Aestu wrote:
Ok, I get it.
So I'm wrong about Murdoch calling a hit because my thought processes are flawed because I'm wrong about Murdoch calling a hit.
I think there's a word for that kind of reasoning.
No, you're wrong because there's no evidence, aside from wishful thinking and paranoia
(which oddly, aren't really evidence, I'm just throwing those in there to further drive the point home), that Murdoch or anyone else had this guy killed, yet there is at least some evidence to suggest he died of natural causes.
Though I can understand how it's easier for you to ignore umpteen pages of people saying basically what is in the above few sentences since you a) seem to have a great degree of difficulty discerning the intended meaning of things that are plainly written in English, and b) accusing people of the circular logic of saying you're wrong just because you're wrong absolves you from engaging in the sort of introspection in which you claim to be consistently engaged, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
In short, this thread hasn't been about Rupert Murdoch for about three pages (maybe more), because it's really been about how you have some serious issues you refuse to address.
Your Pal,
Jubber