Posted on 04/12/2002 5:21:54 PM PDT by Republican_Strategist
Just more desperate ad hominum BS.
I also like to post the translation of the Novus Ordo Seclorum motto of the Great Seal of the United States. A New Order for the Ages, whose latin roots make citations of a new world order, in the context that George Herbert Walker Bush used them as entirely in keeping with the heritage of our Republic.
Charles Thomson, in suggesting the motto that was adopted for the seal was probably borrowing from Virgil. Virgil wrote the phrase, "Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo," in the fifth line of his classic Eclogue IV.
This is, and its context in Virgil is translated as:
A mighty order of ages is born anew.
The great series of ages begins anew.
The ages' mighty march begins anew.
The majestic roll of circling centuries begins anew
The "high probability" of a second gunmen is a direct reference to the acoustic evidence. Without it the HSCA would not have found in favor of a conspiracy (even some vague unspecified one). That fact is revealed in the dissent of some of the members.
The acoustic evidence was later disproven by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
Just more desperate ad hominum BS.
If you tell lies, expect to be called a liar. Note that, unlike you, I didn't simply resort to calling you names. I proved that you were lying. You don't like it? Don't engage in it.
Unfounded though it may be, you complaining about "ad hominum" has to be the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a long time.
If you tell lies, expect to be called a liar. Note that, unlike you, I didn't simply resort to calling you names. I proved that you were lying.
--- Proved? -- That is an absolute fantasy on your part. You are delusional.
You don't like it? Don't engage in it. Unfounded though it may be, you complaining about "ad hominum" has to be the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a long time.
-- You 'say', as you hypocritically call be a liar once again. -- You are out of control. For shame.
I had a T-shirt with "Pobody is Nerfect" on the front.
I always had to explain it to supervisors, but my co-workers understood.
Do you think everything is about wording? I didn't "interpret the wording", I was discussing the substance. Read it again.
Yes, proved. Either that, or it wasn't intentional and you were just full of bad information. You can have that interpretation if you prefer it.
I haven't given your motives a thought. Your untruthful statements are documented on this thread.
I read it. So?
I repeat. I discussed the substance of what it said, not the wording. You disagree? Let's hear it.
Hogwash. Post these statements, in context, & explain how they are 'untruthful'.
You can't, & won't, because they don't exist.
-- You are out of control, - why?
"And of course, Fred's rifle should also have a six-groove barrel, as per the markings on one bullet supposedly recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital."
"Even the warren report admits the problems with oswalds rifle, & its inability to perform as needed without a 'magic bullet' scenario."
"-- That oswalds rifle was a piece of junk should be beyond argument. -- The WC admitted the scope was misaligned, & the action to slow to shoot in the time alloted."
"It [the scope] was initialy installed improperly, according to the WC report."
"you deliberatly ignore the time factor of an inherently 'slow' action, that made the 'magic bullet' a necessary fiction."
"The Warren report could not correlate the filmed record of shots hitting JFK with the time necessary to operate oswalds rifles action. This made necessary the 'magic bullet' that hit the Gov after it hit JFK."
"The WC was forced to the above 'magic bullet' conclusion because one shot missed."
"Your 'logic' wordplay attempted to make a point not in dispute."
I'm sorry that it seemed to go over your head, but I posted direct refutations of claims you made.
As for being "out of control", not at all. I guess you aren't used to people challenging you, probably because they don't like the abusiveness they get in return. I'm just answering each falsehood you post in this thread.
Correction. I didn't see which message you were replying to here and I thought you were talking about the WC stuff, not the HSCA comments.
My comments were connected. It's a discussion. You posted the conclusions and I commented on them, pointing out they support the WC conclusions and the basis for the conspiracy finding was later refuted.
Hogwash. Post these statements, in context, & explain how they are 'untruthful'.
You can't, & won't, because they don't exist.
-- You are out of control, - why?
OK, you asked. Each of your following statements is a falsehood. The proof of such has been provided.
What a bizarre, out of context list. -- With NO explantion of how they are 'untruthful'.
I'd bet that you contested nearly every one of those statements as I made them, without calling them lies, -- and were answered in turn.
Now, they are all suddenly 'falsehoods'. -- You started accusing me of these deliberate lies just several posts ago. -- I don't get it. -- Why am I supposed to be lying? -- Why would I risk my crediblity here? - Is it supposedly just to make you look 'bad'?
This behavior of yours is really getting weird, maybe paranoid. Lighten up.
OK, you asked. Each of your following statements is a falsehood. The proof of such has been provided.
What a bizarre, out of context list. -- With NO explantion of how they are 'untruthful'.
Hey, it's your list. You said those things.
The explanations are in the thread.
I'd bet that you contested nearly every one of those statements as I made them, without calling them lies, -- and were answered in turn.
No, you're not real good at answering when you've been shown wrong. You usually just move on to something else, or you start bizarre claims about 'ad hominem' or try to characterize it as semantics, or whatever other technique you can think of to get out of it.
What's bizarre is that you think these previous posts can't be looked at so you can imply I didn't prove you wrong or that you answered everything. They're still here. I can go back and do it over if you want, but I'm starting to suspect it's just a way to keep me busy :-)
Now, they are all suddenly 'falsehoods'. -- You started accusing me of these deliberate lies just several posts ago. -- I don't get it. -- Why am I supposed to be lying? -- Why would I risk my crediblity here? - Is it supposedly just to make you look 'bad'?
They aren't suddenly falsehoods. They've been falsehoods all along, and I've said so. That's what you didn't like.
This behavior of yours is really getting weird, maybe paranoid. Lighten up.
I'm just answering you. What is weird about that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.