• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
manifesto said:
You do not have to be an ”expert” to find and present documented evidence.
Click to expand...

That clearly wasn't why you quoted him.

Because you had already cited that documented evidence in an earlier post.

More recently, you quoted his opinion and challenged me to show he's wrong. That's when you were pretending he was an expert.

Your burden is to prove he's right.

Or you can keep quibbling over whether you cited his opinion as if it had value and challenged me to prove him wrong.

We see what you're doing, and why.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Major Major said:
Since you are completely wrong about this too, I don't possibly see where you could be of any help.

:blackcat:
Click to expand...
Ah, forgive me, but I find it somewhat differcult to follow your line of thought. It’s kind of cryptic and full of deep learning and wisdom.

Are you sure I can’t be of any help?
 
HSienzant said:
That clearly wasn't why you quoted him.

Because you had already cited that documented evidence in an earlier post.

More recently, you quoted his opinion and challenged me to show he's wrong. That's when you were pretending he was an expert.

Your burden is to prove he's right.

Or you can keep quibbling over whether you cited his opinion as if it had value and challenged me to prove him wrong.

We see what you're doing, and why.

Hank
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
None of your quotes is matching your claims, Hank.

The keywords are:

1. ”Expert”

2. ”Prove”

I find the nowhere in your quotes.

Cite or retract.
Click to expand...

So quibble it is.

As I noted, we see right through that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Asked and answered. You can ignore the evidence all you want (you're good at that). It's not going away.

When do you intend to address the 100 claims you made that I asked you to cite the evidence for?

Hank
Click to expand...
No, you have not provided citations for your claims that I:

1. Claim that Larsen is an ”expert”.

2. Have challanged you to ”prove” Larsen wrong.

I suggest you do that, or retract.

It’s really that simple, Hank.
 
manifesto said:
Ah, forgive me, but I find it somewhat differcult to follow your line of thought. It’s kind of cryptic and full of deep learning and wisdom.

Are you sure I can’t be of any help?
Click to expand...

In being Juror Number Eight, who finds an alternative explanation for every piece of evidence, but never presents any proof to back up his explanation?

Answer the questions people have been asking you. Give proof.

:blackcat:
 
manifesto said:
No, you have not provided citations for your claims that I:

1. Claim that Larsen is an ”expert”.

2. Have challanged you to ”prove” Larsen wrong.

I suggest you do that, or retract.

It’s really that simple, Hank.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
So quibble it is.

As I noted, we see right through that.

Hank
Click to expand...
No, Hank, it’s not quibble. It cuts to the core of your way of debating. You refrase the question put to you in order to get some angle.

It is not going to happen this time.

1. Where did I claim that Larsen is an ”expert”?

2. Where did I challange you to ”prove” Larsen wrong in connection to his answer to Micah?

Cite it, or retract.
 
You have not provided citations for your ONE HUNDRED claims I asked you to document.

I suggest you do that, or retract.

It’s really that simple, Manifesto.

Hank
 
manifesto said:
No, Hank, it’s not quibble. It cuts to the core of your way of debating. You refrase the question put to you in order to get some angle.

It is not going to happen this time.

1. Where did I claim that Larsen is an ”expert”?

2. Where did I challange you to ”prove” Larsen wrong in connection to his answer to Micah?

Cite it, or retract.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

manifesto said:
1. Where did I claim Larsen is an ”expert”? Cite it.
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
I’m citing Larsen because he is the one who did the actual research, citing and sourcing it in the Ed.Forum thread...
Click to expand...



manifesto said:
2. Where did I challange you to ”prove him wrong”? Cite it.
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
Explain why Larsen is wrong here. Cite. Explain. Argue.
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
If this were a creationist thread, he'd just keep saying, "Were you there?"

Hey manifesto, keep quibbling the minutia, it keeps you from answering questions "in due course." Obvious stalling is obvious.
 
HSienzant said:
Asked and answered.
Click to expand...

- ”I’m citing Larsen because he is the one who did the actual research, citing and sourcing it in the Ed.Forum thread...”

Where do I find the claim I make that Larsen is an ”expert”? Do you need to be an ”expert” to find and present documented evidence?

- ”Explain why Larsen is wrong here. Cite. Explain. Argue”

Where do I challange you to ”prove” Larsen wrong? I asked you to point out your differences in order to clearify your opinion on the issues at hand. Not to ”prove” him wrong.

Do you see the difference? It is not semantics, it cuts to the core of your MO. Stop refrasing questions to you in order to get an upper hand.

It’s ugly.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
I quoted Miriam Webster for the vernacular definition. The fact that some member of the Mighty Church claims to be a Mighty legal expert claiming that the legal meaning is this and that does not impress no one outside your Church.
Click to expand...

You cited a dictionary definition that proves you wrong--hoist on your own petard. "Should" means "obligation" in an advisory sense. It does not mean a mandatory legal duty. And I've explained to you the basis of my knowledge in this area. What's the foundation of your claim, apart from misapplying the dictionary?
 
bknight said:
You may have looked up the words but here in the US, legally they have the meaning the OKBob gave you. You may say he claims to be a legal expert, and he told all of us IIRC he teaches at a University legal classes. So there you have it. Continue with the snide comments, because that will ultimately end your existence on the forum.

OKBob, correct me if I didn't remember correctly.:)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right, bknight. I don't wish to be too insistent on academic credentials as a basis for rebutting manifesto. But this list is unusual for having a lot of skeptics with interesting and impressive areas of expertise. It's a shame that desperados like manifesto don't take advantage of that expertise and learn something, rather than just blindly attack and deny.
 
OKBob said:
You cited a dictionary definition that proves you wrong--hoist on your own petard. "Should" means "obligation" in an advisory sense. It does not mean a mandatory legal duty. And I've explained to you the basis of my knowledge in this area. What's the foundation of your claim, apart from misapplying the dictionary?
Click to expand...
I have not claimed ”mandatory legal duty”. I have claimed ”federal regulations”.

That is, if you want to follow the regulations, this is the way to do it.

Nothing more than that.

I guess following the regulations provide some sort of security to the users of the instruments regulated.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Should = if you feel like it?
Click to expand...

It expresses a desired state of affairs, but it also suggests that there is room for official discretion in honoring PMOs that substantially comply with regulations without complying to the letter.

But you're also ignoring Hank's demonstration that the PMO did comply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom