Jackketch, I'm calling you out

[Rizzo in a box]

quote:

A source for your apparent ignorance? Well your thread on gnostics is a prime example.I rarely give sources , either my 'opponent' is of a theological calibre that he knows them already and knows to what i am refering or he should go away and study until he does.

Nice way to turn it around.

1) I asked for a source for you to back up your claims. Hardly unreasonable.

2) Oh really? Care to explain why? Or just make more baseless statements?

3) So basically if someone disagrees with you they're stupid and you don't need to back anything up?

I can see through you, Jack. Give me a real debate, not this arrogant bullshit you're trying to pass off as an authoritative knowledge. If you know it so well you should be able to spew it out like food from an Olsen twin's mouth. That's what I do and expect in BLTC - back up my opinions with facts.

[Twisted_Ferret]

He did it to me too, when I was trying to discuss the history of the Third Reich and how Hitler came to power. I cited a source and made a semi-long post, he responded with "LOL".

[LostCause]

If you have an issue with jackketch you can e-mail him privately. If you have something informative to contribute to the board, that's a different story.

Cheers,

Lost

[Rizzo in a box]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

If you have an issue with jackketch you can e-mail him privately. If you have something informative to contribute to the board, that's a different story.

Cheers,

Lost

Thanks for unlocking my thread. I appreciate it.

[jackketch]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

He did it to me too, when I was trying to discuss the history of the Third Reich and how Hitler came to power. I cited a source and made a semi-long post, he responded with "LOL".

Sorry TF, I must have missed your post when I glanced at this before.

If I recall rightly we were discussing 'macht ergreifen' in regard to Hitler? You felt that he did indeed 'seize power' where I contended that he was elected?

I felt what you posted in reply was genuinely amusing, hence the 'LOL', because it stated very clearly that he had been elected and even gave the'numbers'!

And as your own source told you what i was saying was historical fact I saw no reason to prolong the discussion. Neither , if again i remember correctly, did you comment further. SO i assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the debate was over.

I apologise if you felt i wasn't taking your argument seriously, that was certainly not my intent.

(Although i'll admit that that was one of those topics which is fair guaranteed to piss me off but then again I learnt Suetterlin inorder to be able to sure of the sources I was reading in the Stadtarchiven )

[Kage]

Im glad this thread is open

[Twisted_Ferret]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Sorry TF, I must have missed your post when I glanced at this before.

If I recall rightly we were discussing 'macht ergreifen' in regard to Hitler? You felt that he did indeed 'seize power' where I contended that he was elected?

I felt what you posted in reply was genuinely amusing, hence the 'LOL', because it stated very clearly that he had been elected and even gave the'numbers'!

And as your own source told you what i was saying was historical fact I saw no reason to prolong the discussion. Neither , if again i remember correctly, did you comment further. SO i assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the debate was over.

I apologise if you felt i wasn't taking your argument seriously, that was certainly not my intent.

(Although i'll admit that that was one of those topics which is fair guaranteed to piss me off but then again I learnt Suetterlin inorder to be able to sure of the sources I was reading in the Stadtarchiven )

It did say that he was elected, but never to chancellor - only to... some other thing, and seized the chancellorship when that other dude (the former leader) died. I don't really know much about this subject, but right before you posted about it I had read in a magazine, that had stated he was elected to power, a correction sent in by a reader stating that he rigged several elections and never achieved a legitimate majority vote. But perhaps the reader was misinformed (it wasn't a WWII magazine or anything).



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 12-02-2006).]

[jackketch]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

It did say that he was elected, but never to chancellor - only to... some other thing, and seized the chancellorship when that other dude (the former leader) died. I don't really know much about this subject, but right before you posted about it I had read in a magazine, that had stated he was elected to power, a correction sent in by a reader stating that he rigged several elections and never achieved a legitimate majority vote. But perhaps the reader was misinformed (it wasn't a WWII magazine or anything).

*Apologies to LC, I know this doesn't really belong here*

TF, I don't really want to start a debate on this one but there is an important moral point here.

Germans have a bit of national self delusion on this subject. Partly no doubt due to a natural revulsion about what happened and also due to the stupidity of the allies after the war.

Their grandparents voted for him, chose to believe the lies and close their eyes,loved him, worshipped him and he turned out to be a monster. Get over it. Ain't no reason to pretend it didn't happen or somehow that a few malcontents managed to seize a whole nation.

That myth was painfully exploded a few years when the thousands of 'fan' letters to Hitler from german women were released.

Believe it or not people, he was a SEX SYMBOL!