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

[John Iacoletti]

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

That doesn’t alleviate you of the responsibility to back up your claims with evidence.

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

Your claim that Oswald was trying to shoot an officer in the theater is just your most recent example. That and your claim that I called you a lemming merely because I quoted one of your posts in a post where I mentioned lemmings.

[Bill Chapman]

That doesn’t alleviate you of the responsibility to back up your claims with evidence.

Your claim that Oswald was trying to shoot an officer in the theater is just your most recent example. That and your claim that I called you a lemming merely because I quoted one of your posts in a post where I mentioned lemmings.

My claim observation is based on the factual reality of the cops v the NotResistingArrestOswald

You 'mentioned' lemmings LOL
And tell us why you were 'mentioning' lemmings in the first place.
Pray tell, who are are you referring to when you say 'you guys' and who is the guy in your post to me that is following 'other lemmings' off a cliff in your post to me?

[John Iacoletti]

My claim observation is based on the factual reality of the cops v the NotResistingArrestOswald. Duh.

What "factual reality"?  The one you don't actually claim to be right about?

You 'mentioned' lemmings LOL
And tell us why you were 'mentioning' lemmings in the first place.
Pray tell, who are are you referring to when you say 'you guys' and who is the guy in your post to me that is following 'other lemmings' off a cliff in your post to me?

Keep wiggling.  You accused me of calling you a lemming and you have to twist and assume in order to make it say that.  Just like you twist and assume your "factual realities" about the case.

[Bill Chapman]

What "factual reality"?  The one you don't actually claim to be right about?

Keep wiggling.  You accused me of calling you a lemming and you have to twist and assume in order to make it say that.  Just like you twist and assume your "factual realities" about the case.

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

[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...