Haha
If you and indeed Gringo could just take your focus off me and see your "double standards" (though I actually prefer contradictions or conflicting thought ie: cognitive bias) you may both start to realise what you are quite blatantly doing.
It probably wasn't fair of me to reply to your last post by laughing but I find you so predictable.
The fact that you are quite clearly in denial and fail to recognise the error of your ways (one minute say one thing then the next say the opposite) is sad really. And sadder still that you may always think this way because "it's the way you are wired" as opposed to possessing the ability for self reflection.
I did give Lookout the opportunity to PM me prior to a stance change. Posters were changing stance to guilty at a rapid rate at that time.
Lookout said 'hell would freeze over' before she changed stance. Which shows she is very rigid.
Stance changes are not uncommon, either way. David changing stance to innocent after realising the police & relatives had the opportunity to create a sick, risky & complex fabrication of one piece of evidence. Although there is no evidence they did.
Nugs has recently said he previously changed stance to guilty. Although did not say why. As a conspiracy theorist it will be to do with external factors surrounding Bamber & he has never suggested how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
