Reply #419: Links to to two old DU posts of yours & one of mine does not a refutation of what I wrote above make

[apocalypsehow]

Instead of attempting to change the subject, address the historical evidence put to you in the reply above.

"I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography,'"

I am going to deal with this phony issue in depth once and only once in my interactions with you on DU, Octafish, and from here on out whenever you attempt to change the subject from whatever facts I've presented that you cannot refute by bringing up this old diversionary chestnut, I'm simply going to post a link back to this reply.

A "bibliography" is nothing more than a list of books compiled and/or collected for a specific purpose, among other things that word can refer to. Here's a helpful definition for you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bibliography

It is, indeed, true that I have a large number of books in my personal library that address the life, times, personal and political career of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - everything from general biographies of his life to topic-specific volumes regarding actions of his administration on everything from the Cuban Missile Crises to its dealings with South America. I also have in my collection a sizable body of conspiracy theory works, everything from Jim Marrs "Conspiracy: the Plot that killed Kennedy" to a compilation of conspiracy-related articles compiled and edited by James Fetzer titled "Murder in Dealey Plaza."

But that is not this issue. This is:

1. When people post a reply to you containing any number of facts that refute a position you hold, Octafish, the proper way to reply to them is not to refer to some old post of theirs that is irrelevant to the post at hand, but to address those facts.

2. You, I, and every one else are well aware that my sarcastic reply to you in that singular post was, indeed, a rhetorical reference to the fact that I am not only much better read than you are on this subject, but, also, the content of what I have read is largely from legitimate, credible sources, as opposed to conspiracy-theory rubbish peddled by con-men (in many instances) and/or the genuinely misinformed (in many others). This means that not only the quantity of what I've read is much greater than yours, but the quality is infinitely more intellectually honest and imbued with scholarly rigor.

3. This repeated returning to "I'm still waiting for your bibliography" routine is simply a way to avoid dealing with facts as presented to you, and a pretense, in any event: were you genuinely interested in having me painstakingly put aside an afternoon and compile a list of books I have read, many of which are in my personal library, you would have long ago messaged me privately and said, "you know, apocalypsehow, I know you were being sarcastic in that post about the bibliography, but in all sincerity I would appreciate seeing a list of books you've read and/or recommend on the subject. I would genuinely appreciate it if you would do this for me, thanks!" But that's not what you're interested in: you are interested in scoring some kind of public "debate" points by pretending I have failed to deliver on some "promise" you think I have made and you are due. Of this, you are well aware, but you persist in returning to this tactic anyway because it is much, much, much easier than attempting to refute my solid facts and evidence.

4. Further, you and I both know that if I, indeed, did put aside 5-6 hours of my time, and compile in writing such a list and then forward it on to you via private message or publicly, the result would not be that Octafish would drop his keyboard, run right out to the local library or bookstore and start prowling the stacks looking for reading material: no, the result would be an immediate counter-reply dismissing the works as part of the "cover-up"; an accompanying questioning if not outright smearing of the reputations of the authors of those books in an attempt to discredit them; or a reply simply ignoring the entire thing in lieu of posting an eye-numbing number of links - most of them to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, or your own previous posts - supposedly "proving" that it doesn't matter how many actual scholarly works are written that do not square with your view of the events of Nov. 22, 1963, you have on your side of the "debate"....an eye-numbing number of links to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, and your own previous posts.

And my time would have truly and completely been wasted.

5. Taken together, everything I have laid out in points 1-4 lay the groundwork for my reply to you regarding this constant diversionary "request" you continue to make every time I definitively refute an assertion you have made in a post on this forum. That reply is as follows:

(a) As to the repeated public, i.e., in a post/reply on DU, business about "I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography'," you can stop waiting: I am not going to burn even ten seconds of my time working up such a list for you, period. Normally, this alone would be sufficient to see the matter dropped, and never brought up again as some kind of "debate" point in future interactions between us. But that's about the only card you got to play in our occasional discussions back and forth regarding this matter on DU, since all the actual, verifiable, credible facts are on my side, not yours. Thus, the card will always be played, because it is human nature to grasp at even weak cards if it is perceived that it keeps us at the table and in the game.

(b) But even that card is now going to either have to be played or flushed, because I'm calling your bluff. This is my offer: if you compose a polite, respectful private message to me, Octafish, and in that message you nicely ask me to go ahead and work up that Bibliography for you, even though we both know the original "offer" was an off-the-cuff instance of internet obiter dictum, I'll be delighted to block off an evening to do so, and get it right to you. You can then do with it what you want: follow its recommendations, ignore it, post an OP here ridiculing or praising it, whatever you want.

And then the (phony to begin with) issue will have been laid to rest, and you can get on with the business of refuting my facts, as opposed to dredging up old posts with no relevance to those said facts.

Which is why my PM box will remain empty, I reckon: you don't want to discuss the facts. You want to discuss everything but.

In any event, you have my (final) word on this diversionary matter you continue to bring to our attention. Any further references to it will simply find a link posted in reply for those interested to follow back to this post, and the explanation contained therein above.

Issue resolved.