Post by Gil JesusPost by Hank Sienzant“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ
That's right, "an eye for an eye". I treat people the way they treat me and others.
That’s the logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right.
With “others” in your response above meaning “Ben Holmes”. But you ignore how Ben Holmes has been treating others for years, if not *decades*. He constantly calls me a liar and a coward, deleting my arguments and the evidence I post, then repeats his claims.
Post by Gil JesusYour bias never ceases to amaze me.
This from the same guy who wrote this:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
Post by Gil JesusOn the one hand, you have no problem calling me out for using insults, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.
That’s your job, isn’t it?
Post by Gil JesusIt's wrong for me to tell Bud he's acting like a crying little bitch, but it's OK for him to call Ben a cunt.
When you attempt to take the moral high ground one day with this remark:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
Then turn around and call names, yes. A little consistency in your stance would be appreciated. In other words, you’re accusing me of being hypocritical, but I’m establishing your double-standard.
Post by Gil JesusIt's wrong for me to call Bud pitiful, but it's OK for him to call Ben pitiful.
After you post this, yes:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
Does calling names establish one is an “asshole”? Or does it depend on who is doing the name-calling?
Post by Gil JesusYou have no problem calling me out for using logical fallicies, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.
That’s your job.
Post by Gil JesusDo as we say, not as we do. Pretty hypocritical, Hank.
Ben’s been calling people critical of conspiracy theories names for years. But if Bud responds in a like manner, you take umbrage.
Post by Gil JesusYou're the master of the double-standard, quick to judge his opponents on anything they post
and not so quick to judge his allies for the same perceived shortcomings.
Gee, Gil, didn’t I just establish - using your own words - that’s exactly what you’re doing?
Post by Gil JesusBut then again, you people have always been a group of unreasonable hypocrites, unable or unwilling to deal with both sides of an issue.
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
Post by Gil JesusFor example, when the prosecution's case is presented against Oswald, you convict without ever hearing from the defense.
How anyone could consider themselves reasonable and at the same time refuse to hear both sides of a murder case is beyond me.
I’ve heard both sides, more from the conspiracy side, for the past 60 years.
I’ve read all 26 volumes - cover to cover, twice - and read over 500 books on the assassination - with nine in ten in favor of conspiracy - over the past six decades.
I was a conspiracy theorist for the first 20 years or so. I was you for those two decades. Then I purchased the Commission volumes from THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP and the HSCA volumes from the Government Printing office and read it all. I saw where the conspiracy authors were getting their quotes, and what they were leaving out, and/or ignoring. I saw behind the curtain.
Post by Gil JesusHow could a case be fairly ajudicated without hearing from the defense ? How could anyone consider this "Case Closed" ?
It’s been 60 years, Gil. How long should the jury remain out, in your view?
Post by Gil JesusI've presented evidence in this case over the years that some of you are scared shitless to even look at.
There is nothing you’ve raised that I can’t show is taken out of context or misunderstood. All that you’ve done is present a disjointed defense of Oswald that wouldn’t convince a jury — they’d be wondering why you’re wasting their time talking about evidence forms that you can’t show were even in existence in 1963, for one example.
Post by Gil JesusYou call that reasonable ? Is that how a reasonable and prudent person reacts ?
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
Post by Gil JesusThe irony here is that some of you people have come into this newsgroup with the intent to make fools out of those damned "conspiracy theorists",
and in the process, the only ones you've made fools out of are yourselves.
In your view. But you’re the guy who said this,
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
And then trampled all over that point, calling others names.
Post by Gil JesusWhile the others are stuck in 1964, you yourself seem to be stuck in 1978,
oblivious to the testimony and documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.
The ARRB itself recognized that 30-year-old recollections are worthless. That’s what conspiracy theorists data-mine for little tidbids that they believe establish a conspiracy, but only establish recollections are not trustworthy.
Post by Gil JesusTestimony and documents that raise serious questions as to the authenticity of the evidence in this case.
There is no problems with the evidence in this case. You (and other CTs) wish to throw out all the evidence because it points to Oswald.
Post by Gil JesusMany of your associates admit they've never read the 26 volumes. That ignorance of the subject matter has resulted in their making statements that were provably false
time and time again. And while their lies were exposed by Ben and myself, you stood by knowing they were lies and remained silent, unwilling to call them out on it.
You have an inflated opinion of yourself, it appears. You think you are judge, defense counsel, and jury, and also a mind-reader, claiming that I know “they are lies”. No, the truth of the matter is I am you, 40-ish years ago. Then I read all the evidence available at that time, and understood what the CT authors were misrepresenting.
Post by Gil JesusYou people live in your own world. You have your own truth. You're "believers" in your own faith.
And your double-standards are just another part of that world.
You are the one claiming:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
Then calling names.
You’re the one ignoring all the venom Ben spews.
Let’s not talk about double-standards until you figure out what exactly you wish to argue for, shall we?
Post by Gil JesusThe only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all is the fool who will argue with him.
You people think you know it all, thanks to the Warren Commission and the HSCA.
I’ve read a boatload, and remain unconvinced by conspiracy arguments. Because I know what they are leaving out.
Post by Gil JesusBut you don't know the WHOLE story, only what you were told.
And is it any coincidence that you are repeating the criticisms from conspiracy books from five or more decades ago?
Or is it that you only know what you were told?
I don’t believe you are getting the full story by only reading conspiracy books, Gil.
I also don’t believe you read enough true crime books, so you don’t have the depth and breadth of knowledge about how real crimes are tried and adjudicated, so you think your objections to the evidence are valid.
I’ve read extensively in the field of true crime. I’m currently reading about the Edgar Smith case, the book is COUNTERPOINT, by Ronald E. Calissi. Edgar Smith convinced William Buckley (FIRING LINE) that he was innocent of killing 15-year-old Vickie Zielinski, but the truth eventually came out. Smith was a sociopath.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Smith_(murderer)
Post by Gil JesusI'm happy to say that starting tomorrow, my years of arguing with you people are finally over.
Even if you stay, I won't see your posts.
Thank God.
Nobody was holding a gun to your head and making you respond. You opted to do so. You’ll miss “us people” when we’re gone. And this place will be an echo chamber.
This may be my final post on this board, so I bid adieu to all, and note for the record it’s been fun discussing the case with you as both Joe Zircon (in the late 1990s and early 2000s on John McAdams moderated board (alt.assassination.net) and prior to that, on Prodigy and AOL boards, as well as Amazon’s board and elsewhere.
I may post on the International Skeptics forum on occasion, but will definitely take a step back. When I started posting in the early 1990’s, I felt people could be convinced if they heard both sides of the story. I have learned since that some people are so wedded to their beliefs that no amount of evidence and argument pointing out the flaws in those beliefs will convince them otherwise.