The Lone-Gunman Theory Collapses without the Single-Bullet Theory

[Bill Chapman]

Back to the trademark incomprehensible gibberish.

I never "LOLed" anybody's "means of expression".

OMG

[John Iacoletti]

What I "LOL" is people who desperately want to make Euins' "bald spot" a receding hairline, Markham's 6 negative responses a "yes", and Brewer's "looked scared" a probable cause for a search and arrest for murder.

[Bill Chapman]

Yeah, because that does nothing to demonstrate that the WC conclusions are supported by the evidence.  It's just shifting the burden of proof.

The WC said it, you believe it and that settles it.

Sounds like your (former) TAE mantra.

CTer standard of proof goalpost-shifting has yet to convince yours truly of anything other than that there's a whole lot of dodging goin' on in the CTer bubble.

[John Iacoletti]

Sounds like your (former) TAE mantra.

I didn't have a former TAE mantra.  Yet another flawed Chapman babble.

CTer standard of proof goalpost-shifting has yet to convince yours truly of anything other than that there's a whole lot of dodging goin' on in the CTer bubble.

What "dodging"?

You've demonstrated that all it takes to "convince" you of something is for an authority to come to a conclusion and you don't care about the details.

[Bill Chapman]

What I "LOL" is people who desperately want to make Euins' "bald spot" a receding hairline, Markham's 6 negative responses a "yes", and Brewer's "looked scared" a probable cause for a search and arrest for murder.

Goody for you; being so sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are.

[John Iacoletti]

Goody for you; being so sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are.

Yet another empty claim.  I never claimed to be sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are.  I do observe how you "contribute" here though.

[Bill Chapman]

I didn't have a former TAE mantra
Then (former) adherence to its tenets

Yet another flawed Chapman babble
Hey, what happened to 'incomprehensible'?
This 'babble' thing makes me feel cheapened is some way.
I'm really hurt. No, really.

What "dodging"?
The ducking behind the standard-of-proof goalposts, as you lot constantly shift them

You've demonstrated that all it takes to "convince" you of something is for an authority to come to a conclusion and you don't care about the details.
Holy crap!

And CTers sure do create a lot of 'details' (and pose them as 'new')