• @Guerrilla:

    because that was a counter argument not a direct insult… It is one thing to say “well you guys just elect Hitler after Hitler that mess the world up so terribly”… there is a difference between saying “why don’t you?” and “you are…”

    I have in great length explained to WN why i don’t think that i am in a position to explain anything to Jen or even treat her honorably. Unfortunately, the virus has killed that post. Anyway, she has not changed her behavior, as you can see from her posts about hybrids and their mpg (and the way she defends her spelling of “hybrid” vs. how she defends her understanding of “tax evasion”), her french bashing again, her laziness to look up polls (see the now deleted “DM’s media bias” thread and on the other hand her eagerness to curse all lazy people and her eagerness to argue against the polls’ results without even knowing the poll (and after knowing the poll -which i gave her a link to- she didn’t stop but sidestepped), and last but not least:
    her tax evasion. I hate people who evade taxes: They are only parasites.
    And this is not going into detail as much as i did when i explained it toWN.

    WHY MUST I ALWAYS EXPLAIN MYSELF AGAIN AND SHE CAN GO ON AND ON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE?

    I am tired of her. I want her to leave.
    You probably know my feeling: I am right, but i can’t win because my opponent won’t even listen.

    edit:
    She called my grandfather a liar. She still hasn’t excused herself but is sidestepping the issue. Where are you there?


  • Personally, I think he will go down much more on the corrupt side than the great President side. But hey, Reagan’s spot in the history books is still up in the air (People love him, but I get a sense that historians will blast him, and rightly so).


  • @Yanny:

    Personally, I think he will go down much more on the corrupt side than the great President side. But hey, Reagan’s spot in the history books is still up in the air (People love him, but I get a sense that historians will blast him, and rightly so).

    To tell which president will be on which side is a hard call on anyones watch.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @Guerrilla:

    because that was a counter argument not a direct insult… It is one thing to say “well you guys just elect Hitler after Hitler that mess the world up so terribly”… there is a difference between saying “why don’t you?” and “you are…”

    I have in great length explained to WN why i don’t think that i am in a position to explain anything to Jen or even treat her honorably. Unfortunately, the virus has killed that post. Anyway, she has not changed her behavior, as you can see from her posts about hybrids and their mpg (and the way she defends her spelling of “hybrid” vs. how she defends her understanding of “tax evasion”), her french bashing again, her laziness to look up polls (see the now deleted “DM’s media bias” thread and on the other hand her eagerness to curse all lazy people and her eagerness to argue against the polls’ results without even knowing the poll (and after knowing the poll -which i gave her a link to- she didn’t stop but sidestepped), and last but not least:
    her tax evasion. I hate people who evade taxes: They are only parasites.
    And this is not going into detail as much as i did when i explained it toWN.

    WHY MUST I ALWAYS EXPLAIN MYSELF AGAIN AND SHE CAN GO ON AND ON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE?

    I am tired of her. I want her to leave.
    You probably know my feeling: I am right, but i can’t win because my opponent won’t even listen.

    edit:
    She called my grandfather a liar. She still hasn’t excused herself but is sidestepping the issue. Where are you there?

    Because I’m right.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Yanny:

    Personally, I think he will go down much more on the corrupt side than the great President side. But hey, Reagan’s spot in the history books is still up in the air (People love him, but I get a sense that historians will blast him, and rightly so).

    Historians will write about him in the light of current events. If it’s currently popular to consider him a bad president, then that’s how he will be written. If it’s currently popular to consider him a good president that’s how he will be written. This is why I like to get history from books written as close to the actual time the events occurred rather then hundreds of years later.

    F_alk, if your grandfather disagreed with me, then he is a liar. No need to apologize. You called my family members with 1st hand experience liars all the time and you’ve never apologized. AFAIK, you’re the worst person on the planet to be talking to anyone about being misinformed and miseducated.


  • I understand you Falk but she does have a right to be here. I just stopped reading the majority of her posts. Every now and then, I’ll see what she has to say and hope it is something to learn. Nothing so far. The only reason that I’ll halfass defend her is the fact that she is surprisingly resiliant (sp?) to our constant insults and keeps coming back for more. So, the hell with it. Let her stay and blow out her hot air rhetoric. It’s not like it is going to change my way of life. :wink:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @stuka:

    I understand you Falk but she does have a right to be here. I just stopped reading the majority of her posts. Every now and then, I’ll see what she has to say and hope it is something to learn. Nothing so far. The only reason that I’ll halfass defend her is the fact that she is surprisingly resiliant (sp?) to our constant insults and keeps coming back for more. So, the hell with it. Let her stay and blow out her hot air rhetoric. It’s not like it is going to change my way of life. :wink:

    And vice versa.


  • Historians will write about him in the light of current events. If it’s currently popular to consider him a bad president, then that’s how he will be written. If it’s currently popular to consider him a good president that’s how he will be written. This is why I like to get history from books written as close to the actual time the events occurred rather then hundreds of years later.

    Ah, now thats where we disagree monumentally. I do not believe that history books can objectively analyze events if the author is moved by the period. There is no political bias in history. There is no emotion. President Bush will be remembered for his actions, his victories, and his catastrophes.

    Now, thats not to say that undue Nationalism will not pervade the history textbooks as it so often does today. I mean, we still see Woodrow Wilson as a great President these days, the reason for which is beyond me.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Yanny:

    Historians will write about him in the light of current events. If it’s currently popular to consider him a bad president, then that’s how he will be written. If it’s currently popular to consider him a good president that’s how he will be written. This is why I like to get history from books written as close to the actual time the events occurred rather then hundreds of years later.

    Ah, now thats where we disagree monumentally. I do not believe that history books can objectively analyze events if the author is moved by the period. There is no political bias in history. There is no emotion. President Bush will be remembered for his actions, his victories, and his catastrophes.

    Now, thats not to say that undue Nationalism will not pervade the history textbooks as it so often does today. I mean, we still see Woodrow Wilson as a great President these days, the reason for which is beyond me.

    But how can a historain today accurately portray the battle of Marathon? Was he there? Did he witness the battle? Does he even understand the weapons of the time?

    This is why it’s better to have a historian, preferably one from a 3rd party neutral nation, record the events in a non-partisan matter.

    Another issue is revisionist history. This is where historians rewrite history to make it more politically correct for the day. We see this often today specifically around events that surround wars. These historians try to justify it as making the accounting more correct, but in actuallity, they are just changing history to be more pallatable to the people of the time and screwing up future historians that may only want to find the truth.


  • @stuka:

    …Let her stay and blow out her hot air rhetoric. It’s not like it is going to change my way of life. :wink:

    Not yours, but maybe the life of someone weaker-willed.
    There are enough examples in the world’s history that show how dangerous her like is…. and for the moment i am tired of her (and the way her arguing style is just a bad copy of her opponents’ style).

    I mean … she now complains for the first time that i disagreed with her family members experience … now, that noone can check it. And she still sticks to her point that she knows better than someone who was there… although in her reply to Yanny that does seem to matter somehow.

    So, i still want her to leave.

  • Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @Guerrilla:

    because that was a counter argument not a direct insult… It is one thing to say “well you guys just elect Hitler after Hitler that mess the world up so terribly”… there is a difference between saying “why don’t you?” and “you are…”

    I have in great length explained to WN why i don’t think that i am in a position to explain anything to Jen or even treat her honorably. Unfortunately, the virus has killed that post. Anyway, she has not changed her behavior, as you can see from her posts about hybrids and their mpg (and the way she defends her spelling of “hybrid” vs. how she defends her understanding of “tax evasion”), her french bashing again, her laziness to look up polls (see the now deleted “DM’s media bias” thread and on the other hand her eagerness to curse all lazy people and her eagerness to argue against the polls’ results without even knowing the poll (and after knowing the poll -which i gave her a link to- she didn’t stop but sidestepped), and last but not least:
    her tax evasion. I hate people who evade taxes: They are only parasites.
    And this is not going into detail as much as i did when i explained it toWN.

    WHY MUST I ALWAYS EXPLAIN MYSELF AGAIN AND SHE CAN GO ON AND ON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE?

    I am tired of her. I want her to leave.
    You probably know my feeling: I am right, but i can’t win because my opponent won’t even listen.

    edit:
    She called my grandfather a liar. She still hasn’t excused herself but is sidestepping the issue. Where are you there?

    But F_alk regardless of how stupid people talk (in your mind’s eye) they still have a free will to express there views… To just Ban someone because you think they post stupid is like executing someone because they don’t agree with your political party’s platform…

    GG


  • @Guerrilla:

    @F_alk:

    @Guerrilla:

    because that was a counter argument not a direct insult… It is one thing to say “well you guys just elect Hitler after Hitler that mess the world up so terribly”… there is a difference between saying “why don’t you?” and “you are…”

    I have in great length explained to WN why i don’t think that i am in a position to explain anything to Jen or even treat her honorably. Unfortunately, the virus has killed that post. Anyway, she has not changed her behavior, as you can see from her posts about hybrids and their mpg (and the way she defends her spelling of “hybrid” vs. how she defends her understanding of “tax evasion”), her french bashing again, her laziness to look up polls (see the now deleted “DM’s media bias” thread and on the other hand her eagerness to curse all lazy people and her eagerness to argue against the polls’ results without even knowing the poll (and after knowing the poll -which i gave her a link to- she didn’t stop but sidestepped), and last but not least:
    her tax evasion. I hate people who evade taxes: They are only parasites.
    And this is not going into detail as much as i did when i explained it toWN.

    WHY MUST I ALWAYS EXPLAIN MYSELF AGAIN AND SHE CAN GO ON AND ON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE?

    I am tired of her. I want her to leave.
    You probably know my feeling: I am right, but i can’t win because my opponent won’t even listen.

    edit:
    She called my grandfather a liar. She still hasn’t excused herself but is sidestepping the issue. Where are you there?

    But F_alk regardless of how stupid people talk (in your mind’s eye) they still have a free will to express there views… To just Ban someone because you think they post stupid is like executing someone because they don’t agree with your political party’s platform…

    GG

    Again - i can relate to and have empathy for F_alk’s position. Still IMO GG is correct.
    Ironically enough, the subject has in the past accused me of deleting/locking posts simply because they conflict with my own ideology. Hooo Weee do i ever wish sometimes. :D

    Sorry F_alk.


  • @Guerrilla:

    @F_alk:

    …I am tired of her. I want her to leave. …

    But F_alk regardless of how stupid people talk (in your mind’s eye) they still have a free will to express there views… To just Ban someone because you think they post stupid is like executing someone because they don’t agree with your political party’s platform…
    GG

    sigh
    do i say i want her banned, or do i say i want her to leave ?

    I want her to leave … on her own free will. I thought that was obvious.
    Please, don’t start to put words in my mouth like her.

    PS: she is violating my nation’s constitution by saying part of the genocide did not happen. That is more than a mere “party platform” and an exception to the right of “free speech” over here.

  • Moderator

    F_alk I am saying that she will obviously stay and the only way to get “rid” of her would be to ban her… I know you see that… but you must be a big dreamer to drean the “impossible”… I think I can honestly say that Jen would consider it an insult of her intelligence to just leave… so she won’t… I can assure you… It seems though that you would rather bombard her with enough “language” to force her out… and to me that is weak in a free forum of discussion…

    We are not American, Canadian, German, French, etc. here we are members of AaA … neither our rights given to us by our constitutionality nor it’s power in our lives do not apply… If you choose to say that the American Constitution supports the slaughter of thousands of Indians you should have all rights to do so… I should have no right to stop you…


  • ?

    now i see what you mean by that. but even though you are saying that it is in the American Constitution, you dont really have to follow it here. here is the world of Axis and Allies, a great game and one that can either follow its own rules or none at all. :roll:

  • Moderator

    I am not saying the constitution says anything
    (not saying it is void of words just nothing relevant to direct argument here… I used it to make a point)
    I am only saying any opinions expressed here are exempted from laws and penalties imposed by nations and there appropriate legal systems… AaA doesn’t match up to a political forum… it is a game with a set of rules to make sure everyone understands their boundaries within the game system… here there is no game system, no win, no lose, no life to be lost or gained, just words, just opinions… the only rules here are those allowing everyone to participate, without getting verbally barraged because someone does not agree… Those rules like any open democratic forum are essential to keep it alive, and, in our case, interested, especially in the carrying out of debates… I say lets keep it that way…

    GG


  • Let’s keep it civil here guys, or else I will have to lock this thread.

    But how can a historain today accurately portray the battle of Marathon? Was he there? Did he witness the battle? Does he even understand the weapons of the time?

    This is why it’s better to have a historian, preferably one from a 3rd party neutral nation, record the events in a non-partisan matter.

    A historian will use his primary sources. Let’s take the book 1776 by David McCullough for example. His account of the battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston uses a host of sources, including letters written by George Washington, John Singleton Copley, addresses on the floor of the House of Commons, decrees from King George III, newspaper records, diary entries of American and British Soldiers, etc. Good historians are able to properly record history even if they personally have not experienced that specific event, and in fact are able to do so in a more accurate manner.

    Another issue is revisionist history. This is where historians rewrite history to make it more politically correct for the day. We see this often today specifically around events that surround wars. These historians try to justify it as making the accounting more correct, but in actuallity, they are just changing history to be more pallatable to the people of the time and screwing up future historians that may only want to find the truth.

    You would love one of my favorite books called Lies My Teacher Told Me. He talks about how American History textbooks cookie-cut history, creating heroes and downplaying not-so-pretty events.

    For example, let’s take Christopher Columbus. Christopher Columbus committed significant amounts of genocide (upwards of one million deaths). We don’t learn that in school, do we? Our history textbooks borderline make up stories about Columbus. For example, one textbook describes Columbus’s landing in the Americans something along the lines of (I don’t have the book at college with me) “For two months, the storm-battered ships had traveled through the Atlantic Ocean, when one morning they finally caught a glimpse of land”. When in reality, Columbus’s ships did not hit any inclimate weather until after they had alright sighted Haiti, and had only been at sea for a little over a mont. (they stopped at the Azores for an extended period of time. It had been 2 months since the sailors had left Spain, but not 2 months at sea.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @stuka:

    …Let her stay and blow out her hot air rhetoric. It’s not like it is going to change my way of life. :wink:

    Not yours, but maybe the life of someone weaker-willed.
    There are enough examples in the world’s history that show how dangerous her like is…. and for the moment i am tired of her (and the way her arguing style is just a bad copy of her opponents’ style).

    I mean … she now complains for the first time that i disagreed with her family members experience … now, that noone can check it. And she still sticks to her point that she knows better than someone who was there… although in her reply to Yanny that does seem to matter somehow.

    So, i still want her to leave.

    You did, you said my family lied when you claimed that I said your grandpa lied.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @Guerrilla:

    @F_alk:

    …I am tired of her. I want her to leave. …

    But F_alk regardless of how stupid people talk (in your mind’s eye) they still have a free will to express there views… To just Ban someone because you think they post stupid is like executing someone because they don’t agree with your political party’s platform…
    GG

    sigh
    do i say i want her banned, or do i say i want her to leave ?

    I want her to leave … on her own free will. I thought that was obvious.
    Please, don’t start to put words in my mouth like her.

    PS: she is violating my nation’s constitution by saying part of the genocide did not happen. That is more than a mere “party platform” and an exception to the right of “free speech” over here.

    A) He never, to my knowledge, called for me to be banned. That’s been left to the illustrious Mary.

    B) I didn’t say the genocide didn’t happen. I said it focused on the Jews and Gypsies.

    This is how it started. I made the comment that Americans derive themselves from oppressed people and that’s why many Americans inherently distrust the government and wish to see it shrunk.

    F_alk claimed that Germans were way more oppressed under Hitler then Americans ever were.

    I said that’s not entirely true, that was the Jews and Gypsies primarily.

    He said that I didn’t know what I was talking about and it was all Germans, because his grandfather said so.

    I said that the German people, other then Jews and Gypsies who were stripped of their citizenship and thus, technically, not Germans anymore, were hardly more oppressed then black slaves, Japanese in American concentration camps, Jews and Gypsies in the Nazi death camps, etc.

    He started claiming I called his grandfather a liar.

    later, in a different arguement, I said that there was German resistance to the occupation after WWII. He said there was absolutely none, zero, no resistance what-so-ever to the occupation.

    I pointed out that my family was there and they were under orders to capture nazis. These nazis in return fired upon them, stole, set timed charges in “secure” areas and generally conducted themselves as local terrorists much in the same manner as the French Resistance Cells did in WWII France and a few terrorists do in Iraq.

    He again called my family liars.

    However, I happen to have an actual bullet pulled from a soldier who died capturing a suspected Nazi as he was shot at and killed in 1947. I have other stories written down in journals and told by word of mouth showing that the German resistance in the late 40’s early 50’s was quite a nuissance, but yet he still claims that I lied and he is nothing but a pure and innocent boy who speaks nothing but the truth.

    This is utter, and total, bullsh*t and we all know it, F_alk. Many might not admit it, but you’re so full of it, it’s hard to see out the window anymore it’s so deep.

    Perhaps your sources are bad? I know the German’s have rewritten their history quite a bit and have attempted to crush any sense of German spirit so as to avoid another Hitler comming to power, but that doesn’t mean you can’t go get the facts somewhere else. Read up on it.

    I can help you, if you want. There’s plenty of books at the Russian Library of St. Petersburg (formerly Lenningrad where Stalin placed many old WWII journals from his soldiers on display) where you can read all about the German terrorists in World War II and how the Germans raped and murdered civilians in Russia on purpose and with malice aforethought. How the Germans employed actual torture tactics against young children in front of their fathers, dismembering, raping and sometimes killing them to extract information.

    Maybe, just maybe, then you’ll understand what real persecution by the state is and what really happened in your country after the war. Do you think it was an accident that Russians hated you so much that they’d rather machine gun your citizens in the streets then capture them? Do you, maybe, understand why they had to be stopped by the British and Americans (and Canadians, Australians, etc, etc, etc) from doing just that?

    There are some who say we should have let them. If they were all like you, maybe that’s true. But I have reason to believe you arn’t the majority there, just the loudest, so it’s probably a good thing we didn’t. After all, if they had obliterated the Germans we might not have Volkswagons, BMWs or really good chocolate!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Yanny:

    But how can a historain today accurately portray the battle of Marathon? Was he there? Did he witness the battle? Does he even understand the weapons of the time?

    This is why it’s better to have a historian, preferably one from a 3rd party neutral nation, record the events in a non-partisan matter.

    A historian will use his primary sources. Let’s take the book 1776 by David McCullough for example. His account of the battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston uses a host of sources, including letters written by George Washington, John Singleton Copley, addresses on the floor of the House of Commons, decrees from King George III, newspaper records, diary entries of American and British Soldiers, etc. Good historians are able to properly record history even if they personally have not experienced that specific event, and in fact are able to do so in a more accurate manner.

    In this case the historian in question is just applying critical thinking to evidence laid out by actual participants and witnesses. This is not what I complain about. (See below for more.)

    @Yanny:

    Another issue is revisionist history. This is where historians rewrite history to make it more politically correct for the day. We see this often today specifically around events that surround wars. These historians try to justify it as making the accounting more correct, but in actuallity, they are just changing history to be more pallatable to the people of the time and screwing up future historians that may only want to find the truth.

    You would love one of my favorite books called Lies My Teacher Told Me. He talks about how American History textbooks cookie-cut history, creating heroes and downplaying not-so-pretty events.

    For example, let’s take Christopher Columbus. Christopher Columbus committed significant amounts of genocide (upwards of one million deaths). We don’t learn that in school, do we? Our history textbooks borderline make up stories about Columbus. For example, one textbook describes Columbus’s landing in the Americans something along the lines of (I don’t have the book at college with me) “For two months, the storm-battered ships had traveled through the Atlantic Ocean, when one morning they finally caught a glimpse of land”. When in reality, Columbus’s ships did not hit any inclimate weather until after they had alright sighted Haiti, and had only been at sea for a little over a mont. (they stopped at the Azores for an extended period of time. It had been 2 months since the sailors had left Spain, but not 2 months at sea.

    This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. You point out very well the reasons we should not tamper with the evidence of history and revise it to read as we please, but rather just take the evidence as given as fact unless outside evidence contradicts it. (For instance, one might assume that Zulu International is a historical place in history until evidence is recorded in different kingdoms around the same said time saying it was a story told to children and not a real event.)

    As with Christopher Columbus and with the Indian resettlements and with how we treated the Japanese in WWII and other such incidents you can plainly see where politically motivated individuals - of theri time - rewrote history to be more appeasing to the people. This is why I wouldn’t trust a historian’s take on Reagan if he was writting it in 2204 only using letters written by Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry for his support. At least, I wouldn’t take his word over someone, who say, was a respected historian who wrote about the incidents as they occurred.

Suggested Topics

  • 69
  • 36
  • 8
  • 2
  • 8
  • 36
  • 58
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

32

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts