For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence  (Read 25544 times)

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2018, 11:32:21 PM »
No dramatics, its only a matter of time before you turn nasty. It's in your nature. You can not have a normal discussion because you need to win and feel superior all the time and when you get stuck (which you will deny ever doing) you either run or show us your nasty side. This time the latter just happened a bit faster than last time, that's all.

And I don't really give a damn how it appears to you?

I showed my supposed "nasty side"?  This thread is but two pages long.  Where did I get nasty?

I did ask in all sincerity... and I'll ask in all sincerity again...

Can you list one piece of evidence, which supports Oswald being guilty, that you believe is authentic?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 11:35:08 PM by Bill Brown »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2018, 02:03:32 AM »
Martin Weidmann has made seven posts in this thread, so far.  Not one of them lists an example of even one piece of evidence against Oswald which Weidmann feels is indeed authentic.

All Weidmann has done so far is become argumentative in one instant and then accuse me of being nasty in the next.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2018, 02:28:15 PM »
It looks like Weidmann is making excuses, explaining why he does not wish to participate in this thread.  I could be wrong, but that is how it looks to me.  I haven't been nasty, yet Weidmann is using that as an excuse to not participate.

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2018, 07:08:56 PM »
It looks like Weidmann is making excuses, explaining why he does not wish to participate in this thread.  I could be wrong, but that is how it looks to me.  I haven't been nasty, yet Weidmann is using that as an excuse to not participate.

It's like trying to speak to a pre-recorded message.

Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2018, 09:02:08 PM »
I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity..

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

.... Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

Bill, I think he is waiting for you.  You said you would!  The ball is in your court.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8176
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2018, 09:24:23 PM »

Bill, I think he is waiting for you.  You said you would!  The ball is in your court.


Alan, I'm not waiting for Bill.

After not talking to him for a while, I decided, against my better judgment, to give it another try, when he said he was sincere and did not intend to mock. From experience in the past, I had my doubts about that but I aswered his question nevertheless. But before the discussion could go further, my doubts were confirmed when Bill mocked me for no reason in another thread. So, that was it for me. Now Bill is playing innocent and saying he didn't mock me in this thread, which is true but extremely disingenuous.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2018, 12:01:36 AM »
Bill, I think he is waiting for you.  You said you would!  The ball is in your court.

I said I would if he wanted me to.  He hasn't said whether he wants me to do that or not.