--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Sloan II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > Dan used a portion of that statment out of context as if I were > > defending Hittler and then reqested citations for that deffence. > > I could easily be wrong, but I read Dan's response as a request > for evidence that Hitler was appalled at what was going on. I > know that was just a side-claim that wasn't your main argument > there, but I'd like to see evidence for it myself, because it > doesn't fit with anything I've heard about him.
It wasn't even a side claim -I WAS MAKEING- it was simply in response to that discussion. So, still, if you want references for that I know you can find them, If you already do not believe that then I doubt you will trust them anyway. I watch a lot of history channel, (sometimes I need brackground noise, and it might as well be somewhat informative, other times it's Science Channel, or wings or TLC). The subject came up on one of those docs so I recognized the reference when OTHERS brought it up. > You're right that even if it was true, that doesn't absolve him > of responsibility for the Holocaust. It seemed to me that Dan > trimmed that part, not because he was trying to make you look > like you were defending Hitler, but because he wasn't commenting > on it. But you're right, that snipping could make you look > really bad, taken out of context. If you snip that part, you alter my whole statment to mean almost the oposite of what I was saying. Asking me to cite something I was saying the validity of which was inconsequential is ludircous. If you are personaly that interested in the topic, why ask someone else to do the research for you? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
