Is everyone missing the point?

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • The message board will be closed from Thursday, September 12th at 4pm EST until Tuesday, September 24th at 8:30 AM ET
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

  • New 2019 Hours: The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Thursday and 8:30am ET Tuesday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Do you believe Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy?

  • yes

  • no


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sigmund

Waiting in Uber.
Jan 3, 2010
13,979
44,045
In your mirror.
Seriously though, this scuffle was as much about how people were talking to you as it was you responding to them... so, no need to feel completely responsible for providing the Snickers.... we could all pitch in with those.

Hey, Flakers!

No Snickers for me, thanks. I will take a dozen Mars bars. And Butterfingers. And Rollos..

(I totally pigged out on a strawberry pop tart with chocolate almond ice cream and peanuts earlier. It was Patricia's fault. Ha!)
 

Aloysius Nell

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2014
309
1,009
47
That was my only problem with the book. I loved it, but I don't care for Kings opinion on the deal and it was hard for me to read all the Oswald related stuff in the book. I fought through it and am glad I did but it was hard. I just tried to look at it as pure fiction, which I personally believe the idea that Oswald shot JFK is pure fiction as well. But that's just me. I'm not here to debate and get into that. I love the story and the idea but personally I wish he had steered clear from touching the JFK assassination. I wish that could have been a purely fictional story relating to no real past events but I suppose he wanted it to really resonate with people. Didn't resonate with me any but I enjoyed it and loved the ending. I won't fight through it again though.
If you truly believe he did not act alone, you would enjoy Stephen Hunter's "The Third Bullet." It would help to read "Point of Impact" first but the rest of the series is not necessary.
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,717
4,331
There is absolutely no doubt Oswald assassinated JFK. There is no credible evidence that he was involved with anyone else. The irony is that for the last 50 plus years in their search for the truth the conspiracy theorists have engaged in all manner of deceit, half truths and outright lunacy to create any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's guilt. The case is very simple and was solved within two hours by the Dallas police. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository from which witnesses indicated the shots were fired. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found under the window. Oswald had no alibi at the time the shots were fired and fled the building within minutes without even pausing to ask what was going on. He went home and got a pistol then shot a police officer before sneaking into a movie theater. When the police showed up Oswald resisted arrest, shouted "it's all over now" and tried to shoot the arresting officer. He denied owning a rifle despite order and shipping forms and pictures of him holding the rifle. He denied carrying a long package to work that morning even though the fellow who drove him indicated he had done so. Oswald's prints were found on the rifle, boxes in the sniper's nest and a long bag adjacent to the sniper's nest. It is a drum beat of guilt. We have more evidence that links Oswald to this crime than we have to link John Wilkes Booth to the Lincoln assassination. It is the stuff of Bigfoot hunters to allege he was not the assassin.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
I'm always a day late or a dollar short so it doesn't surprise me that only now have I become aware of the film. I know it's fiction. I know Steven King is a terrific writer with an exceptional sense of make believe, but I look on this book as something else, a perpetuation of deliberate falsehoods pertaining to the assassination of John Kennedy. At the end of the book King felt the need to confirm his belief that Lee Oswald was guilty as sin. Seeing as how his book was written prior to Judyth Baker's "Lee and Me" I'd assumed (hoped) Mr. King had read her book by now and come to a different conclusion. It seems I assumed wrongly. Films are a powerful medium in explaining historical events, oft times incorrectly yet the moviegoers immediately take the film at face value with no critical thinking whatsoever. I'm certain this will be the case with this film, sad to say. The fact is Lee Oswald never shot our President. He was a patsy just as he declared prior to his murder. Truth. Honest truth.
We don't know the facts. I don't think, now, that we will ever know the facts. I don't think anyone has "missed the point" in regards to this book. I think you are, quite literally, reading too much into it. The reason the assassination is a perfect setup for the story is because we don't know the facts and we can't ever know the facts unless we were to get into a time machine. It creates the entire context of the protagonist's conflict. He is a moral man who doesn't want to assume Oswald is guilty without proof. If the facts were never in question, even a moral man might simply act without having go through so much work. For example, we do know who went on the Tower in Austin and started shooting people. Someone able to go back and time and delete someone is free of moral distress if he/she wanted to go save some lives. Do you follow me? While it is clear you have strong opinion about what happened historically, that has no bearing on this book which, as you know, is a work of fiction. Mr. King has never been particularly shy about stating his opinions outside of his books. What makes you think he felt the need to do anything in creating it or writing the outcome?

Mr. King isn't a plot driven writer. He has stated this many times. If he started the book with a premise or intent of proving Oswald killed Kennedy, it would be contrary to his whole approach. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he started the book undecided (and in the dark) as to what his immigrant from the future would find out. No one missed the point because Oswald was never the point of the book. You have missed the forest for the trees. The Kennedy assassination, as well as the ability to do something about it, was just the "situation" while the story is the journey of a moral man granted the power to alter history. What kind of emotional conflict will this cause? What kinds of changes will it work on him? What are the implications for all of us were we given such opportunities? You must remember that had Al not put the bug in his head about Kennedy (remember Oswald was Al's cause), it is quite probable that the protagonist would never have followed that path. Even if Jake had found the stairs all on his own, it is far more likely that he would have grappled with different questions. The "watershed moment" was a cause impressed upon him. In way, I see your notion of King trying to make a statement about the assassination as an alien cause you are trying to apply to the book. It is the bug you want to put in our ear.

The larger implications, the more cosmic ones you might say, deal with right or wrong on a scale that we as humans (even noble ones) can't perceive. Let's say you went back in time and killed Hitler. There is no doubt he was a monster. We know the toll he inflicted in grim numbers. What we don't know is the domino effect. What the book explores is: "what if you do the right thing and make things worse?" What if there is a time and place for monsters? I know that sounds horrible, but that is the question we must weigh when reading the book. Good people must always stand. It is their nature and responsibility. That is, perhaps, why we don't get to go back in time. It creates a horrific frying pan and the fire situation. A good person cannot stand by and let bad things happen, and yet; what if acting causes something far darker? What are they to do? Science fiction, true science fiction that is, explores the moral and ethical changes that a new type of technology unleashes upon the individual and the world. Just because the stairs seem magical or mystical, doesn't alter the fact the story is classic science fiction. Just as the mysterious dome wasn't what the story was truly about in Under the Dome, Oswald's innocence or guilt is likewise not the story. Those things are just a situation, a puzzle, a context for the actual story which is about the people whose lives are altered in response.
 
Last edited:

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,717
4,331
We don't know the facts. I don't think, now, that we will ever know the facts. I don't think anyone has "missed the point" in regards to this book. I think you are, quite literally, reading too much into it. The reason the assassination is a perfect setup for the story is because we don't know the facts and we can't ever know the facts unless we were to get into a time machine. It creates the entire context of the protagonist's conflict. He is a moral man who doesn't want to assume Oswald is guilty without proof. If the facts were never in question, even a moral man might simply act without having go through so much work. For example, we do know who went on the Tower in Austin and started shooting people. Someone able to go back and time and delete someone is free of moral distress if he/she wanted to go save some lives. Do you follow me? While it is clear you have strong opinion about what happened historically, that has no bearing on this book which, as you know, is a work of fiction. Mr. King has never been particularly shy about stating his opinions outside of his books. What makes you think he felt the need to do anything in creating it or writing the outcome?
What facts don't we know about the JFK assassination? It is the most investigated crime in history. Although King's book is a work of fiction, the entire plot is predicated on Oswald being the assassin.
For example, Jake heads directly for the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald fired the shots when trying to thwart the assassination. He does not even consider searching Dealey Plaza for other possible assassins.
King himself provided a nice summary of the overwhelming evidence against Oswald and why he believes him to be the assassin during his appearance in Dallas. I agree that no one has to accept the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin to enjoy this work of fiction, but that doesn't mean there is any real doubt about Oswald's guilt.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
What facts don't we know about the JFK assassination? It is the most investigated crime in history.
Yes? And what is your point? Jack the Ripper's crimes fall into that grouping too. There are lots of people adamant that they know the facts. That doesn't stop the books of fiction about the event.


Although King's book is a work of fiction, the entire plot is predicated on Oswald being the assassin.
For example, Jake heads directly for the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald fired the shots when trying to thwart the assassination. He does not even consider searching Dealey Plaza for other possible assassins.
King himself provided a nice summary of the overwhelming evidence against Oswald and why he believes him to be the assassin during his appearance in Dallas. I agree that no one has to accept the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin to enjoy this work of fiction, but that doesn't mean there is any real doubt about Oswald's guilt.
Actually, it isn't. The entire story is predicated on an ethical man's conflict because he doesn't know if Oswald is the assassin. What part of that do you not get? The vast majority of the book is about Jake not knowing and thus being unable to act. The reveal at the end, where Oswald turns out to be the shooter, is unimportant. The story isn't about that. Oswald is a convenient mystery for the story. Mr. King didn't have to provide a summary of evidence because Mr. King wasn't trying to prove anything. He doesn't have to prove anything in a work of fiction because he can simply write it. In that level of the Tower Oswald shot Kennedy. There is no reason to prove anything if you can show someone doing it. Your desire to forward your pet project in history really has no bearing because we are talking about fiction where someone uses magical stairs to go back in time. In this magical, alternate reality Oswald shot Kennedy.

Let me ask you something, do you think Mr. King is making a summary argument that time travel is possible? There is certainly a whole lot more about time travel in the book than there is Oswald. There are numerous other historical events shown up close (although not watershed moments as Al would call them). What statements about history do you think Mr. King is trying to make with those? I'm not trying to be snide. I'm being tongue in cheek only a hint. I'm rather sick to death of people trying to turn everything in pop culture from books to songs into some kind of commentary so they can play "talking heads." It is a book. It is a book of fantasy which falls squarely in the domain of science fiction. Nobody is missing the point, except perhaps for a single person.
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,717
4,331
Yes? And what is your point? Jack the Ripper's crimes fall into that grouping too. There are lots of people adamant that they know the facts. That doesn't stop the books of fiction about the event.




Actually, it isn't. The entire story is predicated on an ethical man's conflict because he doesn't know if Oswald is the assassin. What part of that do you not get? The vast majority of the book is about Jake not knowing and thus being unable to act. The reveal at the end, where Oswald turns out to be the shooter, is unimportant. The story isn't about that. Oswald is a convenient mystery for the story. Mr. King didn't have to provide a summary of evidence because Mr. King wasn't trying to prove anything. He doesn't have to prove anything in a work of fiction because he can simply write it. In that level of the Tower Oswald shot Kennedy. There is no reason to prove anything if you can show someone doing it. Your desire to forward your pet project in history really has no bearing because we are talking about fiction where someone uses magical stairs to go back in time. In this magical, alternate reality Oswald shot Kennedy.

Let me ask you something, do you think Mr. King is making a summary argument that time travel is possible? There is certainly a whole lot more about time travel in the book than there is Oswald. There are numerous other historical events shown up close (although not watershed moments as Al would call them). What statements about history do you think Mr. King is trying to make with those? I'm not trying to be snide. I'm being tongue in cheek only a hint. I'm rather sick to death of people trying to turn everything in pop culture from books to songs into some kind of commentary so they can play "talking heads." It is a book. It is a book of fantasy which falls squarely in the domain of science fiction. Nobody is missing the point, except perhaps for a single person.
King has not made an argument or suggested that time travel is possible. That is purely an element of his fiction. He has, however, set forth the basis of his belief from the evidence - both in the book and in appearances discussing the book - that Oswald committed this crime. Although the book is purely a work of fiction it is premised on this historical fact. And simply because it is a work of fiction does not mean somehow that the book can be read only to suggest that Oswald shot JFK only in some "magical, alternative reality." The work of fiction is predicated on an historical truth. Take it up with King if you don't like that. I do agree that King's book is not meant to be a primer on the JFK assassination. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that King believes Oswald to be shooter and his book albeit a work of fiction is premised upon his conclusion drawn from the actual facts and evidence in the case. Simply because it is a work of science fiction does not mean that Oswald's guilt must similarly be read to be a product of such fiction as well. That is very silly. If King had written a book about going back in time to thwart the Pearl Harbor bombing, I doubt you would be on here arguing that the book's premise that the Japanese were behind this event is only relevant in some "alternative reality." It is an historical fact. Just like Oswald's guilt in this case.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
King has not made an argument or suggested that time travel is possible. That is purely an element of his fiction.
Hasn't he now? :D We could certainly debate this one. It is an element of his fiction, but if any philosophical point or idea is more prevalent in his books than the one based on the fact that time, space, and reality is far larger than we understand, I don't know what it would be. I close second might be that there is a force behind the multiverse and that force is good. Other common themes in Mr. King's books is to discuss good and evil, the costs to us all when good people do not stand, and the nature of inside versus outside evil. Elements of pure fantasy are usually used to set a context, a microcosm if you will, for us to observe these philosophical ideas in action. The point I was making is that Mr. King didn't write that book to make a political statement or to prove/disprove Oswald's innocence. He was writing a book to talk about larger issues. Time travel, cosmic justice, ethics, and the toll that obligation and power take on even the best of people are all things which this book makes statements about. Statements is about as far as I'm willing to go, because I think Mr. King, like most great writers, leaves the arguments to the rest of us.

He has, however, set forth the basis of his belief from the evidence - both in the book and in appearances discussing the book - that Oswald committed this crime. Although the book is purely a work of fiction it is premised on this historical fact.
What Mr. King thinks of the real event in his public appearances is one thing. If you want to argue with (or agree with) him on things he says there... be my guest. That is grist for the mill as they say. It is a mistake, however, to think or suggest he wrote a book to prove to any of us what happened or highlight what he thinks happened. Anyone who has read his comments on writing know better. He doesn't start with an agenda. It would be dishonest, something he happens to think poorly of in regards to writing (and probably in all aspects of life too). The problem, from my perspective, is the immediate emergence of the "talking heads" who want to try and read or discern the motives of every bit of art or pop culture out there, to spin it for their pet projects. I don't care if you think Oswald was a patsy or guilty; if you want to tilt at windmills at least do it with some guts. Leave the fiction to those of us who want to enjoy it and try to make your points on your own merits. Don't try to use Mr. King as a trampoline to get altitude for your own ideas. I'm all for discussing the book and what it talks about in context of the book. If you want to debate who shot JFK for real, there are plenty of other places you can argue about conspiracies or conspiracy theorists.

And simply because it is a work of fiction does not mean somehow that the book can be read only to suggest that Oswald shot JFK only in some "magical, alternative reality."
Actually, yes. That is exactly what I am saying. This is a book about magic stairs into the past, stairs which not only time travel but do so to a fixed point in time. It is a book about cosmic rules where mucking around with things creates more and more realities. It is a story about people living ordinary lives and fighting mundane and ordinary monsters however fantastical the context might be overall. Oswald is the least important thing in the book. Oswald and the assassination of JFK are a useful tools because the event is one over which people like to argue. It is an event upon which the only agreement (held by the majority) is that we don't really know for sure. That is the only premise that is required from Oswald because it is that uncertainty principle which sets up the ethical conflict for the characters and creates the context for the journey. The story is not about Oswald just as the story in another of King's books wasn't about the dome.

The work of fiction is predicated on an historical truth. Take it up with King if you don't like that.
There is no such thing as historical truth. If you want to get real down and dirty here (and bear in mind you are talking to someone with so-called certificate saying I know something about history) all history is fiction. It is an agreed upon perception of the facts, a zeitgeist if you will on how we feel about our past. Without a time machine or magical stairs it is hard to know the truth of anything. We research, we speculate, we fictionalize, and we constantly rewrite history. You would think that as technology improves so would our ability to get more accurate in history (at least from a modern perspective) but that hasn't turned out to be the case. History simply becomes another casualty in the war between the talking heads. There is no such thing as historical truth. There is only a process by which we hope to move closer to truth. What we think we know today will likely turn out to be entirely wrong in time. We just do the best we can and try to be ethical about it, i.e. apply a consistent method. People who write fiction aren't (in general) trying to rewrite history. They are examining the human condition through fantasy. Attempting to apply motive beyond that to fiction writers is foolish.

I do agree that King's book is not meant to be a primer on the JFK assassination. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that King believes Oswald to be shooter and his book albeit a work of fiction is premised upon his conclusion drawn from the actual facts and evidence in the case. Simply because it is a work of science fiction does not mean that Oswald's guilt must similarly be read to be a product of such fiction as well. That is very silly. If King had written a book about going back in time to thwart the Pearl Harbor bombing, I doubt you would be on here arguing that the book's premise that the Japanese were behind this event is only relevant in some "alternative reality." It is an historical fact. Just like Oswald's guilt in this case.
I agree. Mr. King does think Oswald was the shooter. I don't think that has ever been in contention. What is in contention is the motive that both sides of the talking heads keep trying to apply to him. I don't think Mr. King wrote the book to forward his opinions on Oswald's guilt. In fact, had the story taken him a different direction, I think he could have easily written it where Oswald was innocent despite his personal feelings on the matter. He goes where the story takes him. He doesn't manhandle the stories to fill some personal need. If Mr. King wrote his books to forward political ideas or theories, they would mirror his rather vocal views on many issues. I don't think Oswald even makes the list compared to the social issues which are important to him. On top of that, you continue to miss the point. Oswald was chosen for his time travel story because of the doubt people have in general, the lack of agreement on the issue. He couldn't choose the bombing of Pearl Harbor because there is agreement there. Our historical zeitgeist is all on the same page. He needed an event of great historical importance upon which we do not agree, upon which there is doubt. The story is predicated not on the events, but upon the collective doubt. What part of this do you not understand? I am not asking that to be mean. I seriously want to know. The conflict of the story arises from an ethical man's situation, wherein he can prevent a murder, potentially stop a war, and potentially save thousands and thousands of lives, but he isn't certain of the guilt of the man who may (or may not) have set all these things in motion. If there is no doubt about Oswald's guilt, there is no story. What part of that do you not understand. King chose it for that reason.
 
Last edited:

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,717
4,331
Actually some people believe there was a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy etc. Any of those events could have provided a basis for the book if you think it somehow was about a lack of consensus on an event. It is unfortunately rare to have consensus with so many paranoid types. There is no indication whatsoever that King decided to base this book on the JFK assassination due to collective doubt about Oswald's guilt. In fact, the main character makes no effort whatsoever to pursue any of the conspiracy angles. Where does he head at the moment of the assassination? To the grass knoll? No he goes directly to the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald is known to have fired the shots. It sounds more like you have doubts about Oswald's guilt and are trying to graft them onto this book to reconcile the book with your own personal beliefs. No one is alleging King wrote this book to convince anyone of Oswald's guilt but he clearly believes Oswald is guilty and the plot reflects that belief. A thousand word lecture doesn't change that. Complain to King if you don't like his conclusion.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Actually some people believe there was a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy etc. Any of those events could have provided a basis for the book if you think it somehow was about a lack of consensus on an event. It is unfortunately rare to have consensus with so many paranoid types. There is no indication whatsoever that King decided to base this book on the JFK assassination due to collective doubt about Oswald's guilt. In fact, the main character makes no effort whatsoever to pursue any of the conspiracy angles. Where does he head at the moment of the assassination? To the grass knoll? No he goes directly to the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald is known to have fired the shots. It sounds more like you have doubts about Oswald's guilt and are trying to graft them onto this book to reconcile the book with your own personal beliefs. No one is alleging King wrote this book to convince anyone of Oswald's guilt but he clearly believes Oswald is guilty and the plot reflects that belief. A thousand word lecture doesn't change that. Complain to King if you don't like his conclusion.

Let me crystal clear. I've not stated my opinions about Oswald because they are as irrelevant to a discussion of King's books as your opinions are in the matter. There is reality and there is fiction. One of us can tell the difference between the two. You clearly enjoy arguing with other people about the issue, so much in fact that my pointing out the inappropriateness of your trying to use this novel as a trampoline or a megaphone for your own purposes causes you to assume that I'm on the other side of the issue. It is a very if you aren't with me, you are against me attitude. It does not hold you up in a favorable light. In fact, since you are absolutely wrong about my feelings on the real world event, it makes you sound like a fool.

You seem very intent on telling us what Mr. King believes. Why do you presume to speak for him? I assure you he can speak for himself. You have made yourself one of the talking heads. You don't really want to talk about the book. If you did, you would engage with me on the actual themes and concepts the book is about. So far, I've taken it easy on you. If you want to talk about the book, i.e. the work of fiction, let's do so. If you want to talk about what Mr. King believes, can you identify yourself as his publicist for the rest of us? I am not interested in trying to read the portents or see the animals I wants in clouds. It is important to you to state that Mr. King believes so-and-so to make yourself feel better? I would like to return to the book, as that is what we are talking about, to point out that the two main characters Al and Jake both have enough doubts that they are unwilling commit murder until they have personal, concrete proof. Al clearly believes that Oswald is guilty. He believes it so firmly that he convinces Jake to take up his own crusade. Jake comes, in time, to feel the same way (Oswald is detestable) but that still doesn't free him of the ethical, moral requirement to have proof. The scene where he enters the room and finds Oswald about to the deed still reflects his emotions, his doubts, and indicate how unsure he was until that moment. If there never was any doubt, do you truly believe the author could write about the characters feeling it?
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,717
4,331
I not only did not put words in King's mouth I posted a direct link to him discussing the case and why he believes Oswald is guilty. Something he also discusses in the book. If anyone doubts what I've said about King's opinion they can watch that for themselves. This is very simple. If the book entertained serious doubts about Oswald's guilt, then the main character would have to check out the various locations where conspiracy theorists allege the real shooter was located to thwart the assassination. For example, the grassy knoll. Nothing like that happens. The main character makes no effort to determine if there are other shooters. Instead he goes directly to the location where Oswald is known to have fired the shots. The book is less about any doubt regarding Oswald's guilt which is a minor point that arises if at all only to extend the narrative to the climatic scene and more about how altering past events could impact future events. I have no idea why you take this so personally or suggest someone is a fool because they suggest it appears that you have doubts regarding Oswald's guilt. Particularly when that is one of the few things you apparently are unwilling to lecture us on.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
I not only did not put words in King's mouth I posted a direct link to him discussing the case and why he believes Oswald is guilty. Something he also discusses in the book. If anyone doubts what I've said about King's opinion they can watch that for themselves. This is very simple. If the book entertained serious doubts about Oswald's guilt, then the main character would have to check out the various locations where conspiracy theorists allege the real shooter was located to thwart the assassination. For example, the grassy knoll. Nothing like that happens. The main character makes no effort to determine if there are other shooters. Instead he goes directly to the location where Oswald is known to have fired the shots. The book is less about any doubt regarding Oswald's guilt which is a minor point that arises if at all only to extend the narrative to the climatic scene and more about how altering past events could impact future events. I have no idea why you take this so personally or suggest someone is a fool because they suggest it appears that you have doubts regarding Oswald's guilt. Particularly when that is one of the few things you apparently are unwilling to lecture us on.
I don't have any doubts about Oswald's guilt. I never have. I just think that is irrelevant to the discussion of the structure of the story. I'm not willing to discuss (lecture if you will) my opinions of the real world event because that brings nothing to the table in the discussion. I'm not here to talk about me or what I believe. I'm here to talk about the book. People who want to talk about what they believe about the real world event seem to want to talk about themselves. I pointed out earlier that it is the disagreement in society overall which makes the book possible, i.e. the conflict of the main characters. If they didn't have doubts, they wouldn't have to waste years of their lives in the process. The story is about them, not Oswald. The historical event is nothing more than a convenient "situation" which allows us to follow the journey of Jake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muskrat

Patricia A

ReMember
Jul 10, 2006
12,887
13,839
59
Puget Sound
Oh I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help myself. I mean no disrespect but again I can't help myself. I have this weird kind of dyslexic thing that often makes me see written things wrong. There's a tea shop by where I live that says "Tea Time", at first glance I always see it as "Eat Me". Long story short. When I see this thread in the new posts, I see "Is Everyone Passing the Joint?" I shall see myself out now, no need to call the bouncer.

(Edited, as I had to go buy a question mark.)
 

not_nadine

Comfortably Roont
Nov 19, 2011
29,492
138,510
Behind you
Oh I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help myself. I mean no disrespect but again I can't help myself. I have this weird kind of dyslexic thing that often makes me see written things wrong. There's a tea shop by where I live that says "Tea Time", at first glance I always see it as "Eat Me". Long story short. When I see this thread in the new posts, I see "Is Everyone Passing the Joint?" I shall see myself out now, no need to call the bouncer.

(Edited, as I had to go buy a question mark.)
:laugh:
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
29,396
123,250
Spokane, WA
Oh I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help myself. I mean no disrespect but again I can't help myself. I have this weird kind of dyslexic thing that often makes me see written things wrong. There's a tea shop by where I live that says "Tea Time", at first glance I always see it as "Eat Me". Long story short. When I see this thread in the new posts, I see "Is Everyone Passing the Joint?" I shall see myself out now, no need to call the bouncer.

(Edited, as I had to go buy a question mark.)
It's legal in our shared state. ;-D
 
The Institute - Coming September 10th, 2019 IT - Now Available in Trade Paperback! Flight or Fright - Now Available in Trade Paperback! The Outsider - Now Available in Trade Paperback!