Ya think? I’m betting they’d ask “Who are you, and what have you done with Scott?”
ahem! This thread is freakin unbelievable!! 20 pages???
Or, alternatively, post a link to the site from which he directly quoted.
Joke I received today:
Oh, great. Now he’s got someone on his side.
Good point.
Thanks, Shodan.
This thread about Plaid has definately gone the whole nine yards.
But it has yet to achieve a thousand and one slights.
[Frau Farbissina]
SCOOOOOOOOOOTT
[/FF]
I wish he’d come back and either support his argument about the interment camps or admit his mistake.
And as long as we’re wishing, I’d like a pony.
[/Susie Derkins]
I have to say, after following this with saying anything till about page 13 or so, I am impressed with a few of you. One fo the reasons why I rarely debate (besides the “no one ever changes their minds on major issues” issue I mentioned on that page, is because I tend to get mad and end up pot shotting and/or baiting, thus making it no longer a debate. (I blame everyone else, though.) But seeing some of you, on either side of the religio/political compass, holding fast to rational discussion in the face of tremendous odds… Well, I’m impressed.
Damn it all, I pulled a Plaid and didn’t preview.
“…this without saying…”
I went to the bookstore yesterday. No books specifically about the internment camps in stock, but there was quite a few overviewing history. According to the writers, the bill I am talking about caused the internment of American citizens. Thus, I am correct, right?
Wrong. You see, the books simply said the following, more or less: “The act caused the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans.” That sentence, by itself, with no further details. That does not indicate a preponderance of evidence supporting my position. Instead, it supports that the author put no research into the camps. He simply put down what sounded like a good guess, and called it fact.
Now, I am extremely hard headed. However, while I am “stupid” enough to not take a hint after a large group tells me I am wrong, after that group has said something long enough, and I have had time away from the computer to think things over, I will eventually get it. As far as I can tell, I am totally off base in regards to the issue. Seems like I see a connection, but it is not as clear cut as I thought it was, or the same manner of connection as I thought. True, I see a connection. However, that is likely to be a result of how I see what I meant to post, not what I actually typed. You might recall both myself and Shodan admitting to this, earlier in the thread. It is not the least a result of “denial”.
P.S. Stay tuned for more [del]denial [/del]defense of past posts.
P.S.S. Welcome, Tim Staab.
Scott, ma boy!
See? Just like what we talked about so very long ago in Cafe Society (when we got warned for talking to each other?), that post made sense. At least, it did to me.
Just keep quiet about the boy band thing, hmm? Van Halen is a boy band.
Scott, This is an example of a problem you’re having in Great Debates. You really should cite the book(s) in which you found this. Try something like an APA citation. Here’s why. The source of a statement like “The act caused the imprisonment of Japinese-Americans” is very important. Was the book a history book by a respected author? Was the book a polemic against the US? It matters. Particularly when what you are claiming to have read contradicts what many of us have read for many years in many sources. Does that make sense?
Thanks.
Indeed. Much more clear and easier to read than earlier posts.
Salute to you Scott, both for clearity and the ability to admit a mistake.
Staab, what i got out of his statement was the book DIDN’T support his idea. At least not well enough to stand up under inquirey.
YMMV
Saying that Scott has “clearity” seems very fitting, somehow.
I started a thread in GD about non-hot button topic, posted a little bit in Cafe Society, and lurked a lot, just as I said I would, before I decided I needed to defend myself.
Shhhh… No talking in class.
dammit :smack: