X Marks The Spot

[Martin Weidmann]

So amusing.  The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong as exemplified by your idiotic conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  What is so amusing is your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion. The height of stupidity reflecting a complete lack of understanding of the terms conclusion and opinion.  You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.  You are a complete fool.  You reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."   That was a false conclusion but a conclusion nevertheless.  The word you are looking for is "fact."

The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong

Really? Didn't you just say;

Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.

Go figure...

your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion.

Fool. It's an opinion as well as a conclusion. No need to distance myself from either.

You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.

Never thought that, but you did. Anyway, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you said this;

It's great that the historical marker at the scene doesn't hedge on what happened:

"On November 22, 1963, at this intersection, Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald..."

The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.

it was total BS, right?

The word you are looking for is "fact."

You mean like in; It's a fact that you are a complete idiot for claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed without being able to present a shred of evidence for it?

[Richard Smith]

The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.  That is obviously a conclusion.  Conclusions can be wrong

Really? Didn't you just say;

Go figure...

your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion.

Fool. It's an opinion as well as a conclusion. No need to distance myself from either.

You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.

Never thought that, but you did. Anyway, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you said this;

it was total BS, right?

The word you are looking for is "fact."

You mean like in; It's a fact that you are a complete idiot for claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed without being able to present a shred of evidence for it?

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. 

[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.