Message from discussion Battling Another CTer (Re: "Reclaiming History")
Received: by 10.180.101.9 with SMTP id fc9mr1599776wib.3.1350184342036;
Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Battling Another CTer (Re: "Reclaiming History")
Date: 11 Oct 2012 16:03:06 -0400
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-BF0F3C.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-0B7646.email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 10 Oct 2012 22:19:41 -0500, 184.108.40.206
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1349985786 220.127.116.11 (11 Oct 2012 15:03:06 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 11 Oct 2012 15:03:06 -0500, 18.104.22.168
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/10/2012 9:50 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <507389a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 9:03 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article
>>> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> it contains untruths, and it
>>>> avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your
>>>> review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.
>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>> How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're
>>>> getting for your review of my review.
>>>> The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that
>>>> undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren
>>>> Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line. Thus far no conspiracy
>>>> theorist has been able to do that. But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer
>>>> of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.
>>> This is similar to me. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
>>> just someone, just anyone, to prove, for the first time ever, that more
>>> than 10% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said that the shots came from
>>> multiple directions. I have been saying for years that it is less than
>> Straw man argument. No one made that claim.
> Yes you did, on many different occasions, every single time you said my
> "less than 10%" and "more than 90%" statistics were bogus. It's such a
> shame (for you only) that you are helplessly unable to prove it.
Two different things here.
First, I never said what you quoted. I said that ALL yours statistics
are bogus and cited your constantly using 10% or 90% no matter what the
Second, I am not allowed to prove anything here because all my messages
are censored and deleted to protect you. It used to be in the old days
that I was not allowed to call you a liar. Now the new rule is that I am
not even allowed to point out that you are wrong.
That's the easiest way to win any argument, just forbid the other person
from speaking. So you are allowed to spread whatever misinformation you
want, but I am not allowed to warn readers that you are doing it. So I
will have to invent new ways to point out your mistakes.