11-02-2013, 05:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2013, 06:01 PM by Cliff Varnell.)
Jim Hackett II Wrote:Assassination Porn?!! What a disgusting, cheapening term.
Some people think it's disgusting to argue with LNers back and forth over every point.
Some people think the false equivalency produced by such back and forth is inherently obfuscatory.
When the rhetoric heats up and people start insulting each other it turns into something quite cheap -- Assassination Porn. People are titillated by the conflict but it has no redeeming value.
Jim DiEugenio bragged about the lurker following he developed beating up on David Von Pein over dozens of different points of evidence for 3 years. People were titillated by the conflict, but it generates false equivalency to posit that the other side has anything to say at all.
Quote:What a cheap concept. Backed by Ad Hominem Slander.
Do you think Jim DiEugenio is above ad hominem slander? It was his slander I first ignored, and then responded to.
Quote:And by like chump's conduct, but to no purpose. Save disruption.
You denounce ad hominem and then call me a chump. That's elementary Assassination Porn.
Well done on your first attempt, Jim.
As to my purpose here (and please get used to my presence, I have friends over here and I plan to stick around) is to discuss contrary views of the case with CTs only. An Assassination Porn free-zone!
When it comes to the fact of conspiracy -- I'm a Jacobin. So is Charles Drago. Conspiracy is an unchallenged historical fact, the prima facie case for which precludes rebuttal. I'm St. Just to Charles' Robespierre on this issue...But if I ever see Charles Drago open a science book to debunk the SBT he'll be Danton to my Robespierre.
mileymad:mileymad:That at least two shooters fired on JFK is not a point to be argued over but a fact to be simply observed -- the holes in the back of his jacket and shirt are too low to have been associated with the throat wound. Vincent Salandria once wrote that you'd have to be a "vegetable" not to be able to see it.
That's the root fact of the JFK assassination.
To argue the case for conspiracy on grounds other than the prima facie case is to concede Lone Nut talking points concerning the SBT trajectory.
The trajectory of the SBT fails. Conspiracy proven. It's that simple. Why argue the fact of conspiracy on highly technical grounds, as does Jim DiEugenio?
Jim DiEugenio and I have opposite -- and now hostile -- approaches to the case.
Jim refers to the JFK assassination as "super-humanly complex."
I regard the case as "scandalously simple."
It would be nice if these two opposing views could be discussed without ad hominem...
Quote:Yep, that is the mode of communication I want at DPF too. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
The absence of that junk is a part of what sets DPF apart!!!!!
Yes, there are no LNers here. I spent going on 7 years at the EF and although I did indulge a lot of Assassination Porn with Craig Lamson I got him to make a crucial admission that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position when he was shot.
I had two brief discussions over there with David Von Pein and he gave up the store right away -- he admits that JFK's jacket wasn't significantly elevated at the corner of Houston and Main and after that the jacket collar dropped.
He stipulated to that! Discussion over.
Now those days are behind me. I can argue the prima facie case for conspiracy at the DPF without being attacked or insulted.
