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

[Martin Weidmann]

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

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.

-- Boss: Marty, we gotta come up with a solution to this important problem that could send the company broke. Should we do "a", "b" or "c"... whadda ya think?

-- Marty: I'll get back to you by next Shrove Tuesday... maybe?

-- Boss: Marty you're fired.

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

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

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.


I actually employ people and make well considered decisions every day. How about you?

[Ross Lidell]

You never have an opinion on anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

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

What do you do for a living? Your stonewalling nonsense would make you unemployable in any job that required decision-making skills.


I actually employ people and make well considered decisions every day. How about you?

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.

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

So what are you doing wasting your time here with "contrarian" nonsense? Get back to work.

[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