[Nick Principe]

PATRICK: "Firstly it is obvious that if anyone wished to gain an appreciation of the assassination theories for conspiracy or lone gunman that they should read books that reflected both sides of the discussion. I would have thought that this would be blindingly obvious!”
 
What’s even more blindly obvious is your steadfast fanaticism that NO ONE except Oswald killed JFK means having an “appreciation” for an alternative theory makes no sense at all. You see, I know the Nazis lost WWII, so I have no “appreciation” for an alternative theory that Hitler continued to reign up into the 1950s.
 

PATRICK: "as someone who has read most of them, it might be worth taking a recommendation of some of the more respected works and authors." 

Why? You know who did it. Any author who says Oswald had help is not to be respected, since they are obviously so wrong. What makes any author who argues conspiracy any less of a fruitcake/nutjob/tripe-spewer/fill-in-the-blank? 
 

PATRICK: "Thirdly, my conclusion that Oswald acted alone, is essentially my formulated opinion based on my own research and assimilation, it is not a definitive account of the assassination and nor should be taken as such."
 
Yes, that’s what *we* have been saying for years. You know, those of us who take tea with Nessie in the flower garden? But to LNers, the WCR *is* the definitive account. In fact, according to Specter, it couldn’t have happened any other way (at least the SBT). Are you now admitting you are less of a fanatic believer than you previously let on? It’s not shameful to say so. You can join us for tea in the flower garden.
 

PATRICK: "And, no, just because I believe that the ultimate conclusion is probably wrong, does not make the work poor."

Oh, I agree there is a lot of great work out there....but then again, I’m not a LNer, so I have the freedom to be critical of what happened that day. You do not. You are forced to believe what you are told; that’s your handicap, not mine. Alternatively, Posner’s book is a piece of crap and always will be, Pulitzer finalist or not.
 

PATRICK: "It is very obvious to me, based on your statement and question that your background is not one of academia....if it is, your statement belies your background."
 
Not as obvious as the clear fact this statement is just an ad-hominem attack in disguise. Or not so disguised.