Unbelievable-Re: DVP, tell me it's not so...
John Canal
moderators?
If so, when your opponent made a point, did you request the moderators to
delete all of the parts of your opponent's point from the record, except
for the part you felt you could respond to?
Your cut & paste technique is despicable.
Besides you having the gall to condem the arguments of individuals whose
arguments you don't even entirely see (because you're too cheap to
subscribe to a good newsreader), when you do have that opportunity, you
cut away most of what they've said anyway.
DVP, in my 10 years posting, I don't recall anyone who is more unethical,
as far as debating goes, as you. But I'm sure you enjoy being number one
at something, though--congratulations.
Your _____ style fits the soundness of you arguments.
David Von Pein
~yawn~
...zzzzzzzzzz
Anthony Marsh
> Have you ever debated someone face to face on a stage..with judges and/or
> moderators?
>
> If so, when your opponent made a point, did you request the moderators to
> delete all of the parts of your opponent's point from the record, except
> for the part you felt you could respond to?
>
> Your cut& paste technique is despicable.
>
You're one to talk. You might have a valid point, but you snipped out
the previous message so we can't see the context to see what you mean.
You don't debate. You killfile and then proclaim.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvklj...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cf62efe079ddefde
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "You cut away most of what they've said anyway." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
Oh, you mean like when you insisted I hadn't responded to any of the
"Canal 29" and then, later, the 10 questions you asked? All of which I
did respond to, here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
And here:
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
Furthermore, it's beyond me why you conspiracy theorists think that
your make-believe tripe deserves more than merely a cursory glance
from anyone that is subjected to it.
You're fortunate I've responded to ANY of your imaginary "BOH"
nonsense, John. Because if I wasn't responding to your silliness for
the last few weeks, you wouldn't have anybody to talk to at all,
because nobody else seems to give a damn.
WhiskyJoe
> DVP, in my 10 years posting, I don't
> recall anyone who is more unethical,
> as far as debating goes, as you.
> But I'm sure you enjoy being number
> one at something, though--
> congratulations.
David Von Pein is not unethical.
He is generally polite. More polite
than me. And while I disagree with
him on a few things, he makes good
arguments.
Your just frustrated that he does not
agree with you. You two are just at
an impasse. There is no more point
in arguing.
I would guess you are right on the
EOP versus cowlick issue, although
the photograph of the back of the
scalp is fairly compelling. But
no one has decisive evidence.
John Canal
WhiskyJoe says...
>
>
>> DVP, in my 10 years posting, I don't
>> recall anyone who is more unethical,
>> as far as debating goes, as you.
>> But I'm sure you enjoy being number
>> one at something, though--
>> congratulations.
>
>David Von Pein is not unethical.
>He is generally polite.
He has added new dimensions to the cut and paste debating technique--that
was my main gripe. IOW, most often, he'd cut all the points that he had
difficulty responding to and paste in the one or two that he thought he
could handle.
That is what frustrated me--I've delt with excellent debaters before like
Mitch Todd and Joe Durnavich and I wasn't frustrated....you're condoning a
pathetic debating style.
>More polite
>than me. And while I disagree with
>him on a few things, he makes good
>arguments.
>
>Your just frustrated that he does not
>agree with you. You two are just at
>an impasse. There is no more point
>in arguing.
>
>I would guess you are right on the
>EOP versus cowlick issue, although
>the photograph of the back of the
>scalp is fairly compelling. But
>no one has decisive evidence.
You're missing a critical point. Baden condemned the autopsy doctors
because he said they grossly screwed up the entry location....and then he
disagreed with them when they said the large wound extended down into the
occipital (which your photos don't show because they were not taken when
the body first arrived and are, therefore, not evidentiary regarding the
question of whether or not there was a BOH wound).
IOW, Baden looses untold credibility on the entry, but you jump on his
bandwagon and throw the autopsists under the bus when it comes to how far
posteriorly they said the large wound extended to, not to mention the fact
that Humes said he saw cerebellum when the body arrived (neat trick, eh,
Whiskey Joe, if the photos of the back of his head accurately reflected
the condition of his head when the body arrived). You still think the
photos are compelling?
Perhaps you've got it right on the entry because you are aware of Larry's
impressive credentials and background....and not because you understand
the medical evidence?
Another reason that I'm frustrated is that when McAdams, DVP, and
Fiorentino were acting like some sort of a tag team arguing with me on the
entry, I had no support--nada--zilcho--none--from others, like you, Barb,
and even Dr. Rahn, who I know agree with me that the entry where I argued
it was.
Thanks for chiming in on DVP's side, though...he needs encouragement like
that--it'll give him motivation to cut and paste more.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Thanks for chiming in on DVP's side, though...he needs encouragement
like that--it'll give him motivation to cut and paste more." <<<
Every time John Canal posts something about me performing a "cut and
paste" act, I think I'll re-post the message below (and I know darn well
that pretty much EVERYTHING in John Canal's "BOH" arsenal is contained
within the 39 questions alluded to below). Or would John C. now like to
add 39 additional flight-of-fancy BOH inquiries to his quiz?:
======================
<DVP Quote on>
Oh, you mean like when you insisted I hadn't responded to any of the
"Canal 29" and then, later, the 10 questions you asked? All of which I
did respond to, here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
And here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
<DVP Quote off>
Anthony Marsh
> In article<94456c30-20d2-4325...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> WhiskyJoe says...
>>
>>
>>> DVP, in my 10 years posting, I don't
>>> recall anyone who is more unethical,
>>> as far as debating goes, as you.
>>> But I'm sure you enjoy being number
>>> one at something, though--
>>> congratulations.
>>
>> David Von Pein is not unethical.
>> He is generally polite.
>
> He has added new dimensions to the cut and paste debating technique--that
> was my main gripe. IOW, most often, he'd cut all the points that he had
> difficulty responding to and paste in the one or two that he thought he
> could handle.
>
You may have a valid point, but it is difficult to tell when you
constantly snip out the context.