« International Callers Beware | Main | Medienkritik's ZDF Poll Action Proves Thought-Provoking »

Comments

"I do not seek to insult Europeans, but their sheer misunderstanding about American pride is very ignorant of Europeans in general."

Some of the Americans here need to stop poncing on about other people understanding their pride and do their best to increase their own understanding of the facts of world history. I repeat the point: when America was attacked, Britain immediately made common cause with it, despite this putting us in greater immediate danger. I think it was right, partly because the long-term danger increases in proportion to the amount we try to to pretend it's just America's problem in the short run. When Britain was fighting off the Luftwaffe we did it pretty much alone, and had we succumbed, so would Russia and so, eventually America.

What I find tedious is that some of you are presenting strawman arguments to the effect that the Europeans on the board are insulting your 'honor' and dismissing America's contribution to WW2. Just because we disagree with the assumption shown early on in this thread that we should all be kissing your feet for 'saving us' and wish to point out that we pulled more than our weight in fighting the Nazis long before the US did, you then act wounded.

My definition of 'honour' would include not provoking others by boorish and ignorant boastful behaviour and then having a strop when they both point out factual flaws in your claims and dare to suggest that America's motives in WW2 were no more pure than any other ally, which is still to say a hell of a lot more pure than the Axis. I say that as someone who cherishes America and those Americans who fought in WW2.

"You should clarify that "we" in "we've stayed resolutely alongside the USA" does not mean "a majority of Brits". The latter was against going to war."

Wrong. Where do you get your facts on this? A large minority was in favour of the war and a slightly less large minority was against. a number were undecided. Support for the war has fluctuated since. I know this because I live in Britain and read the newspapers. The 'majority' is merely a very vocal minority.

You need to be careful not to see Brits either as die-hard Blairist-Bushites (I'm a leftie who supported the Iraq War, but didn't vote for Blair) or bug-eyed communists. It's more complex than that. So I don't have to clarify such a thing as you claim, because it's not true, much as those here who were anti-war, and those across the Atlantic of a Mel Gibson-esque tendency might like it to be. That being the case, it's up to you to revise your opinion, if you can, rather than implying I'm not telling the truth about my own country. Capeesh?

Regards
Robert

"You know, it does not really fit the content of a person who's pretending to get the "facts" into the discussion."

Fine. I myself take exception to being told by someone from another country about public opinion in my own country. You are misrepresenting my fellow Britons and our attitudes, suggesting we mostly couldn't give a damn about our allies. See why that might annoy me? Suspect that someone who lives here might know a bit more about it that than you?

I'm not 'pretending' anything. I'm sitting in Edinburgh typing this. Now what's your claim to superior knowledge about public opinion in my country? Do tell.

Regards, Robert.

Robert,

For what it's worth most Americans do cherish articulate and generally fair-minded support from Britons like yourself, which is why Tony Blair is so wildly popular in the US.

What hurts however is the growing impression that most of your elite, particularly the chattering classes but also the political class, would rather trade in tedious stereotypes that have little relevance to today's reality, either domestic US (the "Texan" stereotype) or international. The impression one gets from the Beeb's news selection, Channel 4 hatefests, Guardian stories about "heroic Mehdi fighters" feeding US soldiers' body parts to their dogs (see yesterday's GU), etc is of a nation that, increasingly, is not a friend.

The danger here is that most Americans-- especially that nascent majority of Americans of non-European origin-- will increasingly tune out Britain and re-focus this nation's attention and resources toward Asia. I don't really have a good solution to this, but I salute you for fighting the good fight. I just wish more of your compatriots would do the same.

best,
lex

PS - re Texas, I moved here recently from California and have found this area to have almost as many high tech companies, and far more telecommunications and aerospace engineers, than California. Also has more strip clubs (though slightly fewer gays) per capita. I think the stereotype needs a little updating.

Robert,

I have read your post that you directed to me three times. Frankly I am a bit confused. I believe your remarks are being made to comments that are not mine. Please realize there is more than one Joe here.

I think if you go back and read my posts you will see that I have nothing but the greatest respect for those European nations which are helping the US. I respect their people and their leaders. I have tried to insure my posts reflect this.

If you go back and check you will find I even made a comment that Americans here at times paint with a too broad a brush. They should not confuse those nations allied with the US with those of the franco-German pact.

As for the study of history, I am well aware of the efforts of the Royal Navy in the Atlantic and their many victories over the u boats and the contribution this made to defeating Germany.

I truly take issue with your comment about my understanding of history.

As an aside, I have 3 very close and dear British officers currently serving in Iraq. Our friendship spans now more than a decade. I have nothing but admiration for them and the men they lead.

Lex,

Thanks for your reply. We have to remmebr that the media in any country tends to bring the worst to the surface, and renders complexities inane. It's not even as if all their readers agree with them or that they constitute a majority of people in the country. I read the independent and don't agree with it at all over Iraq. So do a few of its writers and a number of its readers.

I sympathise over the annoyance about stereotyping of Americans. In the past few years I've actually become more pro-American, while others I know have passed me in the opposite direction. I think things are pretty polarised here at the moment, but I wanted to correct the impression that the 'antis' form a majority. They most certainly do not, though they are vocal and well-connected. It's just that to me their arguments are simplistic and self-deceiving. I think this will sink in eventually.

Most British people are pro-American at one or more levels but don;t get heard. I'm not a fan of George Bush by any stretch but I think America is getting it in the neck where it doesn't deserve it. It's not even a simple split between left and right here, and not all of those against the Iraq war were against Afghanistan or are against the WOT. It suits some people to talk about 'the majority of British people' being against the war and agianst America etc when the fact just do not support them. It's wishful thinking.

The hoo-ha over troops in Germany illustrates perfectly the idiocy of trying simultaneously to expect the US to police the world and also to mind its own business and not police the world. But that's largely continental Europeans, and even there you would be surprised by the large amount of people who are pro-American but do not get much coverage.

So all I'd say to you is, don't take these signs as accurate indicators of public opinion, they are very distorted. Finding a balance between insensitivity and oversentivity is what's needed. You are quite right, it's highly annoying. as for the turning away from Europe, I can't really argue against that. It's understandable, of course, even if I'm against it. Anyway, be assured that there are plenty here who are broadly (and pretty deeply) on your side, despite the occasional fractiousness.

All best.
Robert.

Hi Lex (?)

I think I may well have been replying to the wrong poster, so if that's the case I apologise without reservation. I'm afraid I hadn't quite yet worked out whose name is on various posts. Non-existent German doesn't help. I'll get the hang of it. Meantime, please bear with me.

Regards,
Robert.

Robert,

Having read your last couple of posts, I am now SURE your comments were not directed at me or anything that I have said.

I am one who tends to see most of the British people the same way I see most Americans in that most of them do not voice an opinion. It is more of the extremes and the chatting class. It is the same here.

As for Edinburgh, besides being one of the most interesting cities in the UK, it is also the place where I can say I made one of the 3 best investments in my life. My first trip there I walked from the train station to the castle. My second trip I invested in a taxi which at the time was less than a pound. On that day, I won friends and influnced people.......LOL

Robert,

There are at least 3 Joe's here.

One is JoeN........that is pretty easy.

The other two of us are just plain Joe's. You can normally tell us apart in the I do not have a line under my name while the other Joe does.

I too am German language challenged. But the Kommentriert von.....is the key to who is making the comment. It only gets really tricky when there is no name at all.

Hi Joe,

Okay, thanks for the explanation, it makes sense now. Hope to come back here and chat again some time, it's an interesting site, and sorry for the mixup.

Robert.

Joe:

Old Europe today does not have the capablity and I question the will to protect itself from anyone who might attack it.

Well, defending against such attacks like those at 911 is indeed difficult, but there is no Muslim army that could have a hope to beat the German other European militaries, even at the reduced force levels.

Yes, but the can bleed you to death. Ask the Russins.

Lucklucky, you had it right about the US role in WWII. The US contribution of supplies to the USSR kept the Eastern Front going. We had about 10,000 merchant marine sailors killed, or about 5% of all those who served. Three quarters of them were lost in the North Atlantic, largely to U-boats. We were a net oil exporter before and during that war, and had a large and efficient steel industry.

Regarding the argument over late entry into the war, the US saw this as another European war at first. While our sympathies were with the French and British, there was also some support for Germany among our German-Americans, and the domestic Left opposed entering the war on the Allied side until Hitler betrayed his partner Stalin. The main reason for our late entry was our tradition of isolationism. It cannot be stressed enough that we do not at all consider ourselves junior Europeans. Europe is where we sometimes go for vacation, and a place our grandparents left as soon as they could. We are not aching to rejoin Europe, and regard international agencies with some suspicion. Left alone, we would just as soon stay home and mind our own business.

Robert, I think

"What I find tedious is that some of you are presenting strawman arguments to the effect that the Europeans on the board are insulting your 'honor' and dismissing America's contribution to WW2"

Not actually an argument if you get down to the bottom line. To argue for something would require a goal. Now if you disagree that Europeans need a better understanding of how Americans tick and what propels American leadership vs American popular sentiment, then you can have your argument.

I take into account that you thought I was someone else. As such, there's not much else to sayhere.

Americans will do everything to avoid a war, but once in a war, will most likely fight that war to the bitter end. In the end, after final victory, focusing so much attention on the fact that Americans didn't choose, but was somehow "forced like England and France" is not a good idea. Since, there is a very bad problem of people looking down on Americans from a high moral perch. That isn't very agreeable to most Americans. Americans are not used to people looking down on us, which is what focusing so much attention on the apparent flaws of the American foreign policy in WWII does. That is the only point I make, as such it has nothing to do with historical fact or not. Americans don't like being preached from people that have set themselves up on a high perch. That's just how it is.

This could be diminished if in addition to the point about Americans not going into war early, that it is also mentioned that Roosevelt was in the war in the beginning, and one reason why Hitler was quite frustrated with an England supplied by people he can't really reach without difficulty. To not mention the differences between the Americans of yesteryear, and the leaders of yesteryear, is to impose a very bad argument with even worse undertones.

Understanding is not simply reading facts from history, but in truly knowing what makes a people tick. Germans have gone through such a transformation that they are no longer historically recognizable. The same with Americans.The difference is that Americans have not bowed down to any power, it is the pride of a wise but still fit, elder of the tribe. A warrior, able to beat challengers back. A warrior that has been challenged and never beaten by foreign enemies.

America in WWII was a nation that discovered itself, its potentials, and its destinies.

"Just because we disagree with the assumption shown early on in this thread that we should all be kissing your feet for 'saving us' and wish to point out that we pulled more than our weight in fighting the Nazis long before the US did, you then act wounded."

I have nothing to do with the arguments put forth by anyone else. The simple, again, misunderstanding that anyone who opposes such rhetoric wants people to "bow down to the US" is the problem as I illustrated before. Perhaps it was exasperated by your misunderstanding of who wrote the post, but again, there is more to discuss about my issues than about historical issues.

The problem is that, in trying to argue your viewpoint, you totally ignore all the relevant facets of American psychology. In so doing, you not only weaken the truthfullness of your arguments, but you also make mistaken conclusions.

America does not want Europe to bow down, it has never wanted anyone to bow down. When unconditional surrender is given, mercy and compassion will follow, not before.

Americans do not look upon Europeans as inferiors or superiors, but as equals in a sense. France and Germany, though, do not count really as such a relationship must be mutual. Americans cannot respect, subconsciously, a nation that isn't willing to sacrifice blood and money to protect themselves. This is just how it is. THe problem occurs when you or others like you, begin to lecture from a mistaken premise that we want people to bow down, that Americans aren't as perfect as we think of ourselves as.

The truth is, there is no nation on the face of the Earth that may make such a declaration without backing it up with might and thunder. It isn't just about what Americans did in the past, but what Americans have done in the present as well. In today's world, Americans have done far more than their population would have allowed for by perhaps even Churchill's most optimistic calculation.

So. When a nation or a person, wants to critique America's faults. They are welcome to do so. So long as they are willing to pull the weight today. The problem, is that nations like that, simply do not exist in abundance. Australia perhaps, Israel certainly, and perhaps Britain's great hybrid leader, Blair. Just as a wise and old warrior welcomes criticisms of his past record, if a challenger proves that he is skilled and powerful enough to contest with the elder warrior.

Americans have two instincts. Truth manifested in science and pragmatism, and honor. Once a word is given and kept, any questioning of prior mishaps is an insult to that honor. It is an insult that says you doubt we will keep our word in the future or that we have kept it in the present. For instances where we have broken our word, Iraq, criticisms are accepted. When an honor bound oath is taken to secure Iraq to make up for such broken promises, criticisms of past behavior, especially untrue ones about selling biological weapons to Saddam, deeply insults American honor.

I do not declare that this exists in every person in every city in America. But the presence is felt deep enough that any President that breaks his word by feat of the power given to him by Americans, usually do not serve out another term. George HW Bush broke his word on taxes and his word to Iraqis. But Americans do not shove the blame solely on him, we say "We broke our word". Even if we had nothing whatsoever to do with it, we were Americans.

That is an honor code that has had a great part in this nation's history. It is the reason why America would have won alone against Nazi Germany. It might have taken as long as the Cold War, and it might have destroyed America's very soul and optimism, but like the British, we would never have surrendered. That very will to win, guarantees victory or final defeat.


"When Britain was fighting off the Luftwaffe we did it pretty much alone, and had we succumbed, so would Russia and so, eventually America."
Now to get to the historical details. One of the reasons why Britain was under siege was because France surrendered without much of a fight. That left a gaping hole in Britain's defenses. Partially due to Hitler's incompetence in military and political matters, Britain won the air war and Russia joined the Allies.

Now, if Britain had failed and got defeated, it would primarily be because of lack of preparation (Dunkirt wasn't the most well planned withdraw) and strategic disadvantage.

Depending on when Britain failed, America would have had a very good chance to win the war. Although depending upon some variables, there might not be a Europe worth caring about at the end.

Depending on if Einstein would be able to build the A-bomb or not, Germany would be at a serious disadvantage. Because primarily, Germany had a really bad shortage of workers. The population of America, given time to covert to a war economy, would eventually outclass and out range the Nazi war machine. Especially given that Hitler started the war prematurely before he had sufficient stockpiles of weapons and equipment (U-Boats).

Again, I must note the deeply flawed premises upon which such arguments are made. To make the argument that Britain held out, and if had not, America too would have been defeated, is to preach from a moral high ground that Britain does not have and will not have.

To not give the respect to the Americans by even surmising that they would hold out as long as the British did, and would eventually triumph in the end like the British without even mentioning the American and Canadian aid to the British, is problematic at the very least.

The fact of the matter, regardless of speculation of "what if", is that Britain did hold out. Because Britain had at the time a great leader that inspired a resolute will for "Britain's finest hour". They held out. So would Americans if they had to. That is the honor and respect due to equals, and not to subjugated aristocratic class systems.

"Some of the Americans here need to stop poncing on about other people understanding their pride and do their best to increase their own understanding of the facts of world history."

American honor has absolutely nothing to do with history and everything to do with history.

Again, an subconscious mistaken premise that Americans are ignorant of history and too full of pride, producing a very great insult to American honor. Such damages are felt throughout the trans-Atlantic relationship. Americans know at heart that have much to learn, but they do not think Europe's snobbishness is one of those things. To simply call into effect America's disfavor with wanting to learn such things as being "ignorant of history" simply reinforces such matters.

I, personally, do not want to learn of any culture that is so in step with itself, and no others, that it would ignore a very basic fact that it understands next to nothing about American culture and honor. Respect and wanting to learn is a mutual cultural diffusion, not a one sided idiot stick that can be used to beat humility into the Americans.

If you are willing to set aside your first impressions of American pride, you can learn much of how this side of the Altantic views things. Culture and knowledge, does not only come from the mouth of European gods and godesses, you know.

"My definition of 'honour' would include not provoking others by boorish and ignorant boastful behaviour and then having a strop when they both point out factual flaws in your claims and dare to suggest that America's motives in WW2 were no more pure than any other ally, which is still to say a hell of a lot more pure than the Axis. I say that as someone who cherishes America and those Americans who fought in WW2."

I never disputed that Americans wanted to save themselves as the prime cause of going to war. I never did you know. What I did dispute was that Roosevelt, our President, was for Europe all along. As such, a dishonorable act (isolationism) was made more than good by an honorable act (winning WWII and Reconstruction of Europe).

To better understand it in present terms. Americans like to talk about freeing Iraqis. This might make people think that Americans think we went to Iraq solely to free Iraqis and then start japping about how we left them to rot so and so ago. When they do that, it is a grave insult because they said such things based upon a grave misunderstanding.

Americans do not really care so much for history as for pragmatic current events. As such, Europeans are right when they say Americans don't really care all that much for history. It is not true specifically, though it is true generally. If America saves Iraq, that itself is an honorable act. What isn't mentioned is about how saving Iraq will save America at the same time. We don't trot that out really, since it doesn't help absolve us of past acts. Saving America is a given, saving Iraq wasn't.

It is simply a request for others to recognize that we did save Iraq. Not that our motives were pure or something. Americans place much more emphasis on pragmatic events, than pure "motives" like idealistic policies. This produces comments about America saving France and Europe. If you recognize that action, then there is nothing in disagreeance between us. Other than the lack of knowledge about American honor.

Your definition of honour should be to seek the American definition of honor, and to find congruent points to yours, before you start to make assumptions about the very basic motives of the arguments Americans in general use. I don't claim to speak for all Americans, but the knowledge of American honor and what it entails, will give you a better idea as to what exactly Americans mean when they start spouting stuff you don't like.

We make a difference between honorable conduct and dishonorable conduct. Saying Britain's and France's conduct in not facing up to Hitler was dishonorable is not an insult. It is only an insult if we then say that you guys never made up for that dishonor, vis a vis France surrendering or vis a vis Britain's air war. If an American tells you that France surrendered, without mentioning any other thing. That is an insult, because France is seen to incrue a debt of honor that they haven't paid off. The same applies if people talk about America's dishonorable conduct without differentiating between Roosevelt and the isolationists. Just as people don't speak about Churchill before the war, while they do speak about him after the war.

The fact that you define "honour" rhetorically as meaning some kind of behavior in a debate, shows your clear lack of knowledge about what American honor is. I do not blame you for your lack of knowledge. It is up to you to do something about it. Once you have decided, I will respect that. This is also something Americans don't particularly like about Europeans in general, the fact that they keep talking about the ignorance of Americans about nuance when in fact the Americans in question have [b]Chosen[/b] not to understand it.
---------------------
To summarize the points.

1. Respecting someone's honorable conduct does not mean you understand how their honor necessitates discussion of the event in question.

2. Lack of understanding can create undue friction among people that would otherwise agree, this is popular in Europe is it not?

3. I, and perhaps most Americans, will admit that isolationism is foolish, but that admition will come only if the argument is not biased towards Europe or leaves out important details. Meaning, it has to include Roosevelt or I will argue back that if you want to point to our dishonor without respecting our future honorable conduct, I will do the same to European nations so as to make a point because we're on the defensive.

4. You haven't challenged any facts at all. You have just said you have the facts more right than I do, counting on a lack of knowledge about history to prove you right. As such, you use Chamberlain quotes instead of Churchill quotes.

5. My entire post is about American honor since your entire post was in response about it. You said nothing about the substantive debate topics I brought up or the refutations I supported them with. I remind you that you said America pursued an appeasement policy. That in effect, isn't what happened. Equating American policy to the same policy as Chamberlain, is an insult to American honor as well as being fundamentally untrue as argued for by some others in this section.


“The problem is that, in trying to argue your viewpoint, you totally ignore all the relevant facets of American psychology. In so doing, you not only weaken the truthfullness of your arguments, but you also make mistaken conclusions.”

And that’s exactly what I’m saying about British and European mentalities. I don’t see you or many others moving on that point. Indeed there have been plenty of childish insults in that line. I’ve only argued with posters individually, and have not insulted America itself. Indeed I’ve explicitly and happily stated my affection for the country. What I don’t have much affection for respect for are people who keep lecturing me on honour. Stick to the argument.

“Partially due to Hitler's incompetence in military and political matters, Britain won the air war and Russia joined the Allies.”

Very funny. And if I said “partially due to Hitler's incompetence in military and political matters, America helped win the second world war”, your ‘honor’ would no doubt be insulted. Britain won the air war full stop. We had air superiority thereafter and could not easily have been defeated, though it certainly wouldn’t have won the war in itself. You seem to be under the impression that American achievements are earned by merit and ‘honor’ and ours by luck. Wrong.

“Now, if Britain had failed and got defeated, it would primarily be because of lack of preparation (Dunkirt wasn't the most well planned withdraw) and strategic disadvantage.”

But it didn’t - due to courage and resourcefulness. Unfortunate, considering your wish to depict us as incompetent clowns.

“To make the argument that Britain held out, and if had not, America too would have been defeated, is to preach from a moral high ground that Britain does not have and will not have.”

This has nothing to do with moral ground, it has to do with actual physical ground. It has nothing to do with ‘honor’ or worthiness, or motives. It is simply the fact that it would have proven impossible to transport an entire army across the Atlantic to invade Europe without the use of a land-mass such as Britain which could also supply air and sea cover. Once Britain was gone that would have been that and the U-boats would have had control of the Atlantic. After that it would have been down to delivery technology against explosive technology. America could quite possibly have developed nukes first but could probably not have delivered them. Germany was more advanced in rocket science. Who knows?

Add to that the little matter of Code-breaking at Bletchley Park, the recovery of Enigma machines by British crews, and the atomic expertise from this country that was eventually fed into the Manhattan Project, and yes, it would have been a very serious blow indeed. And had I been alive in such circumstances I would have been, like most of the world, hoping America could come and save us, but I really doubt whether it could. It might have worked. In any case, it would not have been decided by honour or dishonour.

“To not give the respect to the Americans by even surmising that they would hold out as long as the British did, and would eventually triumph in the end like the British without even mentioning the American and Canadian aid to the British, is problematic at the very least.”

I said nothing about time, and this has nothing to do with respect. If America really were the last free country, while the resources and weaponry of the other defeated countries were in the control of the Nazis, I’m afraid it would have boded very ill for you. Likewise, had Germany comprehensively defeated Russia, I think we would have been ultimately for the chop ourselves, and then probably the US.

“This is also something Americans don't particularly like about Europeans in general, the fact that they keep talking about the ignorance of Americans about nuance when in fact the Americans in question have [b]Chosen[/b] not to understand it.”

Hold your horses, I’ve not talked about you being ignorant of nuance. I have however, and am happy to do so again, pointed out that there is something charmless about demanding other people understand your feelings, and your honor when you are capable only of behaving dismissively towards theirs. I repeat: look in my posts and you will find ungrudging and grateful praise of America. I’ve disagreed with individual Americans on this thread but have not traduced their country with sweeping statements. You and others have done that here to Britain and Europe.

“2. Lack of understanding can create undue friction among people that would otherwise agree, this is popular in Europe is it not?”

Do you mean lack of understanding is popular, or that this idea is popular? The idea is certainly popular, I think. Once again you seem to be demanding understanding. Care to show some?

I get the sense you think I’m here to represent ‘European’ views here, somehow. I’m not. I’m not even here to represent ‘Britain’, just my own views. They come in part from the knowledge that two of my family were on the bottom of the ocean by 1941, from their part in fighting the Nazis. Others fought and survived. One died a year ago. I don’t like seeing their memory insulted by people either dismissing what Britain did or putting it down to luck. They also come from having grown up in a place from where US air force bombers flew in WW2 and which still had the ruins of the airfield. Those Americans are dear to my heart.

“You haven't challenged any facts at all. You have just said you have the facts more right than I do, counting on a lack of knowledge about history to prove you right. As such, you use Chamberlain quotes instead of Churchill quotes.”

Eh? I haven’t used any quotes by Chamberlain. What are you talking about?

“I remind you that you said America pursued an appeasement policy.”

Where on earth did I say this? I said nothing of the sort. It has never in my life crossed my mind, let alone my lips, that ‘America pursued a policy of appeasement’. I suggest you have another look and retract this absurd accusation.

Reply to Ymarsakar

I offered you the chance to take back your unfounded remarks. You have emailed me as follows:

"Given that the poster didn't have a name, perhaps it was another... anomolous character."

I post under the name Robert Stanfield, not under anonymous or Mr Nobody. Those were not my quotes. You haven't retracted your the error that came from your misreading. When I accidentally did this to another poster I retracted and apologised, rather than making insinuating remarks.

You clearly don't have the grace to admit you were wrong or the sense that anyone else's honour exists except as something for you to insult; all the while you are stamping your foot and giving me sanctimonious lectures about your honour.

I can forgive rudeness, but gutlessness just earns my contempt.

I don't read this blog on a daily basis. As for the content of my response, if it ain't to you, then you have no need to pay any attention to it. It was simply the fact that you did mention up above, that you had such problems, that I made a guess that it was you I should be talking to. If the quotes aren't yours, then you can feel at ease knowing that I didn't take anything else you said as from the same person.
"I offered you the chance to take back your unfounded remarks. You have emailed me as follows:" I emailed you a response concerning the one you emailed me. If you "gave me a chance" to do anything here, it was unread until just about now probably.

Had you said something in the email, you would have gotten a better response, and a more timely one at that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

March 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31