And proud of it! It's one of my most endearing qualities. 
Ah, the "appeal to authority" fallacy! I like it!
You appeal to authority all over the place. You avoid the point that since many successful, educated people reject the lone-gunman theory, it is therefore juvenile and unserious to claim that anyone who rejects the theory must have bad brain wiring. That's the kind of silly polemic you get from teenagers and cultists. Again, you keep pretending to be in the mainstream majority when actually you are in the minority--and are on the fringe of that minority.
"Support the conspiracy position" is rather a vague assertion. Do we know how many accept the LN verdict? No, we don't - but it is the verdict of history and I guarantee you it is accepted by the large majority of authorities who are actually informed about the case.
You can easily Google the polling dats in the U.S. and Europe on this issue.
Show YOUR theories and posts on forums such as this to most of your CT-oriented authorities and they are going to say, "Fella, you need help. This is nutcase stuff."
You know you have a weak position when you have to resort to such petty name-calling to describe those who disagree with you, especially when you're in the 1/4 to 1/3 minority in the Western world.
Your "2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world" schtick was humorous the first time, but now you're overdoing the comedy. You do realize you're talking about close to a billion people across all of North America, all of Europe, Australia and New Zeakland? Just to nail this down, can you give us the data for Luxembourg and Finland?
Again, you can Google the polling data. It's readily available.
It is indeed interesting. You know why CTers don't do this? Because - wait for it - they don't have mountains of peer-reviewed neurological, psychological and sociological data to support such a claim. Neurologists, psychologists and sociiologists study the conspiracy mindset because it is recognized as ABERRANT. Not necessarily pathological, but distinctly aberrant.
Oh, so now the view that more than one gunman fired at JFK is "ABERRANT." Well, then, LBJ was "aberrant." He believed there was a conspiracy, and he rejected the SBT. Three members of the WC were "aberrant" because they didn't buy the single-assassin scenario and the SBT. The super majority of the House Select Committee on Assassinations were "aberrant" because they said there was a conspiracy, two gunmen, etc. Robert F. Kennedy himself was "aberrant" because he believed there was a conspiracy and that CIA elements were involved. And on and on and on we could go.
You really need to present these "Western world" statistics you keeo citing. As Mark Twain famously said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Again, take a few minutes on Google and you can find polling data on this issue going back to the 1960s.
Alas for you, the 9/11 Truthers and Fake Moon Landing folks are precisely the ones, along with JFKA conspiracy theorists of your sort, that neurologists, psychologists and sociologists are interested in studying. Oops!
Humm, that sounds like an appeal to authority, hey? BTW, several neuroscientists/psychologists argue that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, e.g., Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. William Niederhut, Dr. Robert Livingston, Dr. Robert Zacharko, Dr. Robert Grossman, etc., etc.
And, again, the percentage of people who buy the 9/11 Truther nonsense and who doubt the Moon landings is in the ballpark of the percentage of people who agree with you on the JFK case. I'm in the substantial majority of people who disagree with you. Maybe those "neurologists, psychologists, and sociologists" should be studying you guys. The research you're citing has nothing to do with serious, educated people who posit a conspiracy in JFK's murder.
BTW, isn't this your second long post on this thread, saying little more than "Lance is a LN meanie"?
Nope, not at all. My post is saying that you show yourself to be extremely biased and unserious when you stoop to the nonsensical argument that those who disagree with suffer from brain issues. Responsible lone-gunman theorists do not stoop to spewing such discrediting nonsense.
Actually, I'm quite kindly. The truth is, examining one's own thought processes, proclivities and confirmation biases can be extremely worthwhile. I've certainly done it. I merely point out that a vast body of peer-reviewed neurological, psychological and sociological literature is telling folks like you that you might do well to step back and examine whether you are thinking clearly.
No one said you were "unkind." You keep hiding behind that strawman argument. Your "vast body" of research has nothing to do with serious, scholarly people who reject the lone-gunman theory and who posit a conspiracy in the JFK case, many of whom used to believe in the single-assassin scenario but who changed their minds after doing further research, including myself.
The irony here is, you keep illustrating the very points I'm making.
Oh, really? So pointing out your extreme bias, noting your fringe rhetoric, noting that your position's support is almost as low as the support for 9/11 Truther claims and Moon-landing denial/doubt, and noting that even many of your fellow lone-gunman theorists don't stoop to making your ridiculous argument--in your mind this somehow illustrates "the very points" you're making? I think that says volumes about your lack of critical thinking skills and fringe mindset.
Sensible, mainstream, educated people are going to conclude that you have discredited yourself and have proved yourself to be on the fringe of the pro-WC camp.
