SickthingsUK

A_MichaelUK wrote:>Could you be remembering it wrong though?

No.

Oh of course not

think it's nearer to the truth than it is to fiction but I think it is very distorted, exagerrated and concentrates less on that which was positive and more on the negative issues that existed. That's the difference between you (and others on this forum) and I in that I understand subtlety and the many tiny variations that exist in any given situation, whereas you only see things in a very blinkered 'all or nothing' and 'black or white' way.

You can't be serious with that statement??? I've been saying all along in all my posts that one needs to take what they read and sort out the truth from the fiction, it's not very hard to cross reference to come to a knowledgable conclusion...But all I get from you is "how do you know" "where you there" blah blah blah...why is it that your the only one who can "understand subtlety and the many tiny variations that exist in any given situation" and no one else can????

>Oh of course not

That's right. I read the book again just recently and Si's post was pretty accurate. Is there a problem?

>But all I get from you is "how do you know" "where you there" blah blah blah...why is it that your the only one who can "understand subtlety and the many tiny variations that exist in any given situation" and no one else can????

Because you have never been able to provide sources for what you believe. It's pretty simple. If you don't provide sources, we don't known what they are and if we don't know what they are we don't know if they're credible and if we don't know if they're credible, we can't be sure that you're credible.