I am certain none of my ancestors fought in the war coming from Ireland just as Lincoln was shot. I have no dog in this fight as they say, but it was pointed out to me how someone was deliberatly twisting a man's post into the eaxct opposite of what he said in clear simple English, and was then attacked for this false position. I know thta happens all the time but this was just too much not to comment on, especially when the one doing the "educating" had it so backward, and at the same time complained that another poster had the nerve not to just take the "answer given to him" and ask no follow-up questions or make any follow-up comments. that that sort of thing in't acceptable in this discussion forum. Such an attitude is astonishing and outrageous. since it seems to go more or less unchecked by his friends, it must be speaking for the majority in here. Your comments are welcome, but his are downright shameful, and have no place in a forum were freedom of thought and expression and digging deeper into a subject should be the rule not the exception. To tell another poster "you've been told the facts so hit the door" is ludicrous, especially coming from someone who has it so totally backwards, while waving his own flag.
First, Phil clearly more than once said mass graves were not meant as dishonor, which is what he stated in the post started this topic in another frum. George has now flipped it totally backward to accuse Phil of seeking some different outcome of opinion than what Phil himself had been supporting from the very beginning!
Second, Phil clearly asked several times how citizens of Massachusets and New York or ANY country could be considered traitors to the south for "fighting FOR their OWN country (or how anyone could be a "traitor" to ANY country they had never resided in, or been a citizen of, and hadn't even existed until a year before they enlisted into their own infantry) and Phil gave very clear examples of htat idea involving US citizens and soldiers in Europe. George twists this simple statement into saying Phil was claimng "blacks would have never fought FOR the south". It is so false and so utterly nonsensical I could hardly believe my own eyes. And simply hilarious to boot, to have such an obvious and onboxious lack of comprehension coming from someone claiming to have the ability to educate someone else on the "facts".
When this was pointed out to me to read for my opinion, I burst into complete laughter, finding it impossible that someone claiming so much knowledge for himself would have it so clearly wrong. The rules, by the way, were "written" by that silly little German who smoked his cigarette backwards on old Laugh-In, but apparantly he forgot to add:
"Vee vill have no humor or zatire in here. Zis is zerious buziness. If vee make fools of ourselves, vee vill not tolerate anyone pointing it out vith humor. Vee can be critical of anyone and even rude, you cannot. You vill not find humor in our zilly claims to having all zee facts anyone needs to know."
Sure, go ahead discuss facts and views, but don't try to twist a man's words into saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he himself said over and over and then proceed to attack his position on your own falsehood! To complain if someone dares asks follow-up questions in a forum, or to complain that to agree with someone's posts and add follow-up comments is wrong and is not acceptable? Are those the rules you post all by here James? I quoted George's post exactly spelling out what he objected to.
But if those are the rules that apply here, if that is the standard members of this forum find acceptable, I think no one should be surprised if someone else calls it out for what it is.