On 12/21/2012 4:58 PM, rickman wrote:
On 12/21/2012 7:06 AM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
On 12/20/2012 10:36 AM, Truth and honesty wrote:

Really what terms would Hitler have accepted to end the war?

I like how this guy asks me a pointed question and then disappears when
I answer. True grit and high-caliber tactics.

If I had ten divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be
over very quickly.


You talk a lot but don't say much...

Rick

And you don't say anything at all.

I said:

"Germany would have accepted anything other than unconditional
surrender, because unconditional surrender is the worst thing known to
man. It means putting oneself at the mercy of thine enemies. Enemies
who tormented and tortured Germany after WWI. No goodwill expected."

You said:

"..."

Is this a new debate strategy that I have not encountered before? The
"silence as an opposition?" It seems kind of weak, but lets see how it
bears out. For one, I am in total lack of surprise when there is no
response to this message. Didn't you ever learn that surprise is the
key ingredient to meaningful discourse?

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.