Ben snipped my point. What I actually said (correcting the typo):
Ben equates talking with whining and then whining with lying.
By those equations, Ben is self-defined as the biggest liar on this board, as no one approaches the volume of stuff Ben talks about (= whining, = lying).
> Points out that your constant whining about it shows you a liar...
Repeating your claim doesn’t make it more true. It’s still a Begged Question logical fallacy.
>
> Yep.
Saying ‘Yep’ doesn’t make it more true either.
Note Ben would rather talk about me than the evidence.
>
> That's what I did.
And claiming you did something doesn’t make it more true either.
> >>>> My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
> >>>> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.
> >>>
> >>>Already refuted it,
Ben snipped my point again.what I said, and Ben ignored, was:
Already refuted it, and you conceded the point: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Ben ran ...
Ben snipped my point AGAIN.
>
> Huckster ran.
>
> Notice folks, that he's offered **NO** justification for the WC
> including a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>
> He's simply run from that...
Untrue. You snipped my point and ran from it.
Here, try this on for size, or snip it again:
And there’s the moving of the goalposts, yet another logical fallacy.
Gil (via Garrison) was talking about the 26 volumes of evidence:
“Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.”
*Exhibits*. Not *conclusions*.
Exhibits is the word Garrison used, and in the phrase Gil quoted.
And so were you: “ The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth... ” and:
“Because for the truth, the Commission *WAS* irrelevant.”
You were talking about the Commission, not their conclusions.
Now for the first time, you are talking about the Warren Commission *conclusions*, not not the seven-member Commission nor the body of evidence they published in the 26 volumes of Testimony and evidence.
Gil did not cite any reference to a conclusion, he cited a reference to an exhibit, so he is clearly referencing the Commission exhibits and evidence, not their conclusions, and you’re now trying to make this an entirely different argument, because you already conceded their 26 volumes of evidence are a necessity to an understanding of the assassination: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
>
> And thinks no-one notices how yellow he is.
Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy, Ben.
> >> You're lying again, Huckster.
> >
> >Another unproven assertion from Ben.
> Proven to who?
Anyone. You make assertions you don’t support. Above is another example.
> >>>>>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
> >>>>>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
> >>>>>>> bother.
> >>>>>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
> >>>>>> this case without referencing the WC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is for the truth.
And that’s an example of moving the goalposts AND begging the question.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Thanks for proving my point.
> >>>>
> >>>> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.
> >> LFD.
Ben deleted my point, pretending it was a logical fallacy.
Here it is again, unrefuted by Ben:
Ad hominem. Ben must be stuck if all he can do is call me names, and deny the validity of my points.
> >>>>>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
> >>>>>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> Run Huckster... RUN!
> >> LFD.
Ben deleted what I actually said:
You commit so many logical fallacies, it’s hard to keep track. But your above argument is clearly a straw man. I never said anything remotely like what you’re trying to pretend I said.
> >>>>>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
> >>>>>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
> >>>>> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just how stupid *ARE* you?
> >>>
> >>>Not very. How about you?
> >> You aren't supporting that claim.
Ben shifts the burden of proof, pretending I need to provide evidence against his ad hominem, “Just how stupid *ARE* you?”
He needs to support it, I don’t need to disprove it.
> >
> >That’s funny, coming from the queen bee of the unsupported claims.
> Not only did you still not eliminate indigestion,
Indigestion? What are you babbling about now?
> you failed to
> explain what this had to do with anything.
I explained it in detail. You deleted most of it.
> Instead, when challenged to
> make a case for anything, anything at all, you not only failed to make
> that case,
Untrue. See the point above that you deleted and I reinserted, starting with:
And there’s the moving of the goalposts, yet another logical fallacy.
Gil (via Garrison) was talking about the 26 volumes of evidence:
“Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.”
> you went straight to the name-calling, as if calling anyone
> who questions you names help support your claims.
I didn’t go straight to the name-calling. I called you “ the queen bee of the unsupported claims “ after you ran from my points repeatedly and made a series of unsupported assertions.
>
> It doesn’t. It establishes you cannot support your claims.
> >>>> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
> >>>> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
> >>>> to it's own collected testimony.
> >>>
> >>>And there’s the moving of the goalposts
> >> It is indeed what *YOU* did.
> >
> > Another unsupported claim. You deleted all my explanation, then
> > pretend I did what I established you just did.
> "Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment". I
> present the facts, I present the analysis, and I present my
> conclusion.
You presented no facts. You presented no analysis. You presented your assertions. Period.
> >>>> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
> >>>>>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.
> >>>>
> >>>> And hasn't.
> >>>
> >>>Asked and answered.
> >> Nope.
> >
> >Sorry, totally inadequate, and also totally untrue.
> It’s your burden.
Shifting the burden. Gil made an assertion, you supported that, and we are examining your claims now. We are seeing you first admitting Gil was wrong to assert “how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was” by admitting “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
We then saw you qualifying that by moving the goalposts and adding the qualifier “irrelevant to the truth”
We then saw you shift gears again, moving the goalposts a second time (and begging the question) talking about the Commission *conclusions* being irrelevant to the truth, when Gil and you were initially talking about the Commission itself, not their conclusions.
> You need to do more than raise questions and attempt
> to shift the burden of proof.
I didn’t raise questions, I pointed out flaws in your arguments.
And the above is an empty claim by you, especially since that is what you just did - shift the burden of proof.