X Marks The Spot

[John Iacoletti]

Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.  An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities. 

What orifice did you pull that out of?

There’s nothing more amusing than “Richard” trying to arrogantly school people with his made-up BS.

[Martin Weidmann]

Whew. When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion.  Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true.  In fact, it isn't.  The point all along is that this is your conclusion.  You stated this as your decision on the matter (i.e. Oswald "didn't come down the stairs").  I simply pointed out that if is this is your conclusion, then you must have also concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin since if he didn't come down the stairs (again as you concluded) then he couldn't have been the assassin.  Why you struggled so mightily against your own conclusion is something that only a psychiatrist could shed light on but it is very amusing.   And the bizarre attempt to change your conclusion to an opinion based on a complete misunderstanding of those concepts is a cherry on top of your humiliation.

When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion.  Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true.

When you claimed, with no evidence to back it up, that Oswald did come down the stairs, that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true. 

I simply pointed out that if is this is your conclusion, then you must have also concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin since if he didn't come down the stairs (again as you concluded) then he couldn't have been the assassin.

Indeed. At least not in the context of the official narrative. So, when did I ever disagree with this?

And the bizarre attempt to change your conclusion to an opinion based on a complete misunderstanding of those concepts is a cherry on top of your humiliation.

Thanks for making me better understand how a delusional mind works.

[Richard Smith]

When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion.  Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true.

When you claimed, with no evidence to back it up, that Oswald did come down the stairs, that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true. 

You have learned something!  Who knew it was possible?  I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion.  To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false.  The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  Again, misunderstanding the point.  The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin.  That is the only implication that can be drawn.  Whether your conclusion is true is not the issue.  The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin).  Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it. 

[John Iacoletti]

How arrogant and delusional does one have to be to declare that he understands another person's conclusions better than that person himself?

[Martin Weidmann]

You have learned something!  Who knew it was possible?  I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion.  To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false.  The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  Again, misunderstanding the point.  The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin.  That is the only implication that can be drawn.  Whether your conclusion is true is not the issue.  The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin).  Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.

 

I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion.  To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false. 

Confused again? I never said that you made such a suggestion. But since you claim my conclusion is false, prove it! 

Oh wait, you can only say it but can't present a shred of evidence to back it up, which makes your opinion/conclusion a pretty insignicifant figment of your imagination.

The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.

Reading problems again? Didn't I just agree (yet again) with this? But talk about not grasping something. Try this for size; that logical conclusion is only correct in the context of the official narrative.

You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.

Nope. The one going down that rabbit hole was you. I was laughing all the time about the idiotic statements you came up with.

The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin.  That is the only implication that can be drawn.

Try to learn something for once. I'll say it again; only in the context of the official narritive.

The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin).  Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.

That confirms it once and for all; you do have a reading comprehension problem.

[Martin Weidmann]

How arrogant and delusional does one have to be to declare that he understands another person's conclusions better than that person himself?

What's really funny is that he keeps on displaying time after time that he doesn't understand a word of what I have been telling him.

[Richard Smith]

I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion.  To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false. 

Confused again? I never said that you made such a suggestion. But since you claim my conclusion is false, prove it! 

Oh wait, you can only say it but can't present a shred of evidence to back it up, which makes your opinion/conclusion a pretty insignicifant figment of your imagination.

The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.

Reading problems again? Didn't I just agree (yet again) with this? But talk about not grasping something. Try this for size; that logical conclusion is only correct in the context of the official narrative.

You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.

Nope. The one going down that rabbit hole was you. I was laughing all the time about the idiotic statements you came up with.

The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin.  That is the only implication that can be drawn.

Try to learn something for once. I'll say it again; only in the context of the official narritive.

The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin).  Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.

That confirms it once and for all; you do have a reading comprehension problem.

So many words to no purpose.  None of this gibberish is a complete thought or response to any point raised. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So many words to no purpose.  None of this gibberish is a complete thought or response to any point raised.

Translation; I still have difficulty understanding and I haven't got a clue what to say.

But let me try to help you. Just tell me what part of "only in the context of the official narritive" do you have trouble understanding?