The Official JREF Lone Nut Challenge

[Hawk one]

You have only found nuts, not lone nuts. Reliable handguns just makes it easier for security to protect people.

Not only do you keep lying, you keep telling irrelevant lies, because even if there were no "lone nuts" before 1750, that still doesn't mean they can't exist today.

And reliable handguns are a nice things mainly becaus they are as a rule easy to conceal (one can in fact argue that it's the whole point of them), and then it's only a matter of getting fairly close to the target. Just ask John Hinkley Jr.

 

[Galileo]

Not only do you keep lying, you keep telling irrelevant lies, because even if there were no "lone nuts" before 1750, that still doesn't mean they can't exist today.

And reliable handguns are a nice things mainly becaus they are as a rule easy to conceal (one can in fact argue that it's the whole point of them), and then it's only a matter of getting fairly close to the target. Just ask John Hinkley Jr.

So you've given up finding lone nuts? Then you have failed the challenge.

 

[Galileo]

James Hamilton's assassination of James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray

Hamilton was part of the nobility, that means he was an insider, not a lone nut.

 

[Ladewig]

Galileo: I am proving that lone nuts don't exist. The people called lone nuts in modern times are, in fact, patsies.

riptowtan: please explain your reasoning.

Galileo: strawman !!11


Ladewig: wtf??!!

 

[Galileo]

Galileo: I am proving that lone nuts don't exist. The people called lone nuts in modern times are, in fact, patsies.

riptowtan: please explain your reasoning.

Galileo: strawman !!11


Ladewig: wtf??!!

you are attempting to derail the thread. Can you any any lone nuts prior to 1750?

PS - I heard that Hitler was not only a nut, I heard he had a lone nut!

 

[EventHorizon]

Hamilton was part of the nobility, that means he was an insider, not a lone nut.

False dichotomy.

 

[Galileo]

False dichotomy.

Sorry, lone nuts are supposed to be disgruntled nobodies:

Hamilton was a member of Clan Hamilton from Bothwellhaugh, a village and castle in the Clyde Valley. The property of the Dukes of Hamilton, it no longer exists.[1]

Hamilton married the heiress of Woodhouselee, a castle in Midlothian, a quarter-mile (0.5 km) northwest of Easter Howgate and 2½ miles (4 km) north of Penicuik in the valley of the River Esk.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hamilton_(assassin)

This murder is just a typical court conspiracy type killing, a grudge match, of which there are hundreds of them. Even if was a legitimate lone nut killing, it would still not account for the myriad of supposed "lone nut" killings of modern times.

 

[KingMerv00]

Why should I? Some lone nuts do have an agenda.

Why did you make it a requirement then?

* the assassin must be a crazy person whose attack is irrational and doesn't advance his or her supposed big picture political goals

 

[EventHorizon]

Sorry, lone nuts are supposed to be disgruntled nobodies:

According to your definition. That's convenient.

 

[Ladewig]

you are attempting to derail the thread.

Asking the opening poster to explain his reasoning is derailing the thread.

Wow, just wow. Do you even know what "derail" means?

Can you list any lone nuts prior to 1750?

Can you list a cogent reason why anyone should even care if there were lone nuts prior to 1750?

 

[Galileo]

Why did you make it a requirement then?

[/SIZE]

you have to account for people's behavior. For example, the anarchist who supposedly killed McKinley killed a do-nothing president, so an activist president could take over. That doesn't make any sense to a rational person. But if the killer was a crazed nut unable to reason, then the problem is solved.

The McKinley Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRIB8TV69QQ

 

[defaultdotxbe]

And ancient Kings ruled smaller populations were meeting the people had more pull. Unpopular kings had every reason to be like JFK and go among the People. Security wasn't as good, and bodyguards didn't have guns to protect the Kings.

why would an unpopular king feel the need to schmooze with the peasants? he rules by divine providence, who cares if the people like him or not


King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

 

[Galileo]

According to your definition. That's convenient.

It was convenient when people said that about Oswald, too.

 

[Loss Leader]

You have already made my point. There are no known documented "lone nuts" prior to 1750.

How can you say that when your definition of "lone nut" is not logically related to the actual definition of "lone nut"?

Your reasoning is exactly the same as my reasoning that people did not exist before 1974:

[size=A GABILLION!]THE LOSS LEADER PEOPLE CHALLENGE!

I challenge anyone in the vaunted and NWO-affiliated JREF to prove that human beings existed before 1974. A human being must:

1. Be bilaterally symmetrical AND
2. Use tools for more than subsistance AND
3. Have seen Annie Hall in the theater (first run, re-release or college screening).

I have just proven that human beings do not exist! Too bad all you paid shills didn't earn your NSA paychecks today! Cleaveland rocks!



I mean, really.

 

[Galileo]

why would an unpopular king feel the need to schmooze with the peasants? he rules by divine providence, who cares if the people like him or not


King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

It could boost his ego. It could prevent a revolt. Or maybe the King was gregarious, or just a nice guy.

 

[Galileo]

Asking the opening poster to explain his reasoning is derailing the thread.

Wow, just wow. Do you even know what "derail" means?



Can you list a cogent reason why anyone should even care if there were lone nuts prior to 1750?

The popularity of this thread speaks for itself!

 

[Normal Dude]

Why do you people waste so much time with this idiot? There's such better, more constructive things to be done.

 

[Galileo]

How can you say that when your definition of "lone nut" is not logically related to the actual definition of "lone nut"?

Your reasoning is exactly the same as my reasoning that people did not exist before 1974:

[size=A GABILLION!]THE LOSS LEADER PEOPLE CHALLENGE!

I challenge anyone in the vaunted and NWO-affiliated JREF to prove that human beings existed before 1974. A human being must:

1. Be bilaterally symmetrical AND
2. Use tools for more than subsistance AND
3. Have seen Annie Hall in the theater (first run, re-release or college screening).

I have just proven that human beings do not exist! Too bad all you paid shills didn't earn your NSA paychecks today! Cleaveland rocks!



I mean, really.

my definition of a lone nut is a guideline. It tries to capture the essence of what the people called lone nuts are like, in contrast to conspiracies.

If you want to hazard your own lone nut guidleines, I would be willing to listen. Please don't be so confrontational, there is no need for that here.

 

[Galileo]

Why do you people waste so much time with this idiot? There's such better, more constructive things to be done.

That's not very nice to say.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Ah, 1750, that glorious time on the planet Earth when there were neither lone nuts nor internet morons.