From: royc@tcsrtp.uucp (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:18:26 GMT
Organization: Triangle Computer Society

In article <1992Sep2.211910.12698@tamsun.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> ...
>>	Oh, god, TailHook, and now you suggest that the average Marine
>>	commonly gets VD "in the line of duty" ...
>
>	For the record, I never said that Oswald got VD directly in

	Of course not!  Then you would have made a direct statement
	about what occured, instead of sliding off into digressiopn
	about possible alternative substantive interpretations ...
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
			(heavy sarcasm)

>	the line of duty. That's Bruce and Dave's work. I said that

	Wups!  Try again!

>	the LoD tag could have easily been added as a small favor to

	You are unfortunately ENTIRELY correct; please note that this
	substantiates the line of reasoning that

		CORRUPTION

	is more a matter of established precedent ni the US military
	as well as CIA ...

		unless of course you wish to presume to state that
		Cheney's remark in re TailHook

			and official DoD policy

	are so much fancy words intended to BS (beg slime) the public?

	Or do you wear your wings where the Navy flyboys did:
		centrally located, with wingtips at the hands.


	For the audience:  please note this guys continual digression
	into argumentative irrelevance.  It is a standard disinformation
	practice.  Fall into it, and half the battle is his.

		If the a.c.jfk groupo wants to _progress_
		toward resolving the open issues present
		surounding the assassination, the best thing to do
		is simply ignore this type of BO

		WHich I will do (totally, Mr. Todd)  after this
		posting ...

			unless you come up with something relevant
		
				for a change

> 	Oswald, or for some procedural reason (the latter seems likelier
>	and likelier as I look into the matter more).
>
>	The point in question is whether the "line of duty" tag is
>	as anomalous as Bruce, Dave, and their host claim. I've
>	not posted the most probable reason for the LoD tag, because
>	Bruce is going to say that I'm lying again, rather than
>	any substantiative refutation, and I'm getting tired of that.

	Garbage.  You haven't got the balls to continually lay it on
	the line.  "I'm hurt and I won't play with any more ..."

	You know every time you post unpopular reasoning

		or incorrect or specious or prevaricative etc.

	here in this group you ARE going to get hit, so its pure

		obfuscative blustering hypocritical BS

	to assert you are tired of it.  If you were you'ld SHUT UP

		asnd leave the group

	or would have emailed back to me instead of posting.

	But your purpose here is NOT to clarify, is it?  Hmm?

>	However, I note that someone else has posted it for me.
>
>
>>	A real balanced argument there ...
>
>	What is a balanced argument? As I'e noted, Bruce and Dave are

	YOu actually do know ... and will not admit it ...
	because that would mean objective "full coverage"
	criteria would then be applied against the ratiocinale structure

		which any properly trained high school student can follow

		which you do not use nor advocate ...

>	the two people who claim that Oswald's medical record is 
>	exceptional, and can only be taken as evidence that Oswald
>	was a spy. They have noted the "VD in the line of duty" note

	Misquoting again, Todd?

>	in the medical record; however, they have been entirely
> ..
>
>	I haven't flown in a long time. Suffice to say that I did it
>	well.

	Ah.  Substantiate that ....  as you so ably say to other
	folks.

		... and I am sorry (truly) that you haven't flown in a
		long time.  As I have not flown at all (ly loss),
		but with a father who has, I wish you well in that
		arena.

		But when you lie through digressional disinformation tactics,
		
			we notice ....

>	
>	The .sig is not meant to be symmetrical. Partly, this is so I 
>	can maximize the amount of space where the fancy saying
>	goes, but mostly it's a compositional consideration. 
>	A totally symmetrical pair of wings would look static
>	and boring, not a bit unlike you.

	Oh thank you!  When discussing "logical" reasoning, a creatuve
	speaker is the last thing desired.

	Chuckle.  Bothersome to have people poke _Accurate_ fingers
	at tin plated Gods like the WC? ...

	Audience:  note the argument ad hominem again.  I point to
	deliberate gaps in his reasoning process and he starts the name
	calling.

	I hope our military officer corp (you are one?) has a better
	approach than yours ...

		or TailHook will stay the norm ...

>
>
>                                |  
>		              \ | /	 
>                               \|/
>_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
>\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
>  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
>    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
>      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
>         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
>                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
>                       	


....  wastes bandwidth ....

royc
uunet!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Mark Prado)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP