As Christianity wanes, immoral behavior increases

There I admit a mistake. I mistook your for someone else. My Bad.

......

See how easy that it is?.. realise you make a mistake and retracting is not difficult.

 

What do you imagine the "desired effect" was? A few blankets keeping an entire tribe warm?

 

I accept your apology to me, but you would owe one to anyone you directed that post to, filled with sweeping generalizations and caricature.

 

Brucebeat.

Once you either post or the relevant piece from the article you quoted OR retract then I will be happy to answer anything you like. Your dodging just makes you look foolish.

 

I know that is where I learned of it, but I can't find it right now, so for now I will retract so you can stop dodging and engage in the discussion.

 

But for a fundy it is impossible

 

I am not dodging merely holding you to account.UNLIKE you I will not be playing games and I back up my statements or retract because it it what any honest debater does.

Ok you asked about two things

1) Concerning genocide and Andrew Jackson.

I despise Jackson as the worst president even though otherwise he was a good Jeffersonian and that is because of his genocide of the Cherokee in particular and native Americans in general. This , in no way, demosntartes that the USA used infected blankets as Ward Chruchjill insists

2)

In response to my saying

You asked

Which is a complete non sequiter to my question which was directed at Margot and was about the reliability of the passage.

 

You didn't say the quote wasn't reliable, you said it was misleading. My question was asking you what was misleading about "the desired effect".
So now it becomes "unreliable"? Based on what?
Considering our agreement about Jackson, why would the blanket story surprise you?
I have never read Churchill and there are other sources to find this story. Seems perfectly in keeping with Jackson's modus operandi.

 

1) Where did I say it was misleading about the desired effect? I said it was misleading. It is a terribly written piece which doesn't even reflect basic facts. So let me ask you. When you read the piece which fort does it say the blanket incident happened at?


2) Which blanket story? What has it got to do with Jackson?

 

1) once again, is it misleading or unreliable. You are avoiding the question. Your fort question is a diversion. Does that really work on people?

 

Here's the condensed version: http://www.ask.com/wiki/1837_Great_...2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

 

Sorry.
Not what I was looking for.
Thanks though.

 

It is misleading and unreliable. Both

My Fort question is pefectly relevant to the misleading ,unreliable nature of the piece. Once again you refuse to answer. You also refused to answer the second question.

I answer every question you ask and you constantly refuse to answer back.

So Please answer

1) In Which fort does the piece say the blanket incident happened

2) What Andrew Jackson has to do with this incident.

Now lets whatch you sing and dance so as NOT to answer the questions.

 

1) no idea. Why does this make the quote unreliable or misleading? It simply doesn't provide a detail you want.
2) I brought up Jackson simply to say that in the climate of the times, why is this so difficult to believe?

Happy?
So will you answer now? Why is it misleading? Because it doesn't address the fort? How does that make it misleading? If I talk about my car but don't tell you it's red am I trying to trick you? Do the things I do tell you about my car then become unreliable?
I saw the way you went into attack dog mode when you thought I was a Christian which was quite sad. Back off the snarkiness please. I'm neither intimidated by it nor impressed. It just makes you sound rude.
I will always answer, but maybe not at the speed you like.

 

No Idea? Look again at what the piece says.

here is whatMargot posted

You really can't tell from the passage above which fort is being talked about?

So Jackson is guilty of Giving infected blankets to indians because he is know to have encouraged the killing of Indians and before he was born some people from Switzerland actually talked about and or used such tactics and because they did it then he must have done it even though there is no evidence whatsoever that he did

 

I simply don't understand your fixation on the fort. Why is this so important to you? I don't understand.

So now you are saying it did happen?
I mention Jackson simply because he was a product of a consistent attitude toward the natives since Columbus.

 

So you refuse to answer the question about the fort. Its inmportanmt since it points to fundemntally bad history.

So you have no evidence whatsoever that Jackson used blankets as a form of warfare BUT you think he is guilty all the same because he is the 'sort of person who would do such a thing

 

I already answered both of these.
Take a deep breath and help me understand what you are saying about the fort.
Who knows? If you settle down and explain why the fort indicates bad history, I may just learn something and agree with you.
Your posts instead are simply teaching me something about you.

 

You didn't answer anything of the sort. You refused to answer about the fort and now you are making patronising comments.

You clearly have an intellect - I have seen it on other threads but you are willfully being obstructive telling me you answered my quuestion about the fort when you haven't

Had you not made the patronising insults then i would have been happy to explain it to you, But given your earlier dishonesty I really don' see the point.

Not for a moment do I beleive that you are incapable of reading the passage and answering a simple question that needs only the name of the fort as an answer.

Because I know you to obfuscate I will not tell you why it is important until you answer.

 

Ok.
Seeya

 

Bye then.