• 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.

JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
You agree then that bank stamps are optional and their absence doesn't mean anything?

Or are you pretending still they must be present?

Hank
Click to expand...
Back in the conflation phase again. No I claime that:

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS STATES THAT BANK ENDORSMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE PMO, STAMPS ABSENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Is anything of this not factual?
 
HSienzant said:
Yes
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
Good. Settled.

Next question is, what does this mean considering the authenticity of the Hidell PMO.

You are claiming that, since that word ”should” isn’t mandatory in a legal/judiciary sense, the absence of the regulated bank stamps on the Hidell PMO is NOT evidence of a forgery, correct?
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. You took my 'yes' out of context and pretended it means something it didn't.

Congratulations, you've learned well. You're now prepared to author your first conspiracy theorist book!

What I wrote:
HSienzant said:
Asked and answered. By my count at least four times now.

Yes, but it depends on what the meaning of 'should' is. In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'.
Click to expand...

What you quoted:
HSienzant said:
Yes
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Back in the conflation phase again. No I claime that:

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS STATES THAT BANK ENDORSMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE PMO, STAMPS ABSENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Is anything of this not factual?
Click to expand...

Maybe if you used bigger fonts and bold face?

It's misleading. 'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.

I've explained that almost half a dozen times. I've cited for it as well. Others have pointed out the issue as well.

Quit trying to force it to say something it doesn't. Quit pretending 'should' means 'must'.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Where is what? Your evidence for the 100 claims you made?

I have no clue.

Hank
Click to expand...
You said that the hand writing experts had access to the original document when stating that it was Lee Harvey Oswalds hand writing.

Where is your evidence of this?
 
HSienzant said:
Maybe if you used bigger fonts and bold face?

It's misleading. 'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.

I've explained that almost half a dozen times. I've cited for it as well. Others have pointed out the issue as well.

Quit trying to force it to say something it doesn't. Quit pretending 'should' means 'must'.

Hank
Click to expand...
I do not propose any interpretation of the regulation. I’m quoting what the regulation says.

The intepretation is another issue.

And, you have conceded to this. Are you now retracting?
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
I do not propose any interpretation of the regulation. I’m quoting what the regulation says.

The intepretation is another issue.

And, you have conceded to to this. Are you now retracting?
Click to expand...

Funny I don't remember his approval of your interpretation. Are you making this up, as you do with all your posts?
 
HSienzant said:
I see what you did there. You took my 'yes' out of context and pretended it means something it didn't.
Click to expand...
No, I’m stating that you make one issue out of two.

1. What does the regulation litterally say?

2. What is the meaning of the regulation?

This is obviously two different issues and needs to be settled one at the time.

You insist on conflating these to issues?

Why?
 
manifesto said:
No, I’m stating that you make one issue out of two.

1. What does the regulation litterally say?

2. What is the meaning of the regulation?

This is obviously two different issues and needs to be settled one at the time.

You insist on conflating these to issues?

Why?
Click to expand...

Moot as the money order was paid.
 
smartcooky said:
Yes, I agree that it "should" (that is what the regulations state) but it doesn't have to be. The Oswald/Hidell PMO was simply among the many that wasn't.
Click to expand...
So, why have this ”recommendation/advise/suggestion” at all?

What was its purpose?
 
HSienzant said:
Maybe if you used bigger fonts and bold face?

It's misleading. 'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.

I've explained that almost half a dozen times. I've cited for it as well. Others have pointed out the issue as well.

Quit trying to force it to say something it doesn't. Quit pretending 'should' means 'must'.

Hank
Click to expand...
I’m not pretending anything, I cite the words in the regulation. It doesn’t say ”must” anywhere, it says ”should” which is precisely the word I’m using.

1. What is litterally written?

2. What does it mean?

Two issues. One at a time.
 
manifesto said:
He neither rented, borrowed or owned it. He did not shoot at JFK or Tippit and he was not part in a conspiracy to do that.

He was innocent.
Click to expand...

Now you ;) will need to provide evidence of those. You ;) should probably stop making unsupported claims and start providing evidence for the ones you ;) think you can support.
 
manifesto said:
Back in the conflation phase again. No I claime that:

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS STATES THAT BANK ENDORSMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE PMO, STAMPS ABSENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Is anything of this not factual?
Click to expand...

You ;) do agree that Sandy Larsen was an idiot for stupidly conflating "should" and "shall" and dishonestly pretending it meant something?
 
HSienzant said:
Of course the absence of the optional bank stamps doesn't indicate a forgery. I'm claiming that you've presented no evidence to date that there is anything wrong with the money order whatsoever, despite your arguments going back at least ten pages on this forum.

Hank
Click to expand...
So, what is the purpose of the ”should/advise/recommendation/suggestion”? Why have it in the regulations at all?

Aesthetics?
 
manifesto said:
You said that the hand writing experts had access to the original document when stating that it was Lee Harvey Oswalds hand writing.

Where is your evidence of this?
Click to expand...

You said a lot of things - a hundred when I was keeping track - where's your evidence for any of those?

You first.

Go ahead. I can wait.

Hank
 
manifesto said:
I’m not pretending anything, I cite the words in the regulation. It doesn’t say ”must” anywhere, it says ”should” which is precisely the word I’m using.

1. What is litterally written?
Click to expand...

Should

manifesto said:
2. What does it mean?
Click to expand...

The Federal Plain Language guidelines (the document used for correct writing of all Federal Regulations) states that "should" is a recommendation

https://plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf

Section III
Sub-section a
Clause 1
Sub-clause iv

Instead of using “shall”, use:
“must” for an obligation,
“must not” for a prohibition,
"may” for a discretionary action,
“should” for a recommendation.

This has not changed since the last time I posted it, and it will not change if and when I post it again in the future, no matter how many times that might be.

Its time for you to admit that you are wrong!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom