Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Grading the Lone Nut Trolls on Questions 36-40
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Nov 4, 2023, 5:24:24 AM11/4/23
to
QUESTION # 36
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
QUESTION # 37
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
QUESTION # 38
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
QUESTION # 39
NO RESPONSE
QUESTION # 40
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
BONUS QUESTION -- 25 POINTS
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 36-40
CORBETT --- 4 responses, 0 correct answers, 0 % score, grade F
FINAL TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 1-40**
BUD --- 49 responses, 11 correct answers, 22 % score, grade F
CORBETT --- 55 responses, 3 correct answers, 5.5 % score, grade F
HANK --- 19 responses, 1 correct answer, 5.2 % score, grade F
CHUCKLES --- 1 response, 0 correct answers, 0 % score, grade F
RECIP ( JERRY ) --- 7 responses, 0 correct answers, 0 % score, grade F
FINAL TOTALS AS A GROUP FOR QUESTIONS 1-40**
131 responses, 15 correct answers, 11 % score, grade F
** Lone Nut Troll veterans "Professor" Steven Galbraith, Baby Tits George and David Von Pinhead chose not to participate in this test, so we really don't know how much they know. Based on the scores of their constituents, it is doubtful that they would have scored much higher than the scores achieved.
BUD led the group with the most correct answers with 11 and score percentage at 22%.
CORBETT led the group with the most responses ( 55 ), the most questions responded to ( 33 ) and the most bullshit posts with 52. He barely edged out HANK for 2nd place, 5.5 to 5.2 %.
HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one. His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.
CHUCKLES couldn't find the answer to any of the questions, even the "yes" or "no" questions, and led the group in the category of questions avoided by bowing out of 39 of the 40.
And RECIP ( Jerry ) set a new test record of responses without a correct answer with 7.
No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.
There was much consistency between individual performances and the performance of the group, as it achieved a failing grade of only 11 % .
The group also set a new records for responses with 131, bullshit responses with 116 and questions avoided with 122.
In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
I will be posting the winner of this year's "MACKEY" award later this morning.
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
QUESTION # 37
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
QUESTION # 38
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
QUESTION # 39
NO RESPONSE
QUESTION # 40
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
BONUS QUESTION -- 25 POINTS
CORBETT
Responses - 1
Correct answers - 0
Score - 0 %
Grade - F
TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 36-40
CORBETT --- 4 responses, 0 correct answers, 0 % score, grade F
FINAL TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 1-40**
BUD --- 49 responses, 11 correct answers, 22 % score, grade F
CORBETT --- 55 responses, 3 correct answers, 5.5 % score, grade F
HANK --- 19 responses, 1 correct answer, 5.2 % score, grade F
CHUCKLES --- 1 response, 0 correct answers, 0 % score, grade F
RECIP ( JERRY ) --- 7 responses, 0 correct answers, 0 % score, grade F
FINAL TOTALS AS A GROUP FOR QUESTIONS 1-40**
131 responses, 15 correct answers, 11 % score, grade F
** Lone Nut Troll veterans "Professor" Steven Galbraith, Baby Tits George and David Von Pinhead chose not to participate in this test, so we really don't know how much they know. Based on the scores of their constituents, it is doubtful that they would have scored much higher than the scores achieved.
BUD led the group with the most correct answers with 11 and score percentage at 22%.
CORBETT led the group with the most responses ( 55 ), the most questions responded to ( 33 ) and the most bullshit posts with 52. He barely edged out HANK for 2nd place, 5.5 to 5.2 %.
HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one. His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.
CHUCKLES couldn't find the answer to any of the questions, even the "yes" or "no" questions, and led the group in the category of questions avoided by bowing out of 39 of the 40.
And RECIP ( Jerry ) set a new test record of responses without a correct answer with 7.
No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.
There was much consistency between individual performances and the performance of the group, as it achieved a failing grade of only 11 % .
The group also set a new records for responses with 131, bullshit responses with 116 and questions avoided with 122.
In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
I will be posting the winner of this year's "MACKEY" award later this morning.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 5, 2023, 9:11:05 AM11/5/23
to
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 5:24:24 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> … [deletia]…
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ
== quote ==
> Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!
No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
== unquote ==
I see your threads properly label me as the “more knowledgeable” one,
[See this thread title for one such example:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ZWs_87UM-3Y/m/w8IAmBNDAAAJ ]
but here you up the ante, and pretend I said “most knowledgeable”. Why is that, Gil?
I think I rattled your cage a bit when I claimed to be more knowledgeable about chain of custody than you. I certainly haven’t seen you respond to any of the points I made, or the quotes I provided concerning the actual law and how it is administered. You have thus far been unwilling to debate any of the points I made.
…
> His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.
This board is low on my priority list. As my wife constantly reminds me, “Kennedy is still going to be dead when you finish posting”. I get to what I get to.
I didn’t *avoid* any questions. I just don’t care to devote more time to your Gish Gallopor Ben’s trolling, or NTF’s asinine comments) than they deserve. The time devoted thus far has certainly been a waste, as you haven’t learned anything about what chain of custody truly is (your knowledge of this subject is gleaned from conspiracy books). Remember, Gil, chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence.the evidence is still admissible even if there is no proper chain of custody, or an incomplete one — despite the lies told you in conspiracy books.
> No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.
According to a conspiracist seeking others to agree with his belief mythology.
…
> In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
>
Hilarious! A conspiracist asks answers of non-conspiracists, and gets them, and then grades almost all the answers as wrong, because they don’t confirm his belief mythology.
Even where the law is patiently explained to him, and why testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody, and even when the law is quoted to him that chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of evidence, he still insists/pretends that numerous items pointing to Oswald as the assassin would not be admissible. SMH.
Gil, go through all of my responses, and tell me specifically what you believe I got wrong. Let’s discuss, and iron out our differences. Unless you do that, your “grading system” has a serious flaw — it is meaningless. Start with chain of custody. Quote the law, not your opinion.
> … [deletia]…
> HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one.
Straw man argument. I said I was more knowledgeable than you after NTF advanced the straw man argument that I was proclaiming myself an expert on chain of custody. See this exchange here, quoted below.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ
== quote ==
> Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!
No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
== unquote ==
I see your threads properly label me as the “more knowledgeable” one,
[See this thread title for one such example:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ZWs_87UM-3Y/m/w8IAmBNDAAAJ ]
but here you up the ante, and pretend I said “most knowledgeable”. Why is that, Gil?
I think I rattled your cage a bit when I claimed to be more knowledgeable about chain of custody than you. I certainly haven’t seen you respond to any of the points I made, or the quotes I provided concerning the actual law and how it is administered. You have thus far been unwilling to debate any of the points I made.
…
> His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.
I didn’t *avoid* any questions. I just don’t care to devote more time to your Gish Gallopor Ben’s trolling, or NTF’s asinine comments) than they deserve. The time devoted thus far has certainly been a waste, as you haven’t learned anything about what chain of custody truly is (your knowledge of this subject is gleaned from conspiracy books). Remember, Gil, chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence.the evidence is still admissible even if there is no proper chain of custody, or an incomplete one — despite the lies told you in conspiracy books.
> No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.
…
> In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
>
Even where the law is patiently explained to him, and why testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody, and even when the law is quoted to him that chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of evidence, he still insists/pretends that numerous items pointing to Oswald as the assassin would not be admissible. SMH.
Gil, go through all of my responses, and tell me specifically what you believe I got wrong. Let’s discuss, and iron out our differences. Unless you do that, your “grading system” has a serious flaw — it is meaningless. Start with chain of custody. Quote the law, not your opinion.
Gil Jesus
Nov 5, 2023, 9:55:09 AM11/5/23
to
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
< the usual nonsense >
Here's a bulletin for you Hank:
At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.
I posted 5 questions at a time and gave you idiots 5 days to answer them, plenty of time to look up the answers and reply.
And in spite of all that flexibility, you could only respond to 6 questions out of 40.
When you can't outscore morons like Bud and Corbett on a simple test, you don't know shit.
One correct answer out of 19 might be borderline genius for WC supporters in your world, but in the real world it sucks.
You couldn't even answer simple "yes" or "no" questions.
You ran like a little bieotch from 34 of the 40 questions and most of your responses weren't given until the questions were closed.
Your problem is that you depend in your arguments too much on testimony you copy and paste from the St John of McAdams website.
Warren Commission testimony that has been shown at times to be less than truthful.
Like the testimony that Oswald had no access to sensitive material while he worked at Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, testimony that conflicts with the record.
A record that indicates Graef and Stovall lied about Oswald's access to sensitive work done for the US Army Map Service.
Anyway, we tested your knowledge and found out the truth.
You're not "more knowedgeable" than anybody.
In fact, you're not much smarter than Corbett and way dumber than Bud.
So go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on and lick your wounds, Hank.
And admit it, you were beaten for this year's "MACKEY" award by two idiots.
Congratulations on your THIRD place finish.
Better luck next year.
< the usual nonsense >
Here's a bulletin for you Hank:
At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.
I posted 5 questions at a time and gave you idiots 5 days to answer them, plenty of time to look up the answers and reply.
And in spite of all that flexibility, you could only respond to 6 questions out of 40.
When you can't outscore morons like Bud and Corbett on a simple test, you don't know shit.
One correct answer out of 19 might be borderline genius for WC supporters in your world, but in the real world it sucks.
You couldn't even answer simple "yes" or "no" questions.
You ran like a little bieotch from 34 of the 40 questions and most of your responses weren't given until the questions were closed.
Your problem is that you depend in your arguments too much on testimony you copy and paste from the St John of McAdams website.
Warren Commission testimony that has been shown at times to be less than truthful.
Like the testimony that Oswald had no access to sensitive material while he worked at Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, testimony that conflicts with the record.
A record that indicates Graef and Stovall lied about Oswald's access to sensitive work done for the US Army Map Service.
Anyway, we tested your knowledge and found out the truth.
You're not "more knowedgeable" than anybody.
In fact, you're not much smarter than Corbett and way dumber than Bud.
So go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on and lick your wounds, Hank.
And admit it, you were beaten for this year's "MACKEY" award by two idiots.
Congratulations on your THIRD place finish.
Better luck next year.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 5, 2023, 8:56:44 PM11/5/23
to
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> < the usual nonsense >
>
> Here's a bulletin for you Hank:
>
> At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.
Your scoring is biased.
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> < the usual nonsense >
>
> Here's a bulletin for you Hank:
>
> At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.
>
> I posted 5 questions at a time and gave you idiots 5 days to answer them, plenty of time to look up the answers and reply. And in spite of all that flexibility, you could only respond to 6 questions out of 40.
>
> When you can't outscore morons like Bud and Corbett on a simple test, you don't know shit.
> One correct answer out of 19 might be borderline genius for WC supporters in your world, but in the real world it sucks.
> You couldn't even answer simple "yes" or "no" questions.
> You ran like a little bieotch from 34 of the 40 questions and most of your responses weren't given until the questions were closed.
>
> Your problem is that you depend in your arguments too much on testimony you copy and paste from the St John of McAdams website.
> Warren Commission testimony that has been shown at times to be less than truthful.
But that has no bearing on whether there was a conspiracy or not. I’m certain some individuals giving testimony in any case will lie. But I don’t assume that means a conspiracy or coverup.
> Like the testimony that Oswald had no access to sensitive material while he worked at Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, testimony that conflicts with the record.
== quote ==
> > Mr. JENNER. Is it secret or confidential work or classified work of any kind?
> > Mr. STOVALL. On occasion we do. Most of it is not…
== unquote ==
> A record that indicates Graef and Stovall lied about Oswald's access to sensitive work done for the US Army Map Service.
Go ahead, we will wait. Your assumptions are not evidence.
>
> Anyway, we tested your knowledge and found out the truth.
> You're not "more knowedgeable" than anybody.
> In fact, you're not much smarter than Corbett and way dumber than Bud.
>
> So go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on and lick your wounds, Hank.
Why can’t conspiracy theorists simply discuss the issues civilly?
Hank Sienzant
Nov 5, 2023, 9:04:45 PM11/5/23
to
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 5:24:24 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > … [deletia]…
> > HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one.
> Straw man argument. I said I was more knowledgeable than you after NTF advanced the straw man argument that I was proclaiming myself an expert on chain of custody. See this exchange here, quoted below.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ
> == quote ==
> > Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!
> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
> I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
> == unquote ==
>
> I see your threads properly label me as the “more knowledgeable” one,
> [See this thread title for one such example:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ZWs_87UM-3Y/m/w8IAmBNDAAAJ ]
> but here you up the ante, and pretend I said “most knowledgeable”. Why is that, Gil?
>
> I think I rattled your cage a bit when I claimed to be more knowledgeable about chain of custody than you. I certainly haven’t seen you respond to any of the points I made, or the quotes I provided concerning the actual law and how it is administered. You have thus far been unwilling to debate any of the points I made.
You ignored these points, Gil. How come?
> > … [deletia]…
> > HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one.
> Straw man argument. I said I was more knowledgeable than you after NTF advanced the straw man argument that I was proclaiming myself an expert on chain of custody. See this exchange here, quoted below.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ
> == quote ==
> > Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!
> No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
> I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal:
> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
> == unquote ==
>
> I see your threads properly label me as the “more knowledgeable” one,
> [See this thread title for one such example:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ZWs_87UM-3Y/m/w8IAmBNDAAAJ ]
> but here you up the ante, and pretend I said “most knowledgeable”. Why is that, Gil?
>
> I think I rattled your cage a bit when I claimed to be more knowledgeable about chain of custody than you. I certainly haven’t seen you respond to any of the points I made, or the quotes I provided concerning the actual law and how it is administered. You have thus far been unwilling to debate any of the points I made.
>
> …
> > His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.
> This board is low on my priority list. As my wife constantly reminds me, “Kennedy is still going to be dead when you finish posting”. I get to what I get to.
>
> I didn’t *avoid* any questions. I just don’t care to devote more time to your Gish Gallopor Ben’s trolling, or NTF’s asinine comments) than they deserve. The time devoted thus far has certainly been a waste, as you haven’t learned anything about what chain of custody truly is (your knowledge of this subject is gleaned from conspiracy books). Remember, Gil, chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence.the evidence is still admissible even if there is no proper chain of custody, or an incomplete one — despite the lies told you in conspiracy books.
> > No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.
> According to a conspiracist seeking others to agree with his belief mythology.
>
> …
> > In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
> >
> Hilarious! A conspiracist asks answers of non-conspiracists, and gets them, and then grades almost all the answers as wrong, because they don’t confirm his belief mythology.
>
> Even where the law is patiently explained to him, and why testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody, and even when the law is quoted to him that chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of evidence, he still insists/pretends that numerous items pointing to Oswald as the assassin would not be admissible. SMH.
>
> Gil, go through all of my responses, and tell me specifically what you believe I got wrong. Let’s discuss, and iron out our differences. Unless you do that, your “grading system” has a serious flaw — it is meaningless. Start with chain of custody. Quote the law, not your opinion.
Gil simply pretends his questions were not a Gish Gallop logical fallacy, demands answers, and then rejects any answer he doesn’t like. And doesn’t specify what is wrong with the answers. Why play his crooked game?
Ben Holmes
Nov 6, 2023, 10:04:27 AM11/6/23
to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 06:55:07 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ouch! Huckster should be ashamed...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Nov 6, 2023, 10:04:28 AM11/6/23
to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 06:11:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
Nov 6, 2023, 10:04:29 AM11/6/23
to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:56:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ben Holmes
Nov 6, 2023, 10:04:30 AM11/6/23
to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:04:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
0 new messages