Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Belz...]

What benefit do I get from increasing the number of hits at my site?? Please be specific.

You mean, aside from prominence in Google searches ?

 

[JayUtah]

So you would prefer to continue making ambiguous, insulting generalizations, without lifting a finger to prove them?

I made no such statement. If you believe I did, please quote me verbatim.

 

[Robert Harris]

I wager that no amount of specificity would satisfy you.

Interesting that you would have to "wager". That sort of confirms that you have never tried to be specific.

I'll let the peanut gallery make a final judgment on this, but your behaviour is still there for all to see.

I find it amazing that 3 or 4 of you are so obsessed with "robert harris", that I am all you talk about.

Aren't you here to talk about the JFK assassination? Perhaps you could start a new thread and entitle it "Robert Harris Sucks" or something like that.

That way you could at least continue this way without being constantly off topic

Also, I note that you snip a lot of content from posts you quote, a behaviour you decry from your opponents, here. Usually people would take it as a sign of hypocrisy.

Yes, I have the terrible habit of deleting ad hominm crap and trashtalk. Shame on me!

 

[RoboTimbo]

You need to find much better insults Jay. I can suggest a few sites for you.

You seem to be finding them for him.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Interesting that you would have to "wager". That sort of confirms that you have never tried to be specific.

In what conceivable way? You're making no sense.

 

[Robert Harris]

In what conceivable way? You're making no sense.

Are you ready to answer a few questions Sandy, or would you prefer to evade them again?

 

[Belz...]

Interesting that you would have to "wager". That sort of confirms that you have never tried to be specific.

Oh, stop playing with words. This is such a common tactic with woo-woos and conspiracy theorists and creationists. Focus on the content rather than the form, for once. Every time someone offers a rebutal to your points, you either switch to personal comments or claim that, somehow, their rebutal isn't specific enough.

I find it amazing that 3 or 4 of you are so obsessed with "robert harris", that I am all you talk about.

This obsession is a figment of your own imagination. Stop making everything about yourself.

Aren't you here to talk about the JFK assassination?

Moreso than you.

Perhaps you could start a new thread and entitle it "Robert Harris Sucks" or something like that.

Ad hominem.

Yes, I have the terrible habit of deleting ad hominm crap and trashtalk.

It sure balances with your creation of same.

 

[Robert Harris]

I made no such statement. If you believe I did, please quote me verbatim.

OHMIGOD!! Let me count the ways. Let's start with this one,

"Your latest excuse for trying to shift the burden of proof isn't faring any better than your others. Consequently I urge you to recall my admonition that your critics here are well attuned to such rhetorical shenanigans in all their flavors and colors. "

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

Prove that I made up excuses to shift the burden of proof.

Prove that I employ "rhetorical shenanigans".

You need to do what I just did and cite me verbatim along with a detailed explanation of my sins.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Aren't you here to talk about the JFK assassination?

What is your coherent alternative hypothesis for the JFK assassination? Please ensure that yours better matches the objective, verifiable evidence better than the prevailing one.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

In what conceivable way? You're making no sense.

Are you ready to answer a few questions Sandy, or would you prefer to evade them again?

No, you answer my question.
In what conceivable way does Belz...'s phrasing imply that he could not be specific?
Please be very specific.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you ready to answer a few questions Sandy, or would you prefer to evade them again?

Lame attempt to shift the burden of proof. Again.

 

[Belz...]

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

Another fringe reset; pretending that something that has been explained to you numerous times somehow hasn't happened.

Why don't you instead try to deal with the problems that many have mentioned about your arguments ?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

OK, you just now proved that you still don't know what that means.

Many examples of your doing this have been highlighted in this thread.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

Prove that I made up excuses to shift the burden of proof.

LOL.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh, stop playing with words. This is such a common tactic with woo-woos and conspiracy theorists and creationists.

No sir. It is a common tactic with skeptics to demand that their attackers support their accusations with specificity and verbatim cites.

Your endless, vague generalizations don't get it my friend. You need to stop blurting out things that you could never prove.

 

[Belz...]

No sir. It is a common tactic with skeptics to demand that their attackers support their accusations with specificity and verbatim cites.

But that's not what you were doing: you were arguing that me using the word "wager" somehow proved that I couldn't be specific about my rebutals.

I'm saying that this is a rhetorical tactic used by many woo-woos, and now you try to make it sound as if you were simply asking me to support my accusations. Anyone reading even this page of the thread can easily see that you are engaging in dishonest tactics.

Would you like to now address my original point ? Here it is: how specific would you like us to be ?

 

[Robert Harris]

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

OK, you just now proved that you still don't know what that means.

No it doesn't, but you just proved that like him, you couldn't justify that accusation to save your life.

Many examples of your doing this have been highlighted in this thread.

No it hasn't and you will prove that by failing to present even one verbatim citation of me saying anything that justifies your claim.

And speaking of that, you actually cited me talking about the absence of evidence to support the LN theory and falsely claimed that I was demanding such evidence.

Would you like to retract that ugly accusation now?

And are you ready to answer a few questions about the assassination?

 

[Belz...]

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

Ooh, ooh !! Let me !

Jay explained to you what the burden of proof is. To summarize: someone claiming that a well-established theory, right or wrong, is incorrect, and who intends to present an alternative, must themselves prove their case. It is in no way their opponent's burden to prove an already proven theory again and again, every time a new hypothesis is dreamed up by a crackpot or a crack scientist.

So, it is your burden to demonstrate that the prevailing (it is prevailing, whether you like it or not, at least on this forum) theory is wrong. Asking us to defend said theory is what is called shifting the burden of proof, as it allowed you to avoid having to prove your own case.

Here's an analogy: in court, it is the prevailing theory that the accused is innonent. The prosecution's theory is that the accused is guilty. If the prosecutor asks the defense lawyer to prove innocence, he is shifting the burden of proof because it's HIS job to prove guilt.

That's what you're doing here. If you want specific examples, look up any of your posts that people answer with "shifting the burden of proof".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Prove that I tried to shift the burden of proof.

Well, there's the half a dozen times I quoted you verbatim doing exactly that. Knowing that, it would only be overt dishonesty that would lead someone to say that you weren't attempting to shift the burden of proof.

No it doesn't, but you just proved that like him, you couldn't justify that accusation to save your life.

You've justified everyone in the thread who has accused you of shifting the burden of proof. Thanks, I appreciate it.

No it hasn't and you will prove that by failing to present even one verbatim citation of me saying anything that justifies your claim.

Of you attempting to shift the burden of proof? How about the half a dozen times I've pointed it out in the last few pages?

And speaking of that, you actually cited me talking about the absence of evidence to support the LN theory and falsely claimed that I was demanding such evidence.

Would you like to retract that ugly accusation now?

It's true so why should he?

And are you ready to answer a few questions about the assassination?

Unbelievably, an absolutely inane attempt to shift the burden of proof. LOL.

 

[Robert Harris]

But that's not what you were doing: you were arguing that me using the word "wager"

Yes, in the context of my claim that you constantly make unsupported, ambiguous accusations.

somehow proved that I couldn't be specific about my rebutals.

No, you seem to have forgotten what the conversation was about. Do I have to cite everything back to you?

I'm saying that this is a rhetorical tactic used by many woo-woos,

Of course you would. You'd say I abuse puppies if you thought you could get away with it

Our discussion was about posting ambiguous accusations that you cannot justify or support.

Instead of going on and on and on about this, why don't you just agree to support your claims and especially your accusations, with specificity.

Is that too hard?