: : Do you always have problems following a conversation. Just up the page I was giving a historical narrative of ancient tribal behavior and evolution. You took this, jumped in and accused me of supporting the Holocaust. Nowhere did this even bear any resemblance to any part of the conversation.: I see. So conversations only mean what Joel Jacobson wants them to mean, and one is required to research their Jacobson-given meanings before intervening, without the aid of references (Jacobson doesn't provide any). I figured as much.
This is ridiculous. I give specific historical constext to something utilized Red's "socially constructed" words and you accuse me of conversation, maybe? This is completely intellectually dishonest as should be obvious even in the last two paragraphs. People start conversations in order to communicate. This is what I did. If you don't like the subject don't join the conversation, but don't launch off in some bizzare direction with no pertinence to the current strain.
But hey, if ya can't outthink em change the subject, right.
