Boycott the nutters!

[Cliff Varnell]

In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK.

These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case.

Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them.  They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over.

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK.

These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case.

Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them.  They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over.

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended.

 

Why would you be afraid to talk to us Cliff? There is no "influx" there is only myself, Francois, Lance and David. I am not sure about the status of anyone else. And we do add a great deal to the understanding of the case. Everyone should be interested in seeing the Harvey & Lee theory meet its demise for example. 

[Cliff Varnell]

Case in point.

I wouldn't engage respectfully with flat-earthers or holocaust deniers, either.

I first started arguing with these t-r-o-l-l-s back in 1997.

Time to move on.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Jake Hammond]

This is in response to my stepping in his feet and speaking about his baby, the single bullet / shirt / jacket damage. His evidence is superb as you may imagine, could you compile it all here for us Cliff ? 

 Also ... I’m not a lone nutter at all . Far from it, I just want the truth. In a way I think Lance is just as off target as you are. The difference is he writes politely in sentences and tries to utilise logic and reasoning. 

[Cliff Varnell]

Lonenutism is a zombie fraud feeding on fake debate.

Starve the zombies!

[W. Tracy Parnell]

14 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Also ... I’m not a lone nutter at all .

Yes, that is why I did not count you in the ranks even though you are disputing Cliff's theory-because I did not know your beliefs for sure. So, thanks for clarifying your position.

[Cliff Varnell]

E. Martin Schotz

The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty:

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_issue/schotz.html

<quote on, emphasis added>

THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise -- that there is uncertainly to be resolved -- seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions -- the media, the universities and the government-- once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.</q>

[Jake Hammond]

In fact I strongly disagree with your website I hate to say ! However, at least you have a website and have logical arguments . .. 

[François Carlier]

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

 Also ... I’m not a lone nutter at all .

Nobody is perfect ! 😁

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

I’m not a lone nutter at all .

Thant's what Lance Payette said when he first joined the forum. He said he was open-minded.

Truth is, he's here to mock us.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thant's what Lance Payette said when he first joined the forum. He said he was open-minded.

Truth is, he's here to mock us.

 

Proving irony is not dead!

 

[Guest]

Certainly in order to have a meaningful discussion, the participants must agree that there is some unresolved question.  For example:  "Precisely who assassinated JFK has not been resolved to an absolute certainty."  I believe this statement is a truism.  By its very nature, who assassinated JFK will never be resolved to an absolute certainty.

Two intractable zealots of any sort cannot have a meaningful discussion  - they can only scream at each other.  They can "debate" in the sense of hoping to convince an audience of people who have not yet become intractable zealots, but they are not having a genuine discussion with each other.  That's my definition of a pseudo-discussion: two intractable zealots screaming at each other, neither the least bit interested in what the other has to say.  This is true regardless of whether the debaters are an intractable Christian zealot and an intractable atheist zealot or an intractable Lone Nut zealot and an intractable conspiracy zealot.

Sometimes the line between "committed believer" and "intractable zealot" is a fine one.  Two committed believers can still have a genuine discussion.  A committed believer and an intractable zealot generally will not be able to unless the committed believer accepts that he is talking to a brick wall.

This forum, as I have said, is the church of conspiracy.  Not everyone is an intractable conspiracy zealot, but certainly many are.  Those who are intractable conspiracy zealots have no more use for someone who holds the Lone Nut perspective than a Christian fundamentalist zealot has for an atheist.  Someone such as myself, who provisionally holds the Lone Nut perspective, is no more welcome than a raving intractable Lone Nut zealot.  I realize and accept this; I don't kid myself that the conversation is going anywhere, which is why I often simply use those conversations to exercise my wit.

That's all I see going on.  Some committed conspiracy believers probably regard the Lone Nut participants as a nuisance and wish they'd just go away.  Others welcome the interaction because they think they might learn something and it at least challenges their own thinking, which is why I participate on atheist forums and read atheist literature.  But the conspiracy zealots have no patience or tolerance precisely because they are conspiracy zealots.  They want the happy little church they would have if only the Lone Nutters weren't here.  This is a fantasy, of course - the intractable zealots wedded to Conspiracy Theory A would still be screeching at the intractable zealots wedded to Conspiracy Theories B, F and Y.

Cliff's plea to "Boycott the nutters!" tells you nothing but that Cliff is an intractable zealot - something I feel sure you already knew.  Whether the intractable zealots boycott me is of utterly no consequence to me.  That's what the "Ignore" option is for.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Guest

[Cliff Varnell]

Any fans of The Sopranos here?

In one of the last episodes Dr. Melfi is at a dinner party and a friend cites a study of sociopaths under psychotherapy which found that the treatment actually makes the sociopath a more effective monster.

After that Dr. Melfi kicked mob boss Tony Soprano to the curb.

Engaging with single bullet frauds only makes them more effective t-r-o-l-l-s.

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK.

These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case.

Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them.  They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over.

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended.

 

Cliff,

     I'm a newbie here, but I'm inclined to agree with you on this one.

     I have nothing against freedom of expression and intellectually honest debates -- far from it--  but the "honesty" part is absent in the posts I have read by the cadre of Lone Nutter "trolls" around here.  What useful purpose does it serve to engage in a debate with people who are not intellectually honest?

    I have also wondered whether some of the active Lone Nutters here are participants in what Cass Sunstein has promoted as government-sponsored "cognitive infiltration" of social media sites to influence public perceptions.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cliff,

     I'm a newbie here, but I'm inclined to agree with you on this one.

     I have nothing against freedom of expression and intellectually honest debates -- far from it--  but the "honesty" part is absent in the posts I have read by the cadre of Lone Nutter "trolls" around here.  What useful purpose does it serve to engage in a debate with people who are not intellectually honest?

    I have also wondered whether some of the active Lone Nutters here are participants in what Cass Sunstein has promoted as government-sponsored "cognitive infiltration" of social media sites to influence public perceptions.

You're absolutely right -- what's the point of arguing with such rank ignorance and intellectual dishonesty?

While it's certainly possible they're "agents of disinformation" I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up as an ideological fixation akin to religious belief.

Facts mean nothing to these people.