--- 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. > > 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.
And another thing if that were so then why this? DAN > Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises > are true. Indeed, your postualtes require the dismissal of a > large body of information; which makes them emperically suspect. __ After all, the are are not ~MY~ postualtes are they? They are the postulates Dan has ascribed to me. Now why would he do that? ____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
