On Nov 12, 6:05 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2011 19:02:57 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
> >> Why don't you tell as about your historical process. That would be very
> >> interesting.
>
> >I have already done that. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
>
> No you haven't. You just talk "process" while bitching about people
> who disagree with you.
I do that in nearly every post. You just don't like it.
Let me give you an example:
I say I prefer to keep an open mind.
You say "Pamela believes".
I say I prefer to weigh and evaluate information.
You say "Pamela believes"
I say I do not believe nor disbelieve witnesses. It is not part of my process.
You say "Pamela believes. Pamela has no process".
>
> >> I've worked with process management for more than a decade
> >> and I could perhaps give you an idea or two, how about that Pamela? You've
> >> nothing to hide, have you?
>
> >Just what do you think you know about evaluating history? If you have so
> >much expertise, why does your posts attack people instead of define
> >issues?
>
> How many posts have you *ever* made that were not attack posts,
> Pamela?
Most of my posts correct the false statements that you and others make. How can that be interpreted as an 'attack'?
>
> >An historian is able to take the same group of facts and argue them
> >from two opposing positions. Can you do that?
>
> I suppose there are *some* historians who could argue that the
> Holocaust never happened.
>
You 'suppose? . Why do you believe you have credibility about something you don't know?
Will you next try to tell me how to play the flute even though you don't know how to do that either?
> But that's not a virtue.
To be able to argue from opposing positions is essential to understanding any historical event.
This is not an issue of 'virtue', it is part of the process.
Let me give you an example -- how do you know why you believe the positions of the WCR unless you have also looked at them from the opposite position?
Surely you don't believe that I, who do not believe the WCR, have not read it, the H+E (in fact own the set as well as having them on CD), and have read and own virtually every WC defender book on the assassination? I am, however, forced to exclude RH which I do own, but was unable to read, as it was lugubrious.
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
> On 12 Nov 2011 19:02:57 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
> >> Why don't you tell as about your historical process. That would be very
> >> interesting.
>
> >I have already done that. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
>
> No you haven't. You just talk "process" while bitching about people
> who disagree with you.
I do that in nearly every post. You just don't like it.
Let me give you an example:
I say I prefer to keep an open mind.
You say "Pamela believes".
I say I prefer to weigh and evaluate information.
You say "Pamela believes"
I say I do not believe nor disbelieve witnesses. It is not part of my process.
You say "Pamela believes. Pamela has no process".
>
> >> I've worked with process management for more than a decade
> >> and I could perhaps give you an idea or two, how about that Pamela? You've
> >> nothing to hide, have you?
>
> >Just what do you think you know about evaluating history? If you have so
> >much expertise, why does your posts attack people instead of define
> >issues?
>
> How many posts have you *ever* made that were not attack posts,
> Pamela?
Most of my posts correct the false statements that you and others make. How can that be interpreted as an 'attack'?
>
> >An historian is able to take the same group of facts and argue them
> >from two opposing positions. Can you do that?
>
> I suppose there are *some* historians who could argue that the
> Holocaust never happened.
>
You 'suppose? . Why do you believe you have credibility about something you don't know?
Will you next try to tell me how to play the flute even though you don't know how to do that either?
> But that's not a virtue.
To be able to argue from opposing positions is essential to understanding any historical event.
This is not an issue of 'virtue', it is part of the process.
Let me give you an example -- how do you know why you believe the positions of the WCR unless you have also looked at them from the opposite position?
Surely you don't believe that I, who do not believe the WCR, have not read it, the H+E (in fact own the set as well as having them on CD), and have read and own virtually every WC defender book on the assassination? I am, however, forced to exclude RH which I do own, but was unable to read, as it was lugubrious.
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
No comments:
Post a Comment