You really seem like a great guy, Jay.
Yet you assiduously avoid telling the rest of the forum why you saw fit to accuse me of mental illness. Why is that, Robert? The insults backfired on you, so now you're falling all over yourself to flatter me. Would that be to curry favor in hopes of convincing me to endorse your childish ploy?
If by some incredible, billion to one chance, this JFK thing turned out to be a conspiracy, wouldn't you want to know about it?
If someone claimed he could prove that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, I would be interested in hearing it. And in fact -- although you refuse to see for yourself -- this thread and its two predecessors dating back a number of years contain the record of my hearing of various proposals exactly to that effect. There's a record of my expressing exactly the interest you allude to.
Unfortunately none of them, including yours, rises to even a cursory level of credibility. In the process of hearing them, I've made a list of the common errors they commit. I presented that list to you as a courtesy upon your arrival here, so that if you saw fit you could avoid those common pitfalls. Not only did you mock my offering, you embraced each and every one of those errors as if it were a virtue.
You simply aren't as formidable and respectable in that regard as you think you are. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in constructing, presenting, and defending a case. You flounder about in cargo-cult reasoning and pure conjecture, incompetently unaware of even the rudiments of critical analysis, and relying in substantial measure upon the well-worn meme of insulting your critics.
In short, after I admonished you that you'd have to demonstrate you're worth people's attention, you've amply demonstrated that you are not. And as such you do not rise to fill your hypothetical condition.
What would be the worst thing that would happen if you guys engaged in an honest debate on a level playing field
Complex question and begging the question. Your absurd, contrived rules are not "honest debate" just because you desperately want them to govern how your ideas are tested. No one is going to agree to them, and your newfound obsession over foisting them onto the forum only confirms how abjectly desperate you are.
...one in which I don't have to deal with a dozen opponents simultaneously?
What makes you think you're entitled to limit criticism against you? This is the real world. If you make outrageous statements that arouse disputation in a thousand people, you must deal with a thousand rebuttals. That's just life. Deal with it.
You're so incredibly selfish. You want the adulation and glory of standing up to stiff opposition without actually having to do it. Shame on you.
What do you have to lose?
My integrity.
Every conspiracy theorist wants to manipulate the debate in his favor. I showed how your rules were designed to do that. And predictably you ignored that post. You can't justify your rules, and you brush off that the entire forum is laughing at you for proposing them.
The reason every conspiracy theorist wants to manipulate the debate is because he wants to portray the illusion of having endured meaningful criticism, but he knows he can't do it for real. So he has to severely limit the scrutiny to which his ideas will be subjected. He has to script the examination to make sure he comes out on top. It's pure egoism, designed to buttress the conspiracist's image of himself as a talented crusader for truth. And no, we won't be part of it. We're not your obedient, sycophantic stooges. You'll have to get your praise and adoration elsewhere.
It's time to give that ploy a decent burial. You won't obey the rules yourself, and you can't convince anyone else to take you seriously.
