Never mind what you're curious about, bpete. What I'm curious about is how a guy who has been studying the JFK assassination for years and devotes much of his time to blogging about it could not have a conviction about whether Oswald was guilty or innocent.
And if the answer to that most basic, most fundamental, must primordial question about the JFK assassination escapes you, if it is beyond your knowledge, if it is beyond your grasp, then why do you pretend to know so much about other things, the particulars, the details, such as where Oswald was and wasn't during the shooting?
It seems to me that a guy who confesses ignorance about the big overriding question would show a little bit of restraint and a great deal of caution about the little questions as well.
"Now I admit the guy could be innocent or could be up to his eyeballs in what went on that day." bpete
Really? Then how about showing a little humility about the subsidiary issues as well instead of acting like freaking Solomon? Because whatever you think, perhaps it could be something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.