On The Trail Of Delusion

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow...such anger and hostility in your post. You are out of line with your comments.

I've made nothing up and you're falsely attacking me for no reason. Go read the thread.   

I never derailed anything. Richard Smith made an absolute statement about Oswald and his personality. I simply asked him a question and he refused to answer it. All I get back is long winded replies and insults.

The only person derailing the thread is you by attacking me  Martin called you out on that as well.   

Wow...such anger and hostility in your post.

Well, that's Grumpy for you. He can be really friendly when he wants to be but it never takes long until he becomes vicious.

[Jon Banks]

It's not rocket science.

People who are spies or working with spies typically don't admit it when asked about it.

And that goes for any country's intelligence service, not just the CIA.

I've heard but don't know if it's true that undercover CIA operatives can even lie under oath about their relationship with the CIA. But I don't know for certain that it's true.

[Jon Banks]

"It is, in short, the most un-American of activities, and the average American has a most ambivalent attitude toward it. Of course, everyone knows and admits, that as long as the other great powers, particularly Russia, maintain intelligence systems, we must do the same. And yet, most of us consider the CIA with abhorence [sic], and a man who works for it, is considered not a patriot serving his country but as a kind of E. Phillips Oppenheim villain ... a somewhat sinister James Bond."

That's an interesting quote and it makes me think of Israel, which celebrates Mossad agents (and even CIA officer, James Angleton who played a major role in helping Israel get nukes, is popular in Israel) more openly and broadly than what we do in the USA. I can't imagine anywhere in the US where James Angleton would be celebrated or viewed as a national hero.

https://mondoweiss.net/2017/11/golem-angleton-israel/

My opinion on that is, while the Mossad successfully portrays itself as heroically defending Israel, it's far more difficult for ordinary Americans to connect the things the CIA does abroad to the defense of the US. Some of that changed post-9/11 as the CIA turned its focus to international terrorism. But as the Islamic terrorism threat recedes, it seems the public is returning to the Cold War view of the CIA. Which is, the agency is viewed as doing nothing more than destabilizing other countries and assassinating people.

I personally would like to see our intelligence agencies focus on observing and reporting foreign intelligence while stepping away from proactively trying to change things in other countries. Often times, America's covert interventions lead to even worse outcomes (ie Guatemala, Cuba, or Syria).

[Dan O'meara]

Wow...such anger and hostility in your post. You are out of line with your comments.

I've made nothing up and you're falsely attacking me for no reason. Go read the thread.   

I never derailed anything. Richard Smith made an absolute statement about Oswald and his personality. I simply asked him a question and he refused to answer it. All I get back is long winded replies and insults.

The only person derailing the thread is you by attacking me  Martin called you out on that as well.   

You are the one who is out of line.
Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor".
This is not an absolute statement, it is an opinion.
In a move that was really out of line you started claiming he had said "He (Oswald) never had a sense of humor".
This is a falsehood and one that, instead of acknowledging and correcting it, you continue to perpetuate it.

Pointing out your falsehoods is not an "attack".

"I've made nothing up"

Really? Your falsehoods are documented here:

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".

[Martin Weidmann]

You are the one who is out of line.
Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor".
This is not an absolute statement, it is an opinion.
In a move that was really out of line you started claiming he had said "He (Oswald) never had a sense of humor".
This is a falsehood and one that, instead of acknowledging and correcting it, you continue to perpetuate it.

Pointing out your falsehoods is not an "attack".

"I've made nothing up"

Really? Your falsehoods are documented here:

Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor".
This is not an absolute statement, it is an opinion.

It seems you haven't figured out yet how a LN operates. They will hardly ever make a direct claim. Instead they phrase their words in a way that their meaning is obvious without actually saying what they really mean.

And as far as it only being an opinion goes; Rick has asked the question several times. If Richard intended to be a mere opinion, he had every opportunity to say so, and that would have been the end of it. But he never did. Instead he doubled down. Now, why do you think he did that?

When Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" it was of course an opinion, like everything expressed on this forum, but it was an opinion presented as a statement of fact. That's classic LN crap and it fooled you completely!

[Dan O'meara]

Any demented Nutter is entitled to a defence but I doubt Richard gives a sh!t about Dan's effort.

BTW, if anyone should have forgotten, right after his statement about Oswald's apparent lack of humor he cranked out two more BS claims right on top of each other,

Oswald had no apparent qualms at hiding these pictures.

His intent was that they memorialize him in a classic revolutionary pose.

It isn't about defending Richard who is someone I have come to blows with elsewhere on this forum and whose LN stance I do not share.
It's about calling Rick out on his underhand bullsh%t tactics.
In his last post Martin wrote:

"When Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" it was of course an opinion,"
It's Martin's opinion that this was presented as a fact and that's just an opinion.
But Rick was calling it out as an "absolute statement", which it is not. So he did something which I find unacceptable - he actually changed what Richard had posted in order to make it an absolute statement and then kept derailing the discussion by constantly challenging Richard to answer for an absolute statement he had never made and it got on my tits because I thought it was quite an interesting thread and debate was being quashed by Rick's 

So I called him out on it.
Provided the quotes to back up what I was saying.
And that should have been the end of that.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

It isn't about defending Richard who is someone I have come to blows with elsewhere on this forum and whose LN stance I do not share.
It's about calling Rick out on his underhand bullsh%t tactics.
In his last post Martin wrote:

"When Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" it was of course an opinion,"
It's Martin's opinion that this was presented as a fact and that's just an opinion.
But Rick was calling it out as an "absolute statement", which it is not. So he did something which I find unacceptable - he actually changed what Richard had posted in order to make it an absolute statement and then kept derailing the discussion by constantly challenging Richard to answer for an absolute statement he had never made and it got on my tits because I thought it was quite an interesting thread and debate was being quashed by Rick's 

So I called him out on it.
Provided the quotes to back up what I was saying.
And that should have been the end of that.

And that should have been the end of that.

On this forum? Really?

"When Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" it was of course an opinion,"
It's Martin's opinion that this was presented as a fact and that's just an opinion.

No. It was a fact - or absolute statement - presented as an opinion.

And yes, it is my opinion, just like what you are saying is your opinion.