On The Trail Of Delusion

[Martin Weidmann]

Just to put an end to this nonsense.

In Reply #116 Richard made this statement - "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor."
In Reply #129 you asked - "How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?"
By Reply # you are accusing Richard of making an "absolute statement" about Oswald, but the fact is by using the word "apparent" Richard is not making an absolute statement.
You then do something very deceptive.
In Reply #156 you ask - "Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?"
But Richard never said Oswald didn't have a sense of humour, that is an absolute statement. He said Oswald had no apparent sense of humour, which is not an absolute statement as it means Oswald's sense of humour is not apparent to Richard. It's an opinion. Not an absolute statement as you keep insisting.
You then do something truly deceptive. You actually change what Richard said. In Reply #168 you post - "That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous..."
By putting "never humorous" in quotation marks you are implying this is what Richard actually said but it is something you have completely made up.
Then you go even further. In Reply #189 you make this outrageous claim - "You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality stating "he never had a sense of humor" but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed."
So you have twisted "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" into Oswald was "never humorous" and then into "he never had a sense of humor".

How can you justify this 

The whole thing is easily ended by Richard simply answering Rick's valid question.

Your attack on Rick's line of enquiry is just as unjustified as you defense of Richard Smith. Your selective quotes do not justice to what Richard Smith's initial statement was intented to communicate.

[Dan O'meara]

The whole thing is easily ended by Richard simply answering Rick's valid question.

And what valid question is that?

Your attack on Rick's line of enquiry is just as unjustified as you defense of Richard Smith. Your selective quotes do not justice to what Richard Smith's initial statement was intented to communicate.

Lay off the sauce.

[Martin Weidmann]

And what valid question is that?

Lay off the sauce.

Thanks for showing your true colors, oh "impartial one"....

[Rick Plant]

Just to put an end to this nonsense.

In Reply #116 Richard made this statement - "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor."
In Reply #129 you asked - "How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?"
By Reply # you are accusing Richard of making an "absolute statement" about Oswald, but the fact is by using the word "apparent" Richard is not making an absolute statement.
You then do something very deceptive.
In Reply #156 you ask - "Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?"
But Richard never said Oswald didn't have a sense of humour, that is an absolute statement. He said Oswald had no apparent sense of humour, which is not an absolute statement as it means Oswald's sense of humour is not apparent to Richard. It's an opinion. Not an absolute statement as you keep insisting.
You then do something truly deceptive. You actually change what Richard said. In Reply #168 you post - "That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous..."
By putting "never humorous" in quotation marks you are implying this is what Richard actually said but it is something you have completely made up.
Then you go even further. In Reply #189 you make this outrageous claim - "You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality stating "he never had a sense of humor" but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed."
So you have twisted "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" into Oswald was "never humorous" and then into "he never had a sense of humor".

How can you justify this 

It's not and you are making an useless argument for no reason.

Richard made an absolute statement. He stated Lee Harvey Oswald "never had a sense of humor". That indeed is an absolute statement.

I simply asked Richard how he would know that unless he knew Oswald personally and he refuses to answer.

This really isn't difficult. All Richard has to do is answer a simple question but he chooses not to and wants to argue instead. 

Richard made an accusation so he needs to answer for it.   

[Rick Plant]

And what valid question is that?

The same valid question I've been asking Richard Smith in which he refuses to answer for some odd reason.

He makes an accusation but refuses to answer a simple question. 

 

[Dan O'meara]

It's not and you are making an useless argument for no reason.

Richard made an absolute statement. He stated Lee Harvey Oswald "never had a sense of humor". That indeed is an absolute statement.

I simply asked Richard how he would know that unless he knew Oswald personally and he refuses to answer.

This really isn't difficult. All Richard has to do is answer a simple question but he chooses not to and wants to argue instead. 

Richard made an accusation so he needs to answer for it.   

Where did he state Oswald "never had a sense of humor"?
I must have missed this.

[Rick Plant]

The whole thing is easily ended by Richard simply answering Rick's valid question.

Your attack on Rick's line of enquiry is just as unjustified as you defense of Richard Smith. Your selective quotes do not justice to what Richard Smith's initial statement was intented to communicate.

Exactly.

When someone makes an accusation with an absolute statement they need to answer for it.

I asked Richard a simple question and he wants to argue to evade the question. All he had to do was answer it 3 posts ago.