[Patrick C]

(09-20-2016, 04:40 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Henry Sienzant Wrote:I already exposed in previous posts how Mark Lane took advantage of his readership by denying them the full context of many issues he raised. Rather than repeat all those here (you can find them easily enough), I'll ask you to defend this one sentence here, "It is the right to have facts, not hopes or thoughts or wishes or prejudicial opinions, presented", by telling us one fact you believe Mark Lane presented honestly in his book, RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Just tell us one claim pointing to conspiracy that Lane presented honestly, and be willing to defend it. (Original post found here.)

That's strange!?

I've twice posted nearly the entire book, 'Rush To Judgment' - in small paragraph chunks, over 400 posts in total - and the responses I received dealt with 2 or 3 of them.

Indicating that believers are unable to even phrase an argument about the vast majority of 'Rush to Judgment'... yet the frequent claims, as above; are that believers can easily answer Mark Lane, and can easily point to "dishonesty" in his book.

Why are believers afraid to actually do what they claim they can do?
 

WHY AREN'T THEY POSTING THIS ALLEGED "DISHONESTY" FOR ALL TO SEE?

Dead silence...

You catch me in a non confrontational frame of mind........Perhaps you need to consider adjusting your style and attitude to a more adult level and you might get a bit more response Ben. I am sure you are capable of that.

I think perhaps when it comes to JFK 22 Nov 63 you are unable to deal with differences of opinions as I would l hope (for your sake) that you are able to do in other matters.

The subject does suck you in however and I can appreciate you probably feel as strongly that there was conspiracy as I do that there was not. Shame you don't deal with it more level headedly.

You live in sunny southern California ......why not go surfing.....