Forums

First of all, stop embedding all the quotes. Reading your posts is already hard enough. Make one quote at the beginning and thats it. You have a tendency , I am learning, to overdue EVERYTHING.

Also, please remember that Larry Hancock gave you a seal of approval. You have an obligation to be somewhat sensible, otherwise, you are going to reflect poorly on Larry Hancock. Already I am thinking , is the kind of stuff that Larry Hancock wants to promote?

You could not be more wrong about my being a HSCA critic. I am probably the biggest HSCA critic that you will ever find.

I am not going to respond to any of your questions, until I begin to see sensibility and not "bullying".

I have things and subjects that I want to bring up and maybe, if you stop being such a bully, I will get the chance to bring them up. You have your subjects you want to talk about. I have subjects I want to talk about. That is the way the world works.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could debate the pant off of you if I so desired, but I do not want to do that. The subjects you are interested in are not the subjects I am interested in. But you kind of made that clear yesterday when you refused to make a sub forum for Photographic Analysis.

Stop being a bully, and stop posting so much. I have not given up on you yet, but I am very close.

miker Wrote:First of all, stop embedding all the quotes. Reading your posts is already hard enough. Make one quote at the beginning and thats it. You have a tendency , I am learning, to overdue EVERYTHING.

I have a 'tendency' for accuracy. I predicted that you'd end up being a traditional WCR Supporter... thus far, it looks like I'm correct.

Someone who objects to someone quoting what they said just before responding to it... that fairly reeks of embarrassment. If you don't want your statements quoted, then you have that power... simply don't make the statements.

Ben Holmes Wrote:...you are not a critic of the HSCA in any traditionally accepted sense. My prediction is that you're really simply a supporter of the WCR, and wish to only "criticize" the "probable conspiracy" portion of the HSCA.

You want to fly under false colors...

You don't want your basic assumptions of the correctness of the Warren Commission to be known.

Time will tell if my prediction is correct.

Miker Wrote:Also, please remember that Larry Hancock gave you a seal of approval. You have an obligation to be somewhat sensible, otherwise, you are going to reflect poorly on Larry Hancock. Already I am thinking , is the kind of stuff that Larry Hancock wants to promote?

You mean that you seriously think that Larry Hancock would *NOT* label this statement as a lie?

HSCA Wrote:In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts.

I would be dumbfounded if Mr. Hancock reviewed this statement, reviewed the evidence, and didn't come to the same conclusion I did - and that you refuse to weigh in on.

Miker Wrote:You could not be more wrong about my being a HSCA critic. I am probably the biggest HSCA critic that you will ever find.

Yet when one of the biggest lies ever told by the HSCA is quoted, you remain silent.

Miker Wrote:I am not going to respond to any of your questions, until I begin to see sensibility and not "bullying".

I have things and subjects that I want to bring up and maybe, if you stop being such a bully, I will get the chance to bring them up. You have your subjects you want to talk about. I have subjects I want to talk about. That is the way the world works.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could debate the pant off of you if I so desired, but I do not want to do that. The subjects you are interested in are not the subjects I am interested in. But you kind of made that clear yesterday when you refused to make a sub forum for Photographic Analysis.

Stop being a bully, and stop posting so much. I have not given up on you yet, but I am very close.

I ignored Patrick's threats to leave the forum too.

Naturally, if there aren't any believers who can defend the Warren Commission Report in an arena that allows no ad hominem attacks, yet provides for photos, graphics, videos, etc... that simply shows the weakness of the WCR.

My personal objective is achieved whether you have the courage to stick around or not.

(My personal objective is, of course, the truth about what happened on 11/22/63)

So stick around and make your case - or go find a forum that doesn't have any knowledgeable critics capable of pointing out your errors. Who cares?

[Administrator's Note: Corrected for correct name on quotes.]

If you are too dense to see when someone is giving you constructive criticism then there is nothing I can do.

You do not have a tendency for accuracy. You have a tendency to self delusion.

If you had a tendency for accuracy you would post less, and when you do post you would make relatively short posts and you would not feel the need to quote all the time. You keep dragging in all this extraneous "stuff". It is boring.

And, you do not know the most important aspects of this case and I can tell that you will never know because you are too full of your own self-delusion.

My best advice to you is to post less and listen more.

It is quite clear you created this forum , not for the truth of what happened on 11/22/63, but , rather as your own personal playground. It is not going to work. No one with any self respect would put up with your "stuff".

So, you delete entire posts without saying a word.

Its going to be one of those kind of forums.

How many other posts from others have you deleted?

Once you start deleting entire posts you have crossed the line.

It is always good to find these things out early, before a lot of energy and effort (and posts) have been put into a forum.

Good luck. You are going to need it.

BTW: I have made a picture of this post.

If you cannot debate fairly and you have to delete the posts which show you lost the debate, then what is the point?

Ben Holmes Wrote:

miker Wrote:First of all, stop embedding all the quotes. Reading your posts is already hard enough. Make one quote at the beginning and thats it. You have a tendency , I am learning, to overdue EVERYTHING.

I have a 'tendency' for accuracy. I predicted that you'd end up being a traditional WCR Supporter... thus far, it looks like I'm correct.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Also, please remember that Larry Hancock gave you a seal of approval. You have an obligation to be somewhat sensible, otherwise, you are going to reflect poorly on Larry Hancock. Already I am thinking , is the kind of stuff that Larry Hancock wants to promote?

You mean that you seriously think that Larry Hancock would *NOT* label this statement as a lie?

[Ad Hominem deleted] He is attributing Mike's words to me.

miker Wrote:So, you delete entire posts without saying a word."

Nope.

I pm'd the post to you, and explained why it was deleted.

Any post which is merely an ad hominem attack on a poster will be deleted. On this forum, you'll be required to debate the evidence.

miker Wrote:Its going to be one of those kind of forums.

I announced this right from the beginning. If you cannot post in the 'Education Forum' - then you won't be able to post here either... although I'm less strict on the rules.

miker Wrote:How many other posts from others have you deleted?

Only four or five at this point... and each has been PM'd to the offending poster.

miker Wrote:Once you start deleting entire posts you have crossed the line.

It is always good to find these things out early, before a lot of energy and effort (and posts) have been put into a forum.

Good luck. You are going to need it.

BTW: I have made a picture of this post.

If you cannot debate fairly and you have to delete the posts which show you lost the debate, then what is the point?

That's a question you should ask yourself.

I allowed this post - because people need to learn that the rules I posted are accurate. And to point out that if you don't check your PM area, you'll believe that I'm arbitrarily deleting posts. But that's simply not true.

But posts like this that don't address the evidence will be moved to the "Off Topic" area, or deleted in the future.

Please try Google before asking about Excellent Product Blog 936d0b8

Please try Google before asking about High Rated Product Tips ddd2a71

Please try Google before asking about Top Rated Product Info a716db0

To the guy asking about live casino free bonus no deposit, casino bonus cash, every online casino, online casino offers no wagering, top deposit bonus casino, top online casinos in the us, casino spins uk, free live casino bonus, I highly recommend this click here for casino url or casino online free bonus, free sign up bonus no deposit required, casino joining bonus, deposit bonus, casino deposit free spins, new online casino us, best online casinos us, online casino real money sign up bonus, as well as this how you can help about casino bonuses link on top of best online gambling sites for real money, free casino bonus without deposit, web casino, bonus casino sign up, live casino free bet, mobile casino no deposit bonus uk, top 10 live casino sites, online casino bonus register, and don't forget this i thought about this on casino blog which is also great. Also, have a look at this more help about casino bonuses uk site alongside all real money casino uk, real cash no deposit casinos, no deposit bonus games, real money casino sites, low minimum deposit online casino, best online legit casino, no deposit sign up bonus, best betting sites casino, alongside all this my latest blog post about casino bonuses uk info with reputable online casino, free spins sign up bonus no deposit, free spins no first deposit, best betting casino sites, best new online casino uk, now account casino, join online casino, online casino no deposit bonus keep what you win, for good measure. Check more @ Great Smart Contracts Info d2a716d