The "who, what, when, where and why" of American History.

[commonsense]

This is from the website you all like to criticize:


"You cannot know the truth until the toxins that cloud your vision are eliminated. Trust in your own intelligence, not in the gossip that is spread from one end of the world to the other, because the media is in a position to control what we hear.
We are committed to researching the truth behind the gossip and misconception and that is what makes us more reliable than the mainstream media.


There is always a kernel of truth to every falsehood and that means that there is usually a falsehood to every kernel of truth. Consequently, a serious crime like the murder of President Kennedy is confusing because that was the intention. That's why Jack Ruby murdered Oswald.
The assassination of President Kennedy is very easy to understand when you sort out the puzzle to the point where you can remove the pieces from where they have been deliberately placed with the intent to deceive, to where they in fact belong because they fit with ease."



Looks like toxins are clouding your minds, that is probably why you probably don't understand the significance of what you are reading.

 

[lone wolf]

So you ARE here to preach....

Knock yourself out. Enjoy....

 

[JLM]

So you ARE here to preach....

Knock yourself out. Enjoy....

Seems to be quite an influx of these guys lately. :lol: Maybe they are all rushing in to try to fill a void left by a recent departure.

 

[gerryh]

Looks like toxins are clouding your minds, that is probably why you probably don't understand the significance of what you are reading.

That must be it. You are the only enlightened one and the rest of us have poisoned minds. Just a bunch of automatons.

 

[commonsense]

Here's another very interesting quote, it might explain your mixed motivations:

"Garrison demanded attention and he easily got it through bold and dramatic public assertions like:

"My staff and I solved the assassination weeks ago. I wouldn't say that if we didn't have evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know the key individuals, the cities involved, and how it was done."
​

Jim Garrison ultimately exposed his admiration for anybody who covered up the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy when he said;

"I have nothing but respect for the Bureau and feel that if it weren't for the FBI reports still available in the Commission exhibits, the door would have been closed forever... The FBI has worked assiduously in many different areas and gathered facts that have proved of great value to those interested in uncovering the truth about the assassination."
​

At the same time, since Kennedy assassination critics had successfully discredited the Warren Commission, Garrison infiltrated their ranks through nonsense rhetoric like:

"It's impossible for anyone possessed of reasonable objectivity and a fair degree of intelligence to read those 26 [Warren Commission] volumes and not reach the conclusion that the Warren Commission was wrong in every one of its major conclusions pertaining to the assassination."
​

Clearly, when Garrison simultaneously claimed that the Warren Commission investigation was "typically thorough" and that every single conclusion that the Warren Report promoted was wrong, he betrayed the purpose behind all the nonsense he deliberately promoted. In his own words, he said "in an Orwellian sense, perhaps they [assassination conspirators] come to believe that truth is what contributes to national security and falsehood is anything detrimental to national security".

 

[lone wolf]

Y'know, if you're going to quote from another source, it's customary to give credit as due.

 

[CDNBear]

What I find funny is that you call everybody who disagrees with you a nut and a liar.

Ummm, ya. When they are.

At you..

And then, you claim that you have proved them wrong.

I have offered evidence contrary to your position, making your evidence void, you are unable to refute. Then by deductive reasoning, your wrong. Sorry dude, that's how a debate works.

At you...

And then. you think you have won a debate.

Well ya. Unless you can show how the material I put up, in say, post #94 is untrue of course.

Again, at you...

:roll: Circumstantial evidence is NOT fact. On more than one occasion people have been found guilty of crime based on circumstantial evidence only to be exonerated at a later date when FACTS were finally found. Circumstantial evidence is NOT enough to base a solid, this is the way it is/was, decision. Circumstantial evidence is enough to get the nutbars going, but should NOT be enough to get a true thinking man going.

Now that's a fact.

I agree with one thing, alot of nutbars are motivated by circumstantial evidence -here I am !

fify.

I began this thread because ever since I heard of the death of Michael Ignatieff's Communications Director, I have felt like Dr. Michael I. Niman, who teaches journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College. After Paul Wellstone died, he said,

My prediction comes true, again...

Which is why you switched to Nixon/Ruby. That got smacked out, now you're back onto this, as if page one of this thread didn't exist.

I predict it will happen again and again.

Obviously not a fact...

Actually, on three separate occasions, I have been pronounced dead. But hey, don't let that get in the way of a good troll, troll.

...but some could be of the opinion that this is an excellent example of interpretive wishful thinking by three venturesome newbie's who hadn't yet found the Ignore button. Or not.... Which reminds me.... :::reaching for Ignore bucket...::: PLOP!

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-content-net/95240-deleting-moved-post.html Post #16.

Another prediction comes true.

How you honestly see yourself no doubt.

What's the thread about anyway? Oh right.... 'Commonsense' nothing beats being witness to events as they unfold for recognizing urban legends or creative history writing masquerading as fact. Events happened yes, but almost all of the 'evil, wily conspirators' as they are later portrayed, were and always will be just rather stupid people who happened to stumble into powerful positions and make very stupid decisions which caused other stupid people to have to try and explain how not stupid they were which, of course, meant lying. Not smart!

Funny, that's what I've been saying all along, and now you say it, and it's ok?

Facts are stubborn things.

I bet you find them unattainable too.

People who side-track a discussion with nonsense are amusing.

Why do you think we think yer funny?

In fact, you are wasting my time.

I figured facts and challenges would be thought of as a waste of time.

This is from the website you all like to criticize:
"You cannot know the truth until the toxins that cloud your vision are eliminated. Trust in your own intelligence, not in the gossip that is spread from one end of the world to the other, because the media is in a position to control what we hear.
We are committed to researching the truth behind the gossip and misconception and that is what makes us more reliable than the mainstream media.

There is always a kernel of truth to every falsehood and that means that there is usually a falsehood to every kernel of truth. Consequently, a serious crime like the murder of President Kennedy is confusing because that was the intention. That's why Jack Ruby murdered Oswald.
The assassination of President Kennedy is very easy to understand when you sort out the puzzle to the point where you can remove the pieces from where they have been deliberately placed with the intent to deceive, to where they in fact belong because they fit with ease."

Ya, I've seen similar prefaces in SiFi books too.

Looks like toxins are clouding your minds, that is probably why you probably don't understand the significance of what you are reading.

That must be it, because if it was anything else, you would have destroyed post #94 by now. Right?

 

[commonsense]

The state of denial is alive and well.

 

[CDNBear]

The state of denial is alive and well.

Nothing like stating the obvious. We've already seen you deny, deny, deny, with every switch in the topic, and every time you fail to rise to the very challenge you set.

What's does the state of denials flag look like?

Do you have health care in the state of denial?

Do you have cookies in the state of denial?

 

[Bcool]

Actually, on three separate occasions, I have been pronounced dead. But hey, don't let that get in the way of a good troll, troll.

Gosh! Is that a compliment from the troll master?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-content-net/95240-deleting-moved-post.html Post #16.

Ok, BRB....

Nothing about declaring you dead??? And I protest! I never reply to a post of yours without taking you out of Ignore mode for the whole thread first - only fair.

How you honestly see yourself no doubt.

No, honestly I'm a rather attractive shade of mauve. You got the pukey green version naturally.

Funny, that's what I've been saying all along, and now you say it, and it's ok?

OMG! This can't be happening! :scratch: :confused4: Are you sure? If I say it, of course it's ok. But we can't be saying the same things, simply not done!

:help: I feel faint.... I need chocolate!!!

The state of denial is alive and well.

Sadly, that appears to be the first accurate expression of your deductions and pronouncements to date. :roll:

 

[CDNBear]

Gosh! Is that a compliment from the troll master?

No, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Ok, BRB....

Nothing about declaring you dead???

Nice dodge.

And I protest! I never reply to a post of yours without taking you out of Ignore mode for the whole thread first - only fair.

Ya, OK.

No, honestly I'm a rather attractive shade of mauve. You got the pukey green version naturally.

Naturally, because you think you're so much better then me...of course.

Serious questions...why is your trolling OK, and mine isn't?

And why is it your prejudice, prevents you from acknowledging the fact that I've been trying to actually get a troll to debate me properly, as per his request, in this thread?

OMG! This can't be happening! :scratch: :confused4: Are you sure? If I say it, of course it's ok. But we can't be saying the same things, simply not done!

Of course.

:help: I feel faint.... I need chocolate!!!

Perhaps you should lie down, before you hurt yourself.

Which reminds me...so much for...

Obviously not a fact, but some could be of the opinion that this is an excellent example of interpretive wishful thinking by three venturesome newbie's who hadn't yet found the Ignore button. Or not.... Which reminds me.... :::reaching for Ignore bucket...::: PLOP!

You keep saying I'm going back into your iggy bin, but yet here you are.

Obsess much?

I am flattered though. I didn't realize I had that much power over you.

 

[commonsense]

Is this a full time thing on your part, you appear to have a great deal of time trying to distort the simple truth?

Denial is clearly understandable, but at some point, when it becomes as pathological as it appears to be in your case, something is not right.

 

[CDNBear]

Is this a full time thing on your part, you appear to have a great deal of time trying to distort the simple truth?

Hmmm, you wouldn't recognize the simple truth if it was contained in post #94.

Denial is clearly understandable, but at some point, when it becomes as pathological as it appears to be in your case, something is not right.

Ahhh yes, you come here, challenge us to a debate, then when you get what you ask for, the problem is me.

I see, when all else fails, critique the mental health of your opponent.

Does this mean that you can't refute any of my posts on the matters you have brought to our attention and have now brought this down to a flame war?

Or would you like to go back to the first page and start again?

 

[Bcool]

No, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Ah yes... "Hypocrisy" It's been overused to the point of ridiculousness even before forums took over from Usenet.

Serious questions...why is your trolling OK, and mine isn't?

Always with the questions... Another.... Well, never mind. Serious you ask?

If you look at some of your troll posts directed at me within a day of my subscribing to CC with no regard to the fact that I had neither posted in response to anything of yours nor that I had trolled back, I think you'll see why I would feel :::koff::: 'offended'. That was insulting, nasty, unpleasant troll baiting stuff. So, as you know, I did what the mod's here tell us to do, I reported them. The outcome of which you well know too...

I don't troll. If I'm interested in a thread & you're in it & I see quotes from your posts that I want to respond to, I take you out of ignore mode, scan the thread again and then respond. That you'd expect me to respond in a friendly manner would be rather unrealistic considering what you had said about and to me in those flame/troll posts, now wouldn't it? So, trolling no, not IMO. Some raps across your knuckles and sarcasm, yes. Actually, compared to the way I've responded to trolls on Usenet, you've had kid glove treatment. Count your blessings.

And why is it your prejudice, prevents you from acknowledging the fact that I've been trying to actually get a troll to debate me properly, as per his request, in this thread?

Another question??? And to use the "prejudice" bit is even more worn out than "hypocrite". :::sigh:::

A question for you: I didn't realize I had that much power over you. How does that make you feel?

You keep saying I'm going back into your iggy bin, but yet here you are.

Yes? And so you will in threads where I will not be replying to or quoting a post of yours, as previously explained above. At least you will be unless & until you quit the more obnoxious flamers directed at me. I don't expect sainthood - I don't believe in miracles, then you'd be boring, but within reasonable smart-mouthed response limits.

Obsess much?

What a curious bear it is to be sure! You first... Do you?

Adding a PS: I'll leave you get on with your 'debate' with your PO now. lol

 

[lone wolf]

Ok, BRB....

Nothing about declaring you dead??? And I protest! I never reply to a post of yours without taking you out of Ignore mode for the whole thread first - only fair.

You must be replying to a quote because if someone is on Ignore (I love people who brag about their Ignorant status) you can't see their posts. Replying to said post means you are using the Ignore feature to play ostrich games.

Is this a full time thing on your part, you appear to have a great deal of time trying to distort the simple truth?

Denial is clearly understandable, but at some point, when it becomes as pathological as it appears to be in your case, something is not right.

We see in others what which we know to be in ourselves.

 

[CDNBear]

Ah yes... "Hypocrisy" It's been overused to the point of ridiculousness even before forums took over from Usenet.

But still applicable.

If you look at some of your troll posts directed at me within a day of my subscribing to CC with no regard to the fact that I had neither posted in response to anything of yours nor that I had trolled back, I think you'll see why I would feel :::koff::: 'offended'.

You took them as troll posts, I simply questioned your accusations, claims, and misinformation.

And you must certainly did "troll back" in other posts.

That was insulting, nasty, unpleasant troll baiting stuff.

According to you. I suspect, in your circle, you're unaccustomed to being questioned.

So, as you know, I did what the mod's here tell us to do, I reported them. The outcome of which you well know too...

No actually I don't know well. You keep saying I'm on ignore, then you reply to my posts, in this case, with flame bait.

I don't troll.

A claim proved patently false by your post and presence in this thread.

If I'm interested in a thread & you're in it & I see quotes from your posts that I want to respond to, I take you out of ignore mode, scan the thread again and then respond.

Uh huh...

That you'd expect me to respond in a friendly manner would be rather unrealistic considering what you had said about and to me in those flame/troll posts, now wouldn't it?

Not at all, I managed to get past your shallow trolling and respond to in a civil manner. Go figure.

So, trolling no, not IMO.

Your opinion shows signs of flawed formulation.

Some raps across your knuckles and sarcasm, yes. Actually, compared to the way I've responded to trolls on Usenet, you've had kid glove treatment. Count your blessings.

Oh boy, another cyber hero.

Another question??? And to use the "prejudice" bit is even more worn out than "hypocrite". :::sigh:::

Way to dodge the question, lol.

But I find it odd that you find the word prejudice, worn out, since you've used it and many other connotations derived from thereof, in disparaging other members contributions to a certain thread.

So which is it? Worn out completely? Or just when yours is exposed?

A question for you: I didn't realize I had that much power over you. How does that make you feel?

The fact that you seem to have an obsession with me, makes me feel all giggidy.

Yes? And so you will in threads where I will not be replying to or quoting a post of yours, as previously explained above. At least you will be unless & until you quit the more obnoxious flamers directed at me. I don't expect sainthood - I don't believe in miracles, then you'd be boring, but within reasonable smart-mouthed response limits.

So in other words, no, I'm not really in your iggy box. Thanx for clearing that up. I'm glad I have that power.

You first... Do you?

Nope. But I do crave entertainment. I thought you might be entertaining, then you said I was in your iggy box, so I was disappointed, then you showed us I wasn't, that was entertaining, then you said I was back in your iggy box, and that was entertaining too. Then you showed us I wasn't, that was entertaining, then I was back in your iggy box, and I was entertained. You've proven to be quite entertaining.

I know you think you have the upper hand, but all you're doing is giving me exactly what I want, entertainment. Debate, argument or flame war. I'm flexible like that. I really would like the first in that group, but sadly, I think you and commonsense, share a common trait, and are simply incapable of rising to the challenge.

Hence, here we are, with you discussing "me". Again, back to your obsession. If I was wrong, you would have entered the thread, and challenged my posts, not me.

But thanx for coming out Bcool. How's your Timmies coffee this morning?

 

[karrie]

The personal attacks in this thread will stop now. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[commonsense]

I really do not understand the need for personal attacks, and to the extent that I am guilty of stooping to that level, from hereonin, I will respond to all personal attacks by ignoring them.

 

[CDNBear]

I really do not understand the need for personal attacks, and to the extent that I am guilty of stooping to that level, from hereonin, I will respond to all personal attacks by ignoring them.

Good, then let's head back to post #94.

Do you have any material that can refute the material that I presented, that shows the flaws and falsehoods promoted by your source?

The truth is correctness of opinion, so at some point, you have to prove me wrong to effectively attack my opinion.

OK, I did just that in post #94...

Now what?

 

[Bcool]

You must be replying to a quote because if someone is on Ignore (I love people who brag about their Ignorant status) you can't see their posts. Replying to said post means you are using the Ignore feature to play ostrich games.

Read my post re replies. TIA

But still applicable.

You took them as troll posts, I simply questioned your accusations, claims, and misinformation.

And you must certainly did "troll back" in other posts.

According to you. I suspect, in your circle, you're unaccustomed to being questioned.

No actually I don't know well. You keep saying I'm on ignore, then you reply to my posts, in this case, with flame bait.

A claim proved patently false by your post and presence in this thread.

Uh huh...

Not at all, I managed to get past your shallow trolling and respond to in a civil manner. Go figure.

Your opinion shows signs of flawed formulation.

Oh boy, another cyber hero.

Way to dodge the question, lol.

But I find it odd that you find the word prejudice, worn out, since you've used it and many other connotations derived from thereof, in disparaging other members contributions to a certain thread.

So which is it? Worn out completely? Or just when yours is exposed?

The fact that you seem to have an obsession with me, makes me feel all giggidy.

So in other words, no, I'm not really in your iggy box. Thanx for clearing that up. I'm glad I have that power.

Nope. But I do crave entertainment. I thought you might be entertaining, then you said I was in your iggy box, so I was disappointed, then you showed us I wasn't, that was entertaining, then you said I was back in your iggy box, and that was entertaining too. Then you showed us I wasn't, that was entertaining, then I was back in your iggy box, and I was entertained. You've proven to be quite entertaining.

I know you think you have the upper hand, but all you're doing is giving me exactly what I want, entertainment. Debate, argument or flame war. I'm flexible like that. I really would like the first in that group, but sadly, I think you and commonsense, share a common trait, and are simply incapable of rising to the challenge.

Hence, here we are, with you discussing "me". Again, back to your obsession. If I was wrong, you would have entered the thread, and challenged my posts, not me.

But thanx for coming out Bcool. How's your Timmies coffee this morning?

Immediately followed by:

Karrie: The personal attacks in this thread will stop now. Thank you for your cooperation.

Uh huh! IOW