Are we self-aware enough to answer: "Why do I care about the JFKA?"

[Mark Ulrik]

Even a matter as seemingly small as the near extinction of the vocative (direct address) comma saddens me, so I'm probably not the right person to ask.

[Tom Graves]

Even a matter as seemingly small as the near extinction of the vocative (direct address) comma saddens me, so I'm probably not the right person to ask.

You don't have to get all accusative about it.

[Lance Payette]

And yet another thread goes into the toilet because certain people are seriously mentally ill.

Oh, well, let's get back to Lamb Chop - or Lamb J. Chop III, as he was actually christened at, er, birth.

[Mark Ulrik]

Apologies for the disruption, and thank you for the free diagnosis, Dr. Payette.

[Lance Payette]

Apologies for the disruption, and thank you for the free diagnosis, Dr. Payette.

Certainly wasn't referring to you, Mark! I share your Grammar Police proclivities. In fact, I just noticed in my own post that I had said "Lamb J. Chop III, as we was actually christened at, er, birth" rather than "he." Not only would "we was" be a grammatical faux pas of the first magnitude, but it would mean Lamb Chop entered into existence as my sock puppet! Oh, the horror.

[Lance Payette]

Thanks to John and Ben for reasonably on-point responses.

I would have to say the answer to my query "Are we self-aware enough?" would appear to be no. This is, frankly, not surprising. I don't picture the participants on JFKA forums as being a particularly self-aware bunch, any more than I picture the pornography enthusiasts at a XXX site as being particularly self-aware (and I should know!  ). For most participants, it seems to me the JFKA is more in the vein of an obsession or addiction. There can be no reasonable hope that the verdict of history is ever going to change or that any essential cog of the LN narrative is ever going to be disproven, yet some sort of loop goes round and round inside the addicts' heads. They, be they LN-oriented or CT-oriented, simply cannot stay away from the 1,243rd discussion of the SBT or Tippit scene or curtain rods or whatever. "Hobby" scarcely describes it.

Perhaps people simply aren't interested in examining this addiction, and that's fine. Perhaps they are a bit afraid of what they might find if they did examine it, and that's fine too. This thread was just an invitation.

I question myself, of course, which is why I always end up disengaging. "Am I as nutty as these folks?" I ask myself. "Even if I'm not, are people who know me going to think I am?" - guilt by association, as it were. Are old high school and college friends or former coworkers stumbling on my posts and exchanging emails saying "Do you remember Lance, who used to be such a whiz? Have you seen how he spends his time now, arguing with conspiracy cranks on JFK assassination sites? Jesus, what do you think happened - did he hit rock-bottom and end up in some institution?"

Which is why I do engage in introspection and attempt to justify my participation as suggested in my original post. I'm above the fray, I try to tell myself. I do not engage with the cranks except to amuse myself. I mostly do not participate in the 1,243rd thread on the SBT. But still ... is this really the best thing I have to do with my time at age 76??? Surely not ... is it???

Can anyone who is at least reasonably rational - just reasonably - deny that the majority of participants on a forum such as this are pretty clearly a bit "off" and that the majority of "discussions" are so goofy as to be almost surreal? I won't name names, but some of the most clearly whacked-out are by far the most prominent participants and are humored endlessly as though what they were saying were actually worthy of discussion. Why is that? Probably, I would guess, because rational, evidence-based discussions of the JFKA would be exceedingly dull and mostly just reinforce the LN narrative, so even LN proponents dive into the surreal world of the 1,243rd thread on the SBT (or far worse).

In short, despite my statesmanlike attempt in my first post at justifying my own participation, I'm not sure I've completely convinced myself. I confessed freely at the Ed Forum that I share to some degree the conspiracy-prone mindset and that it's only my willingness to seriously examine it that has kept me from turning into a rabid 9/11 Truther, Fake Moon Landing proponent, Shape-Shifting Reptilian Alien true believer, and Harvey and Lee enthusiast who thinks Lee was Prayer Man. Still, I fear that being here at all may be telling me something I'd rather not admit.

And on it goes.

[Mark Ulrik]

Certainly wasn't referring to you, Mark! I share your Grammar Police proclivities. In fact, I just noticed in my own post that I had said "Lamb J. Chop III, as we was actually christened at, er, birth" rather than "he." Not only would "we was" be a grammatical faux pas of the first magnitude, but it would mean Lamb Chop entered into existence as my sock puppet! Oh, the horror.

What a relief! (I tend to assume the worst.) Btw, you obviously are an exceptional writer, and I sometimes wish I could borrow some of that fluency and clarity of thought.