Originally posted by kingdanwaCrack kills dude....put down the pipe.
In our continued attempt to discover truth, and having resolved the issue morality affecting the search for truth, let us consider a secular example before moving on to a more "spiritual" event.
How did JFK die?
My position is that he was killed in 1975 in Chicago by a crazed Native American who shot him with a bow and arrow.
Let's figure out how we can determine the nature of JFK's death (if in fact he actually died).
Originally posted by kingdanwaSigh....Fine here is my theory on the nature of JFK's death:
We have one vote for "crack" as the cause of death. Any other takers?
Originally posted by Joe FistSounds interesting. Do you have any evidence?
Sigh....Fine here is my theory on the nature of JFK's death:
In 1962, while having some friends over for dinner, an associate of President Kennedy started on some obscure, pseudo spiritually enlightening metaphor about the nature of Lincoln's death. Contrary to the popular belief that Lincoln was assassinated, this associate attempted to prove that Li ...[text shortened]... with Walt Disney. The event in Dallas were staged so as the world would stop asking questions.
Originally posted by Joe FistModern scholarship.
Sigh again....no. I think this entire thread and your methodology is extremely condescending. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Originally posted by kingdanwaReread my question: Do you have any evidence to the contrary that this thread and your methodology you are using is not condescending?
Just a few months ago, the Kennedy Seminar casted different colored stones in an attempt to discover the truth. Some colors represented what certainly happened, but other stones represent what obviously didn't happen.
In a recent book, The Search For the Historical Kennedy, we find out that most of what we thought we knew about Kennedy is nothing but propaganda put forth by a cult of Kenne-deists.
Originally posted by Joe FistWhat is condescending? I, in my ignorance, want a method to evaluate the nature of an historical man's death. This is a legitimate question. I thought that a bogus proposition would bring about the clear and concise method that would solve my question. If it is so condescending because my original idea was so clearly wrong, please give us the obvious reason it is wrong, and your method for demonstrating it.
Reread my question: Do you have any evidence to the contrary that this thread and your methodology you are using is not condescending?
This seems to be a great deal of "all wind up and no pitch" to get to whatever obscure point you are attempting to make.
Originally posted by kingdanwaDo you not understand or just don't care that the nature of being "ridiculous" totally obliterates any theory you are attempting to present?
I'll quit being ridiculous if someone would offer a way in which we can figure out what happened to Kennedy.