Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is "Revisionist History"?  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

So what is "Revisionist History"? I see people on this board accuse others of being "revisionist historians". I've seen people on this board completely ignore a persons point of view using the excuse that they're "revising history".

So what is thie "Revisionist History"?

I've only seen this term used when an opinion on a historical even differs from that of one's own.

I've only seen this when one disagrees with somebody elses opinion.

History is not as simple as black and white. History is not as simple as saying that it is "fact". History is analyzed, for years and years, and never agreed upon. It is this analysis that helps us learn better about the past, about our mistakes in the past, and how to become better from it. To brush of different analysis of history as "revisionist history" is ignorant and dangerous. To try and look at history from a different angle is far from "revisionist", it is a responsible thing to do.

Why is this suddenly an insult?


NO URLS in signature
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

It's when people who learn certain information about events but are shown the truth later on and refuse to believe it. It's a claim used to throw out any arguments that threaten their intelligence, including "conspiracy theory" claims

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Why is this suddenly an insult?

Because some of the more radical revisionists say that the nazi's never did anything to the jews. Accusing someone of being a revisionist is to accuse them of ignoring what are somewhat obvious and sensitive facts.


User currently offlineTristarenvy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

A very interesting, yet dangerous subject. I am amazed when I hear anyone doubt The Holocaust ever happened. These are the folks who will go on, chapter and verse about how "the white man is responsible for all ills in this world from 1492, to today".

I was reading one of my elementary school history books, that my youngest daughter used, and was surprised at how many things that were important when I was in school (60's and 70's) was pretty much given hardly any mention.

And, what's the old line about, "The victors write the history"?



If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Tristarenvy,

What do you consider dangerous?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Quoting Tristarenvy (Reply 3):
"the white man is responsible for all ills in this world from 1492, to today".

OK I'll let you (TriStarEnvy) off the hook.  Silly

Quoting Tristarenvy (Reply 3):
I was reading one of my elementary school history books, that my youngest daughter used, and was surprised at how many things that were important when I was in school (60's and 70's) was pretty much given hardly any mention.

And, what's the old line about, "The victors write the history"?

That is very scary!
That also explains a lot of the ignorance by some of the younger neocons here at this site. I don't even think they are aware of the Great Depression and what caused it, Prohibition, Child labor exploitation, Japanese internment camps, the Civil Rights Movement or even Vietnam.
Are the schools still teaching this?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
That is very scary!
That also explains a lot of the ignorance by some of the younger neocons here at this site. I don't even think they are aware of the Great Depression and what caused it, Prohibition, Child labor exploitation, Japanese internment camps, the Civil Rights Movement or even Vietnam.
Are the schools still teaching this?

Do you think it is only "neocons" that have this ignorance of history?
Isn't it just barely possible that a few "bed wetting liberals" might also?

Or is it really so simple? Conservative equals bad?



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineKiwiNanday From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

I've been forced to teach myself about Vietnam, and the Internment Camps.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
That also explains a lot of the ignorance by some of the younger neocons here at this site. I don't even think they are aware of the Great Depression and what caused it, Prohibition, Child labor exploitation, Japanese internment camps, the Civil Rights Movement or even Vietnam.

Don't get political, Superfly. Liberals show every level of ignorance that conservatives do.

Revisionist history is applying todays values, and sometimes current political correctness, to events that happened in the past or the personalities that inhabitted them. Here are some examples.

Thomas Jefferson has been considered one of the key founding fathers of the U.S. for the past 200+ years. His writings have been the subject of great study, and they have stood the test of time very well. Today, revisionists try to paint Jefferson as an evil man, because he owned slaves. They don't care that, 200 years ago, there was nothing considered "wrong" about it and it was perfectly acceptable in polite society.

Another example. There are numerous old and books that have been pursued for political incorrectness. Examples include Mark Twain books like Huckleberry Finn, and movies like Gone With The Wind and Song Of The South. People are desperately trying to get these movies banned.

I feel that ANY attempt to keep people from seeing or reading anything because it is politically incorrect (the PC crowd will say they are harmful) a form of indoctrination, and is no different whatsoever from the Nazi book-burning campaigns, when they eliminated any books that did not agree with their philosophy.

I think many books like Das Kapital, Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are full of crap. But I think everyone should read them (I have) in order to better understand what some people believe, and how to fight them, if needed.

Charles


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 6):
Isn't it just barely possible that a few "bed wetting liberals" might also?

Very true. However those that don't get infected with right-wing ideology simply aren't political at all.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 6):
Or is it really so simple? Conservative equals bad?

YEP! Big grin



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
Great Depression and what caused it, Prohibition, Child labor exploitation.

I don't know who you know that doesn't/hasn't learned this in school, but I'm embarrased for them. I'll go 99% with you on the internment camps as I know for a fact I learned about them AFTER my grade school education. It's still shocking to think that kind of information is being discarded in favor of something truly moronic like just about any ruler between 100 and 1700 AD. I know I was taught about a few, but they are SO usless to me I can't think of a one. The only reason knowing about the likes of Napoleon for someone in this day in age is so they get 1/2 the jokes when their parent's make them watch "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" on VHS. What relevancy does Napoleoninc code have in this day and age??


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Quoting Tristarenvy (Reply 3):
"the white man is responsible for all ills in this world from 1492, to today".

"real" history shows there is a pretty good argument for that, but not specifically white men but European men.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 10):
I'll go 99% with you on the internment camps as I know for a fact I learned about them AFTER my grade school education.

I learned about it going to school here in California because we have a large Asian population and many were affected. When I was in 8th. grade (1986), one of our counselors gave a very touching speech about her experience in one of those internment camps as a child. This was not in our U.S. history text books.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

Example: when the Enola Gay was displayed at the Smithsonian, some people wanted to put in the display an explaination of how the United States was to blame for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. What that does is to somehow make what the Enola Gay and it's crew did to end the war just an extension of America, the aggressor. The truth is that Japan had started it's expansion in Asia a full decade before the war with the U.S., and Japan didn't want the U.S. to interfer with it's plans.

That's revisionist history: rewriting history to put forth a point of view not based on historical fact, but on personal vendetta or jealousies.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Answer to the Threat Title Question:

Please see all posts by B744F . . .

.

.

.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
one of our counselors gave a very touching speech about her experience in one of those internment camps as a child.

Although it did appear in my text books, the best way to learn is via experience - failing that, face to face narrative from someone that is trusted and has walked the walk . . .

My first Grandmother-In-Law (RIP) owned a small Gift Shop in the Upstate New York town of Lake George. She lived modestly in an upstairs apartment. On my first visit to Lake George with my new wife (RIP) we did the usual gabbing, and then of course we looked through photo albums.

A couple of interesting pictures grabbed my attention in that they appeared to be Mug Shots. In fact they were, of Mr and Mrs "George" Kurosaka when they were interned during WW2. Mrs. K (Mikiko) - George had long passed away - spent quite a bit of time talking about the internment camp and how it affected her family - to include my new Father-In-Law, George Jr, a respected New York Industrial Engineer (who was the certifying Engineer for the design and construction of I-81 from Albany to the Canadian Border).

It's interesting to hear stories like that - and I'll grant you, it will never appear in the history books in that type of detail.


User currently offlineSRQCrosscheck From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):

Thomas Jefferson has been considered one of the key founding fathers of the U.S. for the past 200+ years. His writings have been the subject of great study, and they have stood the test of time very well. Today, revisionists try to paint Jefferson as an evil man, because he owned slaves. They don't care that, 200 years ago, there was nothing considered "wrong" about it and it was perfectly acceptable in polite society.

Hmmm..... clearly, he only thought that "all men were created equal" related to whites. HE OWNED PEOPLE, man. Ignoring that race has been the MOST IMPORTANT theme of American history is revisionist history, buddy.

No, and there were people who thought slavery was wrong. Slavery was an issue from the beginning of this nation's colonization and from the 1788 when the constitution was signed. John Adams, for example, hated the idea that slavery was allowed under the constitution. Slavery almost tore the Constitutional Convention apart. We have James Madison's diaries to thank for our understanding of how the Constitution was written; they are EXCELLENT primary sources.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Another example. There are numerous old and books that have been pursued for political incorrectness. Examples include Mark Twain books like Huckleberry Finn, and movies like Gone With The Wind and Song Of The South. People are desperately trying to get these movies banned.



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Gone With The Wind

People hate gone with the Wind because it tried to delegitimize Republican Reconstruction in the South and portrayed slaves as happy to be owned by whites.

Every American should read Lies My History Teacher Told Me by a history and sociology professor at University of Vermont. It's a very eye-opening look at how history textbooks in high school omit huge themes in American history, particularly dealing with race in America (think the Indians, Slavery, causes for the Civil War, Reconstruction, the racism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries) but also on the problems of the recent past (Vietnam and the civil rights movement of the 60s).

Largely publishers don't want to offend so they omit details about race relations and Abe Lincoln that would offend the South, details about Indian relations that would offend whites, and discussion of the civil rights movements that would offend extreme conservatives. So basically, there is an enormous gap in what College students understand about american history (they get the real deal) and what high school students understand about american history.

So basically, revisionist history is when publishers censor material from text books that would offend, or would provoke thought in high school minds. Meanwhile, college students get a better look at history by examining primary sources.

Of course, history is open to interpretation, but high school text books leave out primary sources, so there can be no other interpretation of history other than what's in censored textbooks.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14):
explaination of how the United States was to blame for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Well, the steel used to build the kamikaze planes was bought from American scrap heaps and used to fuel the Japanese militarization of the 1930s. The U.S. isn't to blame for Pearl Harbor, but it's interesting to know who financed it.

[Edited 2005-08-04 06:41:27]

User currently offlineTriStarEnvy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
What do you consider dangerous?

Good question. Perhaps my use of "dangerous" was for lack of a better word at that moment. I think going back to re-configure history "dangerous" because the folks who were involved, in many cases, cannot confirm or deny the "re-writing" of history. However, when history i.e. The Holocaust, is SO obvious, and yet there are people that try and tell you "it never happened", I get concerned that it will get watered down, and reduced to a one line entry in some future history book.

Quoting B744F (Reply 11):
"real" history shows there is a pretty good argument for that, but not specifically white men but European men.

Yes, agreed.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
Are the schools still teaching this?

Not much. The Civil Rights moment gets some play. When my eldest was in 2nd grade, she out of the blue, asked me why Rev. King's wife didn't want to "sit in the back of the bus". I realized she'd confused Rosa Parks with Coretta Scott King, and gently corrected her. Now, I was amazed she even KNEW about any of this. So, some of it was being taught. Her teacher had handouts about the civil rights movement, that I found interesting!



If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13794 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 10):
What relevancy does Napoleoninc code have in this day and age??

The Code Napoleon forms the base of legislation in many continental European countries, just like medieval British common law forms the base of legislation in many English speaking countries.

Jan


User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14):
That's revisionist history: rewriting history to put forth a point of view not based on historical fact, but on personal vendetta or jealousies.

Falcon, we have to stop agreeing so much..

It is like the popularly accepted story of Texas independence is largely revisionist, because it is written by the victors. It talks about how oppressive the Mexicans were, and how they were so wrong for collecting taxes on the Texas residents.

The short form of the real story of Texas independence is a bunch of east coast outcasts going to war with a nation (which they were living in) because they could not seem to follow their laws and did not want to or were not able to pay the taxes for living there. That is a very abbreviated version. In reality the Mexicans were probably more in the right at first than they are given credit for.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13794 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

AFAIK, one of the reasons why the Anglos rebelled in Texas was that, after Mexico became independent from Spain, they introduced a, for this time really progressive, constitution, which banned slavery. On the other hand many American settlers in Texas wanted to build up a slave economy based on cotton plantations, similar to the neighbouring south eastern US states.

Jan


User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3312 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
So what is thie "Revisionist History"?
I've only seen this term used when an opinion on a historical even differs from that of one's own.
I've only seen this when one disagrees with somebody elses opinion.

Correct Tbar.
Anyone departing from the "official line" can be labelled a revisionist.
This emanates of course from people whom are satisfied with the (usually) official version and whom will not indulge in looking beyond the curtains.

They will also use the expression "with hindsight" repetively, implying that history was played, written and fully understood on the same day the historical event took place.

Basically it bothers them that someone would question any of the things they have categorized long ago as "the fundamentals".
Even uncontestable evidence will be rejected by some.

Historians by trade are revisionists, they do study particular events or periods in the light of every material available, sometimes with the help of up-to-date technology, and often will come with a "most likely scenario" which differs
from what has been known and learned so far.
They will publish their findings and some will go public.
From thereon, there is a possibility that history schoolbooks will be modified, but it will take at least one generation.

We all know that our history schoolbooks are not the truth on paper, they are only the reflect of our (the good and official) side of history.
After reading the last page, the young reader must feel very proud to be a member of that particular community. May we agree this is the main purpose ?


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Boeing4ever:
Do you know how to read?
Why did you bother to bring up Gary, Indiana when I specifically stated "I learned about it going to school here in California ...."?

[Edited 2005-08-04 17:49:37]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting SRQCrosscheck (Reply 16):
Hmmm..... clearly, he only thought that "all men were created equal" related to whites.

As did just about anyone in the western world, SRQ. What's your point? It's no justification for slavery, but back then, it WAS acceptable. That doesn't make Jefferson a bad man, because from all accounts he didn't mistreat them. It does make him, ACCORDING TO TODAY'S STANDARDS, wrong in his belief.

But it doesn't make him evil, or any less of an innovator or pioneer in the field of human liberty. His ideas have had staying power, and now protect the ancestors of those slaves he held. I think he'd be damn proud of that fact.

Quoting SRQCrosscheck (Reply 16):
No, and there were people who thought slavery was wrong.

Of course there were, and, eventually, they won out. It certainly doesn't make the other guy evil. Some slave owners were evil, of that there is no doubt, but many weren't.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Tristarenvy,

I agree that your example of the holocaust, its denial is dangerous. When such clearly obvious historical fact is denied or twisted around so that the lesson that should be learned from it isn't, that is dangerous. Holocaust deniers are dangerous because they avoid the lesson learned from it, and that makes it just that much easier for genocide to happen again.

But what about people who hold different opinions on, for example, the use of atomic weapons in WWII? There are different analysis of their use in Japan, whether or not they were justified, etc. Are these dangerous?

This is the way I see it. In most historical events where people aren't denying what happened, but rather why something happened, that is where I abhor the label "revisionism". Rather, I consider it perfectly acceptable and responsible historical debate to analyze historical events, to try and reason about them and even dig deeper for further facts and truths. History is and should constantly be under debate and different opinions and analysis.

I.E. It is perfectly responisble and acceptable for historians (anybody really) to discuss the reasons behind the Holocaust, why it happened, what could have been done to stop it, what other nations did right/wrong, etc. etc. Analysis is key to understanding the past and better understanding the lessons that history teaches us. What is not responsible, and even "dangerous" as you put it, is denying that the Holocaust happened. But what I consider even more dangerous than this kind of ignorance is branding ones opinions and beliefs about a historical event "fact", and ignoring all other opinions calling them "revisionist history".

I hope that made some sense.

[edit]

On another note, you have to remember that it is the winners that write history. Had the German Nazis won WWII, they would have written that the Holocause was justified and that the Jews were out to get them, etc. etc. The Allies won WWII, and we now understand the holocaust as we do today.

[Edited 2005-08-04 18:22:51]

[Edited 2005-08-04 18:23:11]


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4264 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting Captoveur (Reply 19):
It is like the popularly accepted story of Texas independence is largely revisionist, because it is written by the victors. It talks about how oppressive the Mexicans were, and how they were so wrong for collecting taxes on the Texas residents.

The short form of the real story of Texas independence is a bunch of east coast outcasts going to war with a nation (which they were living in) because they could not seem to follow their laws and did not want to or were not able to pay the taxes for living there. That is a very abbreviated version. In reality the Mexicans were probably more in the right at first than they are given credit for.

Pretty much correct. Texas had lower tax rates and less restrictive laws than any other state of Mexico; the majority of settlers in Texas just did not feel like giving the Mexican government any money whatsoever. The textbooks here in Texas, at least when I was in school (and I highly doubt it has become better since then), portray the war for Texas Independence as a just war against an oppressive regime bent on ruining the way of life Texans had always known. Nevermind that white Texans hadn't existed until less than 30 years prior. The settlers basically picked a fight with the Mexican government and tried, successfully as it would prove later, to have the US back them and enter the war on their side. Originally they only wanted the land to the Nueces River, but eventually hammered it out to the Rio Grande, all the way up the Front Range of the Rockies to include the Denver and Cheyenne areas.

The textbook authors (and thus the State Leg.) are great examples of revisionist historians.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):
AFAIK, one of the reasons why the Anglos rebelled in Texas was that, after Mexico became independent from Spain, they introduced a, for this time really progressive, constitution, which banned slavery. On the other hand many American settlers in Texas wanted to build up a slave economy based on cotton plantations, similar to the neighbouring south eastern US states.

Partially true. Mexico did institute a ban on slavery, however it only stayed in place for a short time. Texans were so up in arms about it that the government backed down and simply said that Mexicans could not be slaves, while frequently turning a blind eye even when that occured. The white settlers' main complaint was that Texas was 1) being ruled from an area outside of Texas (the state capital for the Mexican state was in present day Mexico); and 2) being ruled by someone other than a white male. And that is what it boils down to.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
25 Post contains images Boeing4ever : My bad! Then again, California isn't much of an improvement over poor little Gary Indiana. B4e-Forever New Frontiers
26 Post contains images Superfly : WHAT?!?!?!
27 Post contains images Boeing4ever : I knew you'd say that.    Relax man, relax. I'm in a good mood today some I'm kinda yankin' people's chains. I just lit off some fireworks today.
28 CaptOveur : And the revisionist historians down here refuse to admit that people the state puts on a pedestal like dieties were flaming racists. They also refuse
29 Post contains images Superfly : I bet it smells really bad in your room now! I'll send him anywhare. I just want him out of Sacramento!
30 Tristarenvy : Very much so. On a side note: When my dad and I went to the UK, we went to the Imperial War Museum, and spent a lot of time there. What I thought fun
31 Post contains images Boeing4ever : In my room! Dear me! I'm a product of the fine Lake Zurich School District Education system. The fireworks (little piss-ant M-1000s) were detonated o
32 SRQCrosscheck : I know we basically agree, Falcon, and that I'm about to argue semantics with you, but I feel the following needs to be said: My point is that not ev
33 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Lake Zurich=Grayslake=Round Lake=Barrington=McHenry . . . . I know the area . . .
34 B744F : Go right ahead, you will find none of it. What you will find is history not the way you were taught in school. And your lack of comprehension and com
35 ANCFlyer : What I see NONE OF is your ability to post a source URL for anything you throw up here . . . . And I echo TedTs commentary about your thread in Mil/S
36 B744F : Everyones told me their opinion which does not go along with what the officials stated happened
37 Iakobos : B744F, I plead guilty for daring giving an advice to a 76-85 year old, but since I am not that far away I will throw myself in... There is nothing wro
38 TedTAce : By the way MD-90, welcome back. Happy banning... AGAIN!!
39 Cfalk : If he's any older than 14 (mental age, anyway), then I am the King of Siam.
40 TedTAce : Hello King, I think you forgot that senility makes you think young/foolish again...
41 B744F : I back up what I need to back up, everything else people are free to go look themselves. I don't need to be everyones teacher and babysitter, just be
42 TedTAce : In my 36 years of experience....Those who have things to hide are liars..The truth DOES set you free.
43 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Ooooo, them's fightin' words... B4e-Forever New Frontiers
44 B744F : It has nothing to do with hiding and everything to do with how people reacted to the correct age that I put and what insults I received for it. Even
45 Tbar220 : What in the world has this thread degenerated into?
46 TedTAce : Deflection.. I said nothing about your age...so obviously your arguments about anything hold no water, no matter how young or senile you might be. It
47 B744F : I said how people, not you directly. That wasn't a deflection, that was my reason for not giving out my age.
48 TedTAce : Then why did you quote me??? I think your a liar about everything, your age is inconsequential...
49 B744F : As I've said to many people who feel the need to throw baseless insults, go right ahead and pick any thread that I've posted and prove me wrong.
50 Pacificjourney : Congrats to Iakobos for being the only person to actually answer the question and to do so clearly. It's frightening how many people on here truly bel
51 TedTAce : "Resistance is futile" Cite your sources!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is "Rhaa"? posted Mon Mar 14 2005 13:24:20 by Cory6188
What Is "Nu-Metal"? posted Sun Jul 25 2004 01:26:57 by Lehpron
What Is A "redneck"? posted Fri Jul 9 2004 18:11:34 by Regis
What Is "Chungking Mansion"? posted Tue Apr 20 2004 23:37:09 by Stratofish
What Is A "neo-conservative," Anyway? posted Wed Mar 3 2004 19:24:00 by EA CO AS
What Is "Wi-Fi"? posted Wed Jul 16 2003 17:51:17 by Lehpron
What Is "normal" posted Thu Jul 25 2002 22:56:49 by David B.
What Is "America"? posted Thu Jan 31 2002 23:19:51 by Toady
What Is "Parklife"? posted Thu Nov 22 2001 20:19:31 by Lubcha132
What Is "Bjork"? posted Fri Oct 19 2001 03:00:04 by Lubcha132