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

[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.

[Martin Weidmann]

...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.

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.

Says the contrarian....

Just how stupid can your reasoning be?  If it was unlikely or even unplausible that Oswald could have become aware of a job at the TSBD, how in the world did all those other people working at the TSBD get their jobs there?

And, if other people could have gotten a job at the TSBD, without a Randle/Paine coffee round, why couldn't that apply to Oswald as well?

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

Saying the same thing over and over again isn't answering any and all questions...

The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence.

That's likely true. I have not seen anybody saying anything different, but you are so preoccupied with your own theory that you haven't even noticed that.

No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter.

So what? In case you haven't noticed he was blamed for the crime because a rifle was found at the TSBD that they claimed belong to him. He was not blamed because he worked there.

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.

Well you might want to go over them again, because the conclusion that Kennedy would have lived if Randle didn't drink coffee with Ruth Paine is simply flawed. What you continue to fail to understand is that a conspiracy could simply have worked with the factual situation being taken in consideration. If Oswald didn't work at the TSBD they could have selected another scenario. But I am tired of trying to explain this to you, since you will never understand it or as a true contrarian simply don't want to understand it. Your mind is tuned in to one train of thought and nothing is going to derail it!

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 wise man once said; the biggest fool is he who thinks he is more intelligent than everybody else....

Btw it is a fallacy to dismiss everything you don't understand as being stupid. Perhaps there are simply limitations to what you are able to understand. Ever considered that possibility?

A real man admits he "got it wrong" routinely and spontaneously.

Bla bla bla... there is the "a real man" crap again....

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.".

Show me one post in our recent conversations where you actually did that..... I bet you can't!

I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone.

Hilarious.... and also not true. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong when I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent person.

[Ross Lidell]

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.

Says the contrarian....

Just how stupid can your reasoning be?  If it was unlikely or even unplausible that Oswald could have become aware of a job at the TSBD, how in the world did all those other people working at the TSBD get their jobs there?

And, if other people could have gotten a job at the TSBD, without a Randle/Paine coffee round, why couldn't that apply to Oswald as well?

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

Saying the same thing over and over again isn't answering any and all questions...

The most dimwitted person interested in the JFK Assassination should concede that Oswald's job at the TSBD was obtained through pure coincidence.

That's likely true. I have not seen anybody saying anything different, but you are so preoccupied with your own theory that you haven't even noticed that.

No plotters placed him there to be blamed for the crime committed by the real 6th floor shooter.

So what? In case you haven't noticed he was blamed for the crime because a rifle was found at the TSBD that they claimed belong to him. He was not blamed because he worked there.

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.

Well you might want to go over them again, because the conclusion that Kennedy would have lived if Randle didn't drink coffee with Ruth Paine is simply flawed. What you continue to fail to understand is that a conspiracy could simply have worked with the factual situation being taken in consideration. If Oswald didn't work at the TSBD they could have selected another scenario. But I am tired of trying to explain this to you, since you will never understand it or as a true contrarian simply don't want to understand it. Your mind is tuned in to one train of thought and nothing is going to derail it!

A wise man once said; the biggest fool is he who thinks he is more intelligent than everybody else....

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.".

Bla bla bla... show me one post in our recent conversations where you actually did that..... I bet you can't!

I cannot imagine you ever making any kind of concession to anyone.

Hilarious.... and also not true. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong when I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent person.

Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.

To not stray from the Subject in this reply by me:

You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.

The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?

You have zero proof that Oswald would/could have learned about a job at the TSBD by some means other than Randle > Roberts > Paine & Marina > Lee Oswald > Truly. You are just putting forward a silly unjustified claim as a debating strategy.

It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum. You don't start a Subject: You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it. Contrarianism.

[Martin Weidmann]

Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.

To not stray from the Subject in this reply by me:

You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.

The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?

You have zero proof that Oswald would/could have learned about a job at the TSBD by some means other than Randle > Roberts > Paine & Marina > Lee Oswald > Truly. You are just putting forward a silly unjustified claim as a debating strategy.

It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum. You don't start a Subject: You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it. Contrarianism.

You simply can't help yourself, can't you?

Ad hominem 1:

Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.

Says the contrarian who claims to have an open mind.... Hilarious

You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.

No, it's a possibility that you don't want to consider and just dismiss because your opinion is always the superior one, right?

The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?

I am not playing your "you need to provide proof for a "could have" answer" game. Other TSBD employees got their jobs there by other means. To say that this couldn't have happened with Oswald is simply denial of logic. But it fits exactly with the profile I have described of you, contrarian.

I asked if others could have gotten a job at the TSBD than why couldn't Oswald.... and I got no answer. Just a denial!

Aren't you the one who just said;

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

Now we know what that comment is worth....

You have zero proof that Oswald would/could have learned about a job at the TSBD by some means other than Randle > Roberts > Paine & Marina > Lee Oswald > Truly. You are just putting forward a silly unjustified claim as a debating strategy.

More outright denial of something that doesn't agree with your opinion..... Are you beginning to see a pattern?

And btw.. the proof that Oswald could have learned about the job at the TSBD by some other means is that all other TSBD employees did in fact get their job by learning about it by another means than a Randle/Paine coffee round. This is such basic logic that I am surprised you don't even understand something this basic. Unless of course you do understand it, but deny it anyway, like a true contrarian.

Ad hominem 2:

It's beyond dispute, that you never make a meaningful contribution to the JFK Assassination Forum.

And you do, right? Typical example of somebody overestimating his own importance.....

You don't start a Subject:

Wrong, I started one a few days ago.... No LN dares to go near it! In fact I started only 2 threads less than you did. See how easy it is for you to be wrong?

Ad hominem 3:

You just argue obstinately against the historical record without providing any proof to refute it.

Says the "intelligent guy" who determines what others should think and do and when they don't calls them contrarian.

Ready to throw another hissy fit?

[Ross Lidell]

You simply can't help yourself, can't you?

Ad hominem 1:

Most of your reply consists of angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculations.

Says the contrarian who claims to have an open mind.... Hilarious


You provide no proof that Oswald would/could have obtained a job at the TSBD without the Randle / Roberts / Paine / Marina coffee klatch. Your assertion that he somehow would/could have is just wishful thinking.

The other employees gained their positions at the TSBD through various means. To advance your (Oswald still would have got a job at the TSBD) "theory": You need to provide a list of the employees and how they became aware of the vacant positions that they filled. Then, explain how Oswald would have been similarly informed. You don't do that. Why not?

...angry insults along with your trademark unjustified speculation

Not an ad hominem attack: That's a description of your inept debating technique. Okay, I concede that it's a criticism.

Where and when did I claim to have an open mind?

What happened at the end of your reply? No reply!