No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

[Martin Weidmann]

And where is it written that I can't just examine the evidence and that I have to have an opinion?

People who don't have an opinion tend to be vacillators.

And people who jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts tend to be extremely shallow and stupid.

I don't have opinions about everything, which has served me well in past, but I do have opinions about some things. For instance, I have one about you, but I am sure you don't want to find out what it is.


I find it hard to believe that you employ people and make "decisions" well considered or otherwise. What industry?

I don't really care what you find hard to believe or not. And what industry is none of your business.

So what are you doing wasting your time here with "contrarian" nonsense?

On what planet do you reside?

In case you missed it, there is a little crisis going on and I am in lock down, so I have plenty of time to get on your nerves.

Besides, three posts per day isn't exactly "wasting time" is it now?

Get back to work.

Who exactly do you think you are to tell me what to do?

Why don't you go and do something constructive like picking up your unemployment benefit.

[John Iacoletti]

So you say: You who are too afraid to get on the horse.

As if picking a “horse” (of course, of course) is in and of itself some kind of virtue.

[John Iacoletti]

'This is not a court of law'
> Then why do you harping on 'burden of proof'

Because burden of proof is a concept in logical arguments, not just courtrooms.

[Ross Lidell]

Because burden of proof is a concept in logical arguments, not just courtrooms.

Let's put it another way. If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone. He either had help or was an innocent dupe blamed for the criminal acts of others?

A sincere, intelligent debater would contemplate an alternative scenario and then describe it thus: who, when, where, what, how, why.

The fact that you never attempt to do this means you are:

-- An intellectual lightweight

-- A determined contrarian

[Martin Weidmann]

Let's put it another way. If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone. He either had help or was an innocent dupe blamed for the criminal acts of others?

A sincere, intelligent debater would contemplate an alternative scenario and then describe it thus: who, when, where, what, how, why.

The fact that you never attempt to do this means you are:

-- An intellectual lightweight

-- A determined contrarian

You keep going round and round in circles with the same stupid argument.

If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone.

And what if you only examine and scritinize that historial record instead of jumping to conclusions?

Because that's where you go wrong every time. To you scrutinizing is the same as disagreeing with it and that's a major error on your part.

All this "if you disagree with the historical record, you are not sincere, not an intelligent debater and either an intellectual lightweight or a determined contrarian" crap is exactly that..... crap

[Ross Lidell]

You keep going round and round in circles with the same stupid argument.

If you disagree with the historic record in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you must believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do it alone.

And what if you only examine and scritinize that historial record instead of jumping to conclusions?

Because that's where you go wrong every time. To you scrutinizing is the same as disagreeing with it and that's a major error on your part.

All this "if you disagree with the historical record, you are not sincere, not an intelligent debater and either an intellectual lightweight or a determined contrarian" crap is exactly that..... crap

Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.

You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.

You either agree or disagree. If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?

[Martin Weidmann]

Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.

You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.

You either agree or disagree. If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?

Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.

Bingo, there you have it.... the classic contrarian, who denies that he is a contrarian!

You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.

Already did, but you wanted none of it.... Again classic contrarian. You made up your mind and nothing anybody else says is going to make you chance it.

John and Colin also tried... same result; the contrarian didn't want to know

You either agree or disagree.

Since your reasoning is flawed, I have no alternative but to disagree...

If you disagree: Explain how Lee Harvey Oswald would have obtained a job at the TSBD without Linnie May Randle's presence at the "Robert's house" coffee klatch--the first week in October 1963?

The use of the word "would" makes it a loaded question.  Exchange "would" for "could" and the easy answer is, he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.

But I'll bet, as a true contrarian, you are not going to accept that, right?

[Ross Lidell]

Your protestations do nothing to disprove my conclusion that you are a determined contrarian.

Bingo, there you have it.... the classic contrarian, who denies that he is a contrarian!

You can prove me wrong by disproving the title of this subject: No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD.

Already did, but you wanted none of it.... Again classic contrarian. You made up your mind and nothing anybody else is going to make you chance it.

John and Colin also tried... same result; the contrarian didn't want to know

You either agree or disagree.

Since your reasoning is flawed, I have no alternative but to disagree...

The use of the word "would" makes it a loaded question.  Exchange "would" for "could" and the easy answer is, he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.

But I'll bet, as a true contrarian, you are not going to accept that, right?

...he could have heard about a job at the TSBD elsewhere.

That's so unlikely, it's not a plausible claim. Unless you can describe how, where and when Oswald would (or could) have became aware of a job at the TSBD: That's just "defensive" nonsense used to persist with your contrarianism.

I loved "loaded" questions. I relish answering ANY and ALL question to the best of my ability. I'm not a DODGER like you are.

Would? Could? What does it matter?

The entire premise of the Subject [No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD] is to make clear something that many people don't realize: Coincidences are more common than conspiracies.

The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence. No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter. The subject is a demonstration that "chance" and "free will" are contributors to "events" great and small.

Chance: Oswald got the job at the TSBD because a woman walked across the street to have coffee with a neighbor. You know the rest of the circumstances: I'm not repeating them.

Free will: At the breakfast event in Forth Worth, President Kennedy was given "the benediction" by a minister (probably a Catholic priest). All very nice but not able to stop the "free will" of Oswald deciding to shoot at the president as he passed by the TSBD.

I have to tell you Martin: You come across as having intelligence but consistently act stupidly.

Why? You cannot bear to lose: More precisely to be trounced.

A real man admits he "got it wrong" routinely and spontaneously. Many times, I've made a statement in conversation and received new information that conflicted with my premise. My usual reply is something like: "I never knew that. Yes I see your point etc.". I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone. You ought to ponder whether that's true or not.