. Stop humiliating yourself. You were going from half page long replies to a simple and pathetic one liner, losing every argument along the way.

Did you contact the National Archives already to "clear up" whatever it was you wanted to clear up?

Don't bother to reply (but knowing you, you will nevertheless), because I won't respond anymore.

Play your silly games with somebody else.

Go waste somebody else's time.
Besides I have far more interesting things to do.
....because I won't respond anymore.
Play your silly games with somebody else.

Good, so I'll finish this up.

This exercise has been a classic example for why Lawyers tell you to keep your mouth shut.
When starting from a position of dishonesty much like Oswald 60 years ago you can't rely on the truth for your framework, and you made the mistake of opening your mouth, then the avalanche of lies came crashing down.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

You just don't know when to stop....

I don't care what makes sense to your or not. I never said, and you thus made up that I thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

When you don't understand something so basic, there's nothing more I can tell you.

I've quoted you exactly: "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." And I will once again point out that this statement only makes sense if you're trying to argue that a patrolman gave Rose the wallet. That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Martin Weidmann]

I've quoted you exactly: "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." And I will once again point out that this statement only makes sense if you're trying to argue that a patrolman gave Rose the wallet. That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.

Are you really so desperate to "win" every argument?

Even if it means bringing up the exact failed argument again and again? Wow!

That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.

I don't need you to tell me what I said and I don't have to admit anything just because you want me to. People can read back and find out for themselves.

As for your complete inability to comprehend what I actually said, there's nothing I can do for you.

[John Iacoletti]

Mitch and “Mytton” are poster children for how the LN-faithful mind operates.

- only their assumptions “make sense”.

- something is a “lie” if they don’t believe it.

[John Mytton]

Mitch and “Mytton” are poster children for how the LN-faithful mind operates.

- only their assumptions “make sense”.

- something is a “lie” if they don’t believe it.

- only their assumptions “make sense”.

No John, Mitch and I make reasonable inferences based on the evidence whereas you and the CT horde make broad assumptions based on your own biased claims and beliefs.

- something is a “lie” if they don’t believe it.

Says the man who casts dark aspersions towards any Law Enforcement Officer, Government Official, Forensic Expert or Honest Civilian, who even in the slightest way implicates your Demigod hero(Oswald) in the double murders that Oswald himself committed and you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison, Holy Heck Batman!

JohnM