Challenge for Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

If that's the case, then I must fit in very well here indeed.

No one else here accuses people of being "paranoid" simply because they disagree with you. And those that you accuse are among the many who gladly accept new information without sarcasm, condescension, or accusations of mental illness.

Dear Tom,

Does "the many" include DiEugenio, Prudhomme, Barto, LeDoux, Healey, Parker, and yourself, for example?

Edit: Gladly accepting new information without reacting with sarcasm or condescension?

Or by "new information" do you really mean "new information that doesn't conflict with my / our currently-held beliefs or theories"?

--Tommy

Edited January 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy's "proof" consists of nothing but an uninformed misreading of a Federal Reserve circular and inferences that will not withstand scrutiny.

Nonsense, Lance. The FRB regulation regarding PMO bank stamps is easy-to-read English. You know very well it states that 1) postal money orders are considered to be cash items, and 2) cash items are to be endorsed. It's that simple.

In response, you claim that Federal Reserve Banks DIDN'T REALLY require bank stamps on PMOs, and so banks didn't stamp them. SHOW ME THE PROOF! You have none... because it is just your opinion.

... the simple fact is that I have demolished Sandy's "proof" to the satisfaction of anyone whose brain is hitting on all cylinders.

In your dreams.

[Tom Neal]

Does "the many" include DiEugenio, Prudhomme, Barto, LeDoux, Healey, and yourself, for example?

Or by "new information" do you mean "new information that doesn't conflict with your currently-held beliefs or theories"?

Per your SOP you are continuing to substitute evasions, accusations, etc for actual counter-arguments. This is just one more discussion you've lost and turned into a pointless argument that clutters up the thread. Since you aren't listening, rather than continue to talk to myself, I'll stop talking and let you talk to yourself while I don't listen.

Tom

[Thomas Graves]

Does "the many" include DiEugenio, Prudhomme, Barto, LeDoux, Healey, and yourself, for example?

Edit: Gladly accepting new information without reacting with sarcasm or condescension?

Or by "new information" do you mean "new information that doesn't conflict with your currently-held beliefs or theories"?

Per your SOP you are continuing to substitute evasions, accusations, etc for actual counter-arguments. This is just one more discussion you've lost and turned into a pointless argument that clutters up the thread. Since you aren't listening, rather than continue to talk to myself, I'll stop talking and let you talk to yourself while I don't listen.

Tom

Dear Tom,

Sounds a bit hypocritical.

--Tommy

Edited January 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Also, I agree with Tom (and now Tommy) that if somebody orders a carbine, that is probably what they wanted. Not a regular rifle. So Klein's wouldn't have even considered substituting a rifle.

EDIT: Added Tommy to whom I am agreeing with.

Sandy,

Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses...

Tom

Tom,

Yeah, you're right.

Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now.

(Or maybe I just read his post too fast.)

Sandy

[Thomas Graves]

Also, I agree with Tom (and now Tommy) that if somebody orders a carbine, that is probably what they wanted. Not a regular rifle. So Klein's wouldn't have even considered substituting a rifle.

EDIT: Added Tommy to whom I am agreeing with.

Sandy,

Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses...

Tom

Tom,

Yeah, you're right.

Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now.

(Or maybe I just read his post too fast.)

Sandy

Dear Sandy,

You're right. I removed my overly-sarcastic first sentence.

Here's the original as quoted by Tom Neal:

Dear Tom [Neal],

You're absolutely right. A mail order customer would likely have been unhappy to receive a presumably longer-range and more accurate 40.2" rifle instead of a 36" carbine, so Kleins would have been very silly to send him one if they were out of carbines, wouldn't they.

[ --Tommy ]

But you are to be commended for at least admitting the possibility that you had read it too fast.

You are very intelligent, honest, civil, and non-paranoiac, and you are, therefore, a very atypical member of the JFK Assassination Debate forum.

--Tommy

Edit: Or is this the post you were referring to, Sandy?

Relax, Jim.

I mean. Take some deep breaths.

Look at it this way. If Kleins was out of 36" carbines, it was better business practice, for their own profit and customer-satisfaction wise, for them to send Hidell, or whomever, a 40.2" rifle rather than nothing at all.

Which wouldn't have been the case if the customer had ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and they had sent him a 36 inch carbine, instead. Sending the customer a letter of explanation and an offer to send a carbine would have been the right thing for them to do in that case.

--Tommy

Edited October 31, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

I see Tommy has also been indulging in some non-typo typing editing just like his new bro.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Greg Parker

[Sandy Larsen]

You are a very intelligent, honest, non-paranoid, and, therefore, atypical member here.

I take exception to that comment Tommy.

[Thomas Graves]

I see Tommy has also been indulging in some non-typo typing just like his new bro.

Dear Greg,

Unlike you, I'm not a very good writer, and in addition to that, I'm often thinking of things to add to or take away from my posts.

I hope that's okay.

Does that seem ... uhhh .... suspicious to you?

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

You are a very intelligent, honest, non-paranoid, and, therefore, atypical member here.

I take exception to that comment Tommy.

In what way, Sandy?

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Also, I agree with Tom (and now Tommy) that if somebody orders a carbine, that is probably what they wanted. Not a regular rifle. So Klein's wouldn't have even considered substituting a rifle.

EDIT: Added Tommy to whom I am agreeing with.

Sandy,

Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses...

Tom

Tom,

Yeah, you're right.

Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now.

(Or maybe I just read his post too fast.)

Sandy

Dear Sandy,

You're right. I removed my overly-sarcastic first sentence.

Here's the original as quoted by Tom Neal:

Dear Tom [Neal],

You're absolutely right. A mail order customer would likely have been unhappy to receive a presumably longer-range and more accurate 40.2" rifle instead of a 36" carbine, so Kleins would have been very silly to send him one if they were out of carbines, wouldn't they.

[ --Tommy ]

But you are to be commended for at least admitting the possibility that you had read it too fast.

You are a very intelligent, honest, non-paranoid, and, therefore, atypical member here.

--Tommy

Edit: Or is this the post you were referring to, Sandy?

Relax, Jim.

I mean. Take some deep breaths.

Look at it this way. If Kleins was out of 36" carbines, it was better business practice, for their own profit and customer-satisfaction wise, for them to send Hidell, or whomever, a 40.2" rifle rather than nothing at all.

Which wouldn't have been the case if the customer had ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and they had sent him a 36 inch carbine, instead. Sending the customer a letter of explanation and an offer to send a carbine would have been the right thing for them to do in that case.

--Tommy

Edited and bumped. LOL

Edited January 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Tom Neal]

Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses...

Yeah, you're right.

Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now.

He changed it after I commented, but either way it is STILL overly sarcastic, and is unacceptable as a factual rebuttal.

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

You are a very intelligent, honest, non-paranoid, and, therefore, atypical member here.

I take exception to that comment Tommy.

In what way, Sandy?

--Tommy

I find my colleagues here to be intelligent, honest, and mentally healthy. Even you!

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses...

Yeah, you're right.

Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now.

He changed it after I commented, but either way it is STILL overly sarcastic, and is unacceptable as a factual rebuttal.

Tom

Dear Tom,

It was still overly sarcastic even after I changed it?

Which post are you talking about?

--Tommy

[Sandy Larsen]

Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses...

Yeah, you're right.

Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now.

He changed it after I commented, but either way it is STILL overly sarcastic, and is unacceptable as a factual rebuttal.

Tom

I agree. Clearly sarcasm has no place in a debate. I'm not sure it has a place in any dialog.