No, just noting your conformance to a well established pattern of pseudo-debate. You can either cry about it or rebut it.
There is no basis for your comment outside of stating your opinion/personal observation.
Yes, it is a personal observation noted over a couple decades of debating fringe theories, and as a published skeptic. Lengthy observation is a suitable basis for drawing comparisons and parallels.
I did not provide a narrative, so your observation is a non sequitur.
As I was referring to the conventional narrative, not any narrative you may or may not have provided, your criticism is moot. Next time try actually reading and responding to my argument instead of firing off a knee-jerk irrelevant objection.
All I am doing is sometimes pointing out a flaw or two...
Your error is in pretending that such nit-picking should affect belief. It presumes the conventional narrative must be free of all conceivable flaws in order to be credible or to be the best explanation for the evidence taken at large. If you're not noting flaws in the conventional narrative with the intent of dissuading belief in it, what does it matter if others consider it still the best explanation even with the flaws you note, taken
arguendo or at face value?
All you are providing is an opinion that is not founded in the guidelines of this forum...
Straw man. I didn't claim it was in the guidelines of the forum, nor do I suggest the guidelines of the form constitute the entirety of best practices in debate. As first insinuated and now explained, the basis of my characterization is lengthy observation.
...or any structured discussion.
So you're allowed to characterize a reasoned debate while your critics are not?
I read some of your other posts and you historically attempt to subdue a dialog by moving the goal posts just as you did with your response to me.
Poisoning the well? This is the conspiracy section. It's about investigating conspiracy theories. This is the JFK thread. It's about JFK conspiracy theories. It seems you're trying to get some rhetorical mileage about only wanting to have a "dialogue" amidst this clamor of debate over a conspiracy. If you don't want to be part of the pie fight, then that's quite all right; there is a section on history if you want to "dialogue" about the Kennedy assassination outside the conspiracy context. But when you choose to post in the conspiracy section and raise so many of the same points as the conspiracy theorists before you in the thread, you're going to be treated as a conspiracy theorist whether you self-identify that way or not, whether you posit and actual conspiracy theory or not.
Again from my decades debating fringe claimants, I can say the soft entry is fairly common. And people here are attuned well enough to it even to have an acronym JAQing ("Just Asking Questions") for the approach you're taking. Since so many of the "dialogues" that soft entrants want to have eventually wind up advocating conspiracy, the obligation to differentiate yourself from that is yours.
[W]hat you are accusing me of is by definition the exact opposite of a False Dilemma.
Please try to pay attention. I said that conspiracy theorists fall into two camps -- those that merely try to note flaws and those who try to offer an alternative. I said those who posit an alternative formulate it as a false dilemma with the conventional narrative. As you have explicitly declined to provide an alternative, it should be obvious in which camp you fall and therefore whether the accusation of posing a false dilemma was meant to apply to you.
What I highlighted is a perfect case of the false dilemma...
No.
You can supply no alternative. Or you can supply a partially defined alternative. Or you can supply a complete alternative. Explain what important option was left out of that partition.
