Abrams calls for removal of Confederate faces off Stone Mountain

[Roy]

neither are the KKK and White Supremacists "Fascists"

KKK are not Nazis.

Did you really forget that you also referred to white supremacists in general as well as the KKK in particular? Or are you so desperate to be right that you're willing to pretend that you were only talking about the KKK?

Not that it matters. Either way you've just shot your argument in the foot.

PS Some KKKers are neo-Nazis.

[Sparko]

Did you really forget that you also referred to white supremacists in general as well as the KKK in particular? Or are you so desperate to be right that you're willing to pretend that you were only talking about the KKK?

Not that it matters. Either way you've just shot your argument in the foot.

So you think all white supremacists are Nazis? The Neo-Nazis are a specific group. White supremacists include Nazis and KKK but KKK are not the Nazis and All white supremacists are not Nazis. In fact if you want to get technical, Nazis were not Fascists. Those were a specific group down in Italy in WW2 who were not even white supremacists.

I guess you don't like it when people nitpick right back at you?

[Roy]

So you think all white supremacists are Nazis?

No, I think some white supremacists are neo-Nazis.

I guess you don't like it when people nitpick right back at you?

You aren't nit-picking, you're misrepresenting both my words and your own. I didn't say anything about Nazis, only about neo-Nazis. I didn't imply that all white supremacists were Nazis, or even neo-Nazis, only that white supremacists include neo-Nazis.

And again, none of this matters since by using false criticisms to try to wriggle out of pretending/misremembering you were talking about the KKK and not about the KKK and white supremacists, you've shot yourself in the other foot too.

I don't mind nit-picking. I object to misrepresentation.

[Sparko]

I don't mind nit-picking. I object to misrepresentation.

Then stop doing it to me.

[Roy]

I don't mind nit-picking. I object to misrepresentation.

Then stop doing it to me.

You're doing it to yourself.

[One Bad Pig]

Did you really forget that you also referred to white supremacists in general as well as the KKK in particular? Or are you so desperate to be right that you're willing to pretend that you were only talking about the KKK?

Not that it matters. Either way you've just shot your argument in the foot.

PS Some KKKers are neo-Nazis.

Sparko said "Nazis", not "neo-Nazis".

[Roy]

Sparko said "Nazis", not "neo-Nazis".

I know. He misrepresented me.

[One Bad Pig]

I know. He misrepresented me.

I think you're both talking past each other.

[Charles]

Then stop doing it to me.

You are missing the point again. You were the one who misrepresented and Roy pointed out the facts of the case. You point to no facts but just attack the person with no substance. That does not create a balance.

[Sparko]

You are missing the point again. You were the one who misrepresented and Roy pointed out the facts of the case. You point to no facts but just attack the person with no substance. That does not create a balance.

You point to no facts but just attack the person with no substance. That does not create a balance.

[Sparko]

Sparko said "Nazis", not "neo-Nazis".

To be fair I was using the term interchangeably except when speaking about the WW2 Nazis as not being fascists.

Clarification of my last post:

So you think all white supremacists are [neo]Nazis? The Neo-Nazis are a specific group. White supremacists include [neo]Nazis and KKK but KKK are not the [neo]Nazis and All white supremacists are not [neo]Nazis. In fact if you want to get technical, [actual ww2] Nazis were not Fascists. Those were a specific group down in Italy in WW2 who were not even white supremacists.

Venn Diagram of what I am saying:

venn.jpg

[Charles]

You point to no facts but just attack the person with no substance. That does not create a balance.

Good try, Sparko. But everyone can just follow the thread and see that Roy actually pointed facts when claiming you represented while you did not. So I point to facts, as one of course ought to do.

[Sparko]

Good try, Sparko. But everyone can just follow the thread and see that Roy actually pointed facts when claiming you represented while you did not. So I point to facts, as one of course ought to do.

please charles, show that you are actually following the discussion by detailing in context what the discussion Roy and I are having and where it is going wrong, starting at the beginning and ending with your comment. Thanks.

[Charles]

please charles, show that you are actually following the discussion by detailing in context what the discussion Roy and I are having and where it is going wrong, starting at the beginning and ending with your comment. Thanks.

Why not just stay on topic, Sparko?

Compare the quality of this one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post474081

with this one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post474085

Need I point it out?

[Sparko]

Why not just stay on topic, Sparko?

Compare the quality of this one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post474081

with this one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post474085

Need I point it out?

well if you can't show that you know what the actual discussion is about, then stay out of it. You don't even know what the topic is.