Will I get my ban badge?

[gumboot]

So I said he attacked with Italy and your being idiotic enough to claim I said Italy attacked Greece without Germany?

Well... let's clear a couple of things up...

1) The German and Italian invasions of Greece were independent of each other.
2) If you did not mean to claim Germany did not invade Greece, I apologise, that's how I read it.
3) If 2) is true, it makes no sense that you would raise it as evidence refuting JamesB's list of countries invaded by Germany. If Germany did indeed invade Greece, how is including Greece in a list of nations invaded by Germany "padding"?

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

You didn't. The guys here that continued to harp on WW2 being relevant to 9/11 did and now Andrew and his apparent refusal to apologize for twisting my words is. you are not responsible for his actions....

I don't think anyone thinks it's relevant do they?

-Gumboot

 

[~enigma~]

2) If you did not mean to claim Germany did not invade Greece, I apologise, that's how I read it.

-Gumboot

Nothing about meaning...The words of mine you even quoted did not say what you claimed they meant. You are not twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean. An apology saying "I'm sorry for claiming you said what you didn't" would be accepted. The trash you expect me to accept isn't...am I supposed to think you were being genuine...sorry, I am not a woo that will fall for that

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So I said he attacked with Italy and your being idiotic enough to claim I said Italy attacked Greece without Germany? Do you know how to read?

Uhh... You might want to read his post again. You're going woo on us...

Edit: Actually, the phrase you used (". . .Hitler attacked with Italy") is ambiguous wording open to misinterpretation. That seems to be what happened here.

 

[~enigma~]

Uhh... You might want to read his post again. You're going woo on us...

Edit: Actually, the phrase you used (". . .Hitler attacked with Italy") is ambiguous wording open to misinterpretation. That seems to be what happened here.

Hitler attacked with Italy means Italy attacked alone? Only to those with the mindset to accuse. As far as Italy attacking alone, there is nothing ambiguious in my words. So take your woo and file it

 

[gumboot]

Uhh... You might want to read his post again. You're going woo on us...

Edit: Actually, the phrase you used (". . .Hitler attacked with Italy") is ambiguous wording open to misinterpretation. That seems to be what happened here.

Precisely. And a good reader, when coming across ambiguous writing, tries to determine the meaning based on context.

In the context of the discussion (countries invaded or taken over by Germany), and in particular the remainder of the post (refuting that some specific examples were actually cases of Germany invading countries), the only logical conclusion was that the poster was arguing that Germany did not invade Greece.

Otherwise the comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Enigma, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post. It was not intentional. As I have explained, your post was not very clear. I will not apologise for intentionally twisting your words to make them mean what I wanted them to mean, because I did not do this.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Hitler attacked with Italy means Italy attacked alone? Only to those with the mindset to accuse. As far as Italy attacking alone, there is nothing ambiguious in my words. So take your woo and file it

Perhaps if you had said "Germany attacked with Italy" things would have been clearer.

Consider...

"Hitler attacked with tanks"

"Hitler attacked with the German Army"

"Hitler attacked with words"

In addition, perhaps if you had not been trying to discredit Greece as an example of Germany invading another country, the confusion would not have arisen. After all, as I have said, listing Greece as a nation invaded by Germany is not padding - especially if Jason Bermas initiated the list with Poland, which was invaded by Germany and Russia together.

-Gumboot

 

[~enigma~]

Precisely. And a good reader, when coming across ambiguous writing, tries to determine the meaning based on context.

In the context of the discussion (countries invaded or taken over by Germany), and in particular the remainder of the post (refuting that some specific examples were actually cases of Germany invading countries), the only logical conclusion was that the poster was arguing that Germany did not invade Greece.

Otherwise the comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Enigma, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post. It was not intentional. As I have explained, your post was not very clear. I will not apologise for intentionally twisting your words to make them mean what I wanted them to mean, because I did not do this.

-Gumboot

Sorry...you are the first non-woo to go on ignore. You claimed I said something and posted my exact words which said no such thing.

 

[JamesB]

You didn't. The guys here that continued to harp on WW2 being relevant to 9/11 did and now Andrew and his apparent refusal to apologize for twisting my words is. you are not responsible for his actions....

Dude, if you make a claim like "Germany didn't invade France", you are going to get flamed, no matter how good of an argument you use to defend yourself semantically.

And I don't think anyone considers 9/11 directly connected to WWII, but there is definitely a connection between the way people see and understand one historical event versus another. It is not just a coincidence that many of the same people also believe we didn't land on the moon and the Holocaust was faked.

 

[~enigma~]

Dude, if you make a claim like "Germany didn't invade France", you are going to get flamed, no matter how good of an argument you use to defend yourself semantically.

And I don't think anyone considers 9/11 directly connected to WWII, but there is definitely a connection between the way people see and understand one historical event versus another. It is not just a coincidence that many of the same people also believe we didn't land on the moon and the Holocaust was faked.

No some of these guys think they are making fun of a woos statement. Just goes to show you what some people here are really like.
you tell me I said what Andrew says I did then you show me how the quote of mine he posted says what he claims. He twisted my words when he thought I was a woo and now he can't gracefully back out.

 

[gumboot]

So much easier to criticise someone when you've put them on ignore...

I'll correct anyone who gets something wrong. I'm not into that whole "them-us" "woo" thing.

-Gumboot

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hitler attacked with Italy means Italy attacked alone? Only to those with the mindset to accuse. As far as Italy attacking alone, there is nothing ambiguious in my words. So take your woo and file it

Nothing ambiguous?

Peter wrote that book with a pen.
Peter wrote that book with his wife.

Get it?

"Hitler attacked with Italy" can mean either "Hitler attacked using Italy", or "Hitler attacked along with Italy".

Even the most correct meaning isn't entirely accurate, apparently.

 

[Orphia Nay]

...
Enigma, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post. It was not intentional.
...
-Gumboot

Dear Enigma, just accept the apology and take Andrew off ignore. Who really cares if you didn't sum up Germany's invasion history in one brief sentence? Especially since you've had to type with one hand in the past few days because of your shoulder surgery. I don't blame you for being brief in the slightest. Hope you're feeling less pain today.

I know I do care when I see two of my favourite JREFers bickering over the meaning of a few words. Give o'er, ye mardy buggers!

 

[332nd]

Wow. Thin skinned folk around here.

 

[~enigma~]

Dear Enigma, just accept the apology and take Andrew off ignore. Who really cares if you didn't sum up Germany's invasion history in one brief sentence? Especially since you've had to type with one hand in the past few days because of your shoulder surgery. I don't blame you for being brief in the slightest. Hope you're feeling less pain today.

I know I do care when I see two of my favourite JREFers bickering over the meaning of a few words. Give o'er, ye mardy buggers!

When he admits to twisting the words i used to mean what he wanted I will take him off ignore, until then I have no interest in the words of a liar.

ETA - this isn't bickering over the meaning of words. It is a perfectly obvious attempt by Andrew to say I said somethong I didn't. He even had the nerve toquote my exact words which didn't say what he claimed yet he still has the nerve to claim i said what he wants.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. I'm going to dip my hat into the ring long enough to say.. if that is what I think it reads, Gumboot's intereptation is this.

"The phrase Hitler attacked with Italy is false, as Italy attacked by tself, then Hitler attacked after."

And assumed the phrase was made because you thought Hitler had attacked with, not after.

Then he apologized for it.. and you aren't accepting it because he misread? Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[~enigma~]

.. I'm going to dip my hat into the ring long enough to say.. if that is what I think it reads, Gumboot's intereptation is this.

"The phrase Hitler attacked with Italy is false, as Italy attacked by tself, then Hitler attacked after."

And assumed the phrase was made because you thought Hitler had attacked with, not after.

Then he apologized for it.. and you aren't accepting it because he misread? Am I understanding this correctly?

He apologized for misinterpreting it. I admit he did that but what he did was claimed I said it and quoted my words which said something other than his interpretation. He refuses to apologize for saying my words were not what they were. i have no desire to take a man off ignore if he can't do something as simple as apologizing for twisting my words. If he wants to remain a stubborn bull head...fine...he stays on ignore.

 

[scissorhands]

Do you admit you were wrong in stating that Germany didnt invade France in May 1940?
Last I saw, you were maintaining that position.
I think you are trying very hard to backtrack from an obvious blunder, probably produced in the heat of the moment, and something you could have admitted to far earlier.
Its a shame, I have seen your posting on LCF and its good stuff, dont let your ego get in the way and be humble enough to admit the occasional mistake.
Get over it and move on.

 

[~enigma~]

Do you admit you were wrong in stating that Germany didnt invade France in May 1940?
Last I saw, you were maintaining that position.
I think you are trying very hard to backtrack from an obvious blunder, probably produced in the heat of the moment, and something you could have admitted to far earlier.
Its a shame, I have seen your posting on LCF and its good stuff, dont let your ego get in the way and be humble enough to admit the occasional mistake.
Get over it and move on.

The problem is Andrew twisting my words and essentially calling me a liar. If you can't understand or you refuse to see that, it isn't my problem. So once again, are you going to tell me what WW2 trivia has to do with 9/11? Was WW2 a reason to misquote Jason Bermas? If you have a problem with his understanding about 9/11 (and I am sure we all do), call him on that but don't attack and misquote based on his WW2 knowledge AND most certainly don't be so immature as to question Dylan about it as if the guy is Jason's mother.

 

[scissorhands]

I have absolutely no interest in whether you feel Jason Bermas was misquoted or not.
I am interested when somebody from this forum makes inaccurate assertions about the historical details of a war that my grandparents fought in.
Now answer my question.