I understand the HOW but not the WHY

[Lance Payette]

"John Mytton" is indeed using a fake name, so, yes, it's possible.

Remarkable that you decided to come to his aid, or maybe not since you two have so much in common. 
Now all we have to do is wait for Vincent Baxter and the party is complete.

You are far from enlightenment, Grasshopper. When presented with a koan, the student does not attempt to convince the swami that, yes, one can stalk a fictitious persona. An answer like that would get you whacked upside the head by a less-benevolent swami. A more suitable answer would be something along the lines of "The fig tree in the garden bears no fruit" or perhaps "A koala just ate my granola bar, mate." Return to the zendo, Grasshopper, and meditate further on the koans with which the swami has presented you. Have a couple of pints of Weidmann if it will help free your mind.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are far from enlightenment, Grasshopper. When presented with a koan, the student does not attempt to convince the swami that, yes, one can stalk a fictitious persona. An answer like that would get you whacked upside the head by a less-benevolent swami. A more suitable answer would be something along the lines of "The fig tree in the garden bears no fruit" or perhaps "A koala just ate my granola bar, mate." Return to the zendo, Grasshopper, and meditate further on the koans with which the swami has presented you. Have a couple of pints of Weidmann if it will help free your mind.

You are far from enlightenment, Grasshopper.

Would it please you "master", if I let you believe that you are the superior one. Would that satisfy your ego?

[John Iacoletti]

You cannot imagine the mirth I derive from observing the extent to which I get under your skin.

That would be wishful thinking on your part.  You amuse me with your arrogance and your know-it-all-isms.

I related a silly little incident where a woman had asked me at a party who sang "Red Rubber Ball" and I had replied The Cyrkle, who in fact had a major hit with it in 1966.

You replied "Paul Simon" for no apparent reason.

I observed that Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not sing it.

But he did sing it.  And he did record it.  So you were just wrong.  Unless you want to claim that Paul Simon was not part of Simon and Garfunkel in 1967, then Paul Simon did record the song.

It's ok to admit that you were wrong.  Even when you are an arrogant know-it-all lawyer.

[John Iacoletti]

The swami will confess he has never heard of "Carlos Dominguez" either. The swami realized in perhaps 1968 that Simon & Garfunkel made him puke. The swami's musical tastes are eclectic, but he does have his limits. Insofar as Paul Simon and his various permutations are concerned, the swami does not pretend to omniscience.

No, but it's not clear who the "swami" thought he was impressing by bragging to a forum full of JFK assassination aficionados that he has a collection of thousands of 45s.

[John Iacoletti]

I think the self-appointed "swami" needs to familiarize himself with the Dunning-Kruger effect and embrace his new role of grasshopper.

[Martin Weidmann]

I think the self-appointed "swami" needs to familiarize himself with the Dunning-Kruger effect and embrace his new role of grasshopper.

 

I just had to take the risk, by posting this reply, that some delusional clown starts to believe that you are me, and I am God only knows who... 

[Lance Payette]

I just had to take the risk, by posting this reply, that some delusional clown starts to believe that you are me, and I am God only knows who... 

"Martin," Iaconetti, give it up. Just give it up.

At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff, I have a measured IQ in the 99th percentile, I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.

"Dunning-Kruger effect," indeed.

Am I supremely knowledgeable about the JFKA? Hell, no. Do I know how to fix the transmission in my car? Hell, no. But I do know how to think clearly and rationally and am able to recognize those who don't. My posts here are worth whatever others think they are worth, nothing more and nothing less.

I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated "Martin." Sorry, but you are unquestionably more than one person and thus dishonest in my book. If this were my forum, people like you would be gone. But it's not my forum. Perhaps have someone you respect review your posts here and see if they don't agree that you're starting to sound a bit unhinged.

I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated Iaconetti as well. In my book, he's just another twit of a type I've encountered numerous times before. I find his posts worthless and am mystified as to why anyone would persist with the game he plays. But perhaps others enjoy his posts and find them wittier and more valuable than mine.

But just give up trying to make me appear "dumb" or suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect (!!!). I don't know if I'm arrogant - I don't think I am - but I am supremely confident in my abilities for good reason and I don't suffer fools gladly. Stop saying stupid things and you won't keep getting them jammed back up your ass. Stay in your lane. If you know vastly more about the JFKA than I do (which is entirely possible), or you can point out flaws in my thinking (which is entirely possible), strut your stuff with some substantive posts.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Martin," Iaconetti, give it up. Just give it up.

At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff, I have a measured IQ in the 99th percentile, I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.

"Dunning-Kruger effect," indeed.

Am I supremely knowledgeable about the JFKA? Hell, no. Do I know how to fix the transmission in my car? Hell, no. But I do know how to think clearly and rationally and am able to recognize those who don't. My posts here are worth whatever others think they are worth, nothing more and nothing less.

I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated "Martin." Sorry, but you are unquestionably more than one person and thus dishonest in my book. If this were my forum, people like you would be gone. But it's not my forum. Perhaps have someone you respect review your posts here and see if they don't agree that you're starting to sound a bit unhinged.

I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated Iaconetti as well. In my book, he's just another twit of a type I've encountered numerous times before. I find his posts worthless and am mystified as to why anyone would persist with the game he plays. But perhaps others enjoy his posts and find them wittier and more valuable than mine.

But just give up trying to make me appear "dumb" or suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect (!!!). I don't know if I'm arrogant - I don't think I am - but I am supremely confident in my abilities for good reason and I don't suffer fools gladly. Stop saying stupid things and you won't keep getting them jammed back up your ass. Stay in your lane. If you know vastly more about the JFKA than I do (which is entirely possible), or you can point out flaws in my thinking (which is entirely possible), strut your stuff with some substantive posts.

"Martin," Iaconetti, give it up. Just give it up.

Here we go. The clown took the bait. That was easier than expected.

At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff, I have a measured IQ in the 99th percentile, I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.

Wow. he's really on the defensive. A sure sign of weakness. Just for what it's worth; intelligence isn't something you learn in school. You have it or you don't. What you learn in school gives you the basic information, that's all. Experience shows that people who beat their own drum are most likely not what they want you to believe they are!

I have known law school professors who, outside their field, were just plain stupid and naive. I know judges who are dumber than a horse's arse and I have decimated high street lawyers, solicitors, letrados and whatever they call themselves, by using their own arrogance against them.

On the other hand the most wise and intelligent person I have ever met was also the most modest!

"Dunning-Kruger effect," indeed.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.

Exactly the reply one would expect from somebody affected by the effect!

I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated "Martin." Sorry, but you are unquestionably more than one person and thus dishonest in my book. If this were my forum, people like you would be gone. But it's not my forum. Perhaps have someone you respect review your posts here and see if they don't agree that you're starting to sound a bit unhinged.

I can't be more than one person! It's physically impossible. Get a grip on your paranoia!

I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated Iaconetti as well. In my book, he's just another twit of a type I've encountered numerous times before. I find his posts worthless and am mystified as to why anyone would persist with the game he plays. But perhaps others enjoy his posts and find them wittier and more valuable than mine.

And there is the pathetic "I am superior" thing again. The next we know he is going to beat his head against the wall, repeating "I'm superior", "I'm superior" etc etc

But just give up trying to make me appear "dumb" or suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect (!!!)

Why? Just because we know who you really are? Take a good honest look in the mirror, be the person you are claiming to be (but are not) and find out what some people on this forum already know.

. I don't know if I'm arrogant - I don't think I am - but I am supremely confident in my abilities for good reason and I don't suffer fools gladly.

Hilarious, your reasoning is the same as that of any run of the mill LN; pathetic, shallow, superficial and based on assumptions rather than facts. Of course you don't think you are arrogant. I've never ever met an arrogant person who admits to being arrogant!

Stay in your lane.

Said the arrogant fool...

If you know vastly more about the JFKA than I do (which is entirely possible), or you can point out flaws in my thinking (which is entirely possible), strut your stuff with some substantive posts.

That would require a type of conversation which - as you have shown so far - you are not willing or able to have.

Boy, I must have pushed some buttons here.....