Some of these discussions are taking rather....interesting turns :scared:
guilty!
I think the true discussion is slowly evaporating. what we have instead is constant interjections re how none of the long-demonstrated/long-known circumstances and facts are valid. it requires superhuman strength to ignore the bait and stay off the merry-go-round
I will be polite and say that the purpose of that is a mystery to me. I can think of numerous subjects where there is major disagreement among the public, and there is not a thing wrong with that. I can think of numerous conversations that I choose not to have with family/friends because it would serve no purpose. I can think of many websites where I choose not to post because of the prevailing sentiment. I read a little and then I leave. I prefer to concentrate my energy where I am not "swimming upstream." without exception, I can find a site with like-minded individuals where the discussions are productive
here is one example: having read 33 books about the assassination, I think LHO was "dangled" by the CIA/Naval Intelligence in Russia, however successfully/unsuccessfully. he was one of about a dozen young military men who defected/attempted to defect in Russia/behind Europe's Iron Curtain during the late 50s/early 60s and later returned to the US (many as double agents: the Commies thought they were"theirs" while in reality they were still "ours": therefore they were successfully dangled). LHO's stateside assignment was the Russian/Cuban community and I think he was played by his case officer(s), was in way over his head, and was a patsy. I think it's sad that his daughters have lived their lives knowing that their father is a much-hated man, when in reality he was a patriot who was used and sacrificed by rogue elements of his government
the point of that example is to ask why I would choose to post at a LHO-was-a-lone-gunman-nut website? would my view be welcomed? no. would I convince anyone that their opinion is wrong? no. would my posts be disruptive? yes
I think for me, the AMOUNT of fecal/urine matter &/or residue--whether from stained panties, or smeared across a chocolate box--indicates something wasn't right in that household. IMO, based on being the mother of 2 kids, and having participated in countless convos with other moms about toileting issues, there simply shouldn't have been so much going on in that department in a household with a 6 and 9 year old.
It seems evident to me, even though we might not have "hard evidence" that both kids had these issues to some degree. Add in the fact how badly JRB had regressed at the age of 6 and I feel it tells us something.
that to me is a reasonable/valid statement. it also a provides a perfect opportunity to question/denigrate your knowledge /experience. "what is your source for the alleged toileting issues? what is that source's agenda? did that source profit financially by espousing that view? you cannot equate your experience with that of a family entirely unknown to you. we weren't there, so none of us can really know"
then someone responds with "it's part of the larger picture - the totality of circumstantial evidence." then the definition/validity of circumstantial evidence is debated. and so on and so forth, yadda yadda yaddda, ad infinitem
that's why the true discussion has largely evaporated. time is spent justifying posts, looking up sources and providing links ... which would be much less disruptive if it was done in response to newcomers with questions rather than in response to naysayers who pick/pick/pick apart posts which do not opine IDI
I get why salmon swim upstream. that's where they create new life. I will be polite again and say that I have no idea why it's so important to swim upstream here
YMMV (your mileage may vary)
