[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Indeed, the very fact that you apparently have a good opinion of Martin is the most devastating evidence against him.

What a silly statement. Martin and I disagree over the JFK assassination, but we have spent much time discussing the case over many years. It is what one might call a "foil" .

You believe it to be silly - but believers never have a good opinion of solid critics... Look at Mark Lane, roundly hated by believers... Douglas Horne, ditto; Michael Griffith, ditto... even myself, though I'm not in the same league...

Patrick C Wrote:And have long remained friends. A disagreement over what happened in Dallas give no cause for judgement on a persons character or qualities. And my judgement of Martin is not just based on the JFK assassination!

Incidentally Prof Greg Gordon who you can google, is a leading expert on the laws around genocide and bringing to justice those who perpetrated such crimes, an adviser to your Govt and a friend of mine who rates Martin's insight into the JFK case and his challenges to the official view as important in any debate - and we have been debating for some 5 years plus now - I should add in a civilised manner.

Shame for YOU Holmes that you don't appreciate that. Speaks volumes.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, my definition of "civilized" is far different than your definition. It bothers me NOT AT ALL to point out when someone is lying... and strangely enough, you've not refuted a single charge I've ever made against you for specific lies.

Why is that, Patrick?

Why would anyone consider lying to be a part of "civilized" debate?