I think I genuinely wanted to comprehend what you were saying and you took it to the realm of argument. I have no argument in the "picking of semantic nits" that you refer to, but am simply trying to understand yours.

I'm sorry, I thought we were arguing for fun. I didn't realize you had a desire to actually understand the point I was making. I've posted again. I do deal with the argument we were having, but I also took some time to clarify what I initially meant.

I prefer cipher breaking. It isn't as subjective as debate.

it's less fun.

what the heck I have four days off a little pointless arguing could be fun.
Banning all immigration would be an unwise move because it would lose a source of highly trained and technical labor.

Honestly I thought I had it covered when I said:


Both, in fact. History should offend: the tyrant should be offended by the rise of the people. The acolytes of madmen should be offended by the fall of their master.

History should be found offensive: if the Holocaust doesn't offend you, then there is something wrong in your psyche.


I was having fun. I guess you got frustrated. Perhaps it would of cleared things up had I said :

The acolytes of madmen should suffer the offense of the fall of their master.
it was here "And again the same.

You are now arguing that no matter the outcome, history will be found offensive by someone. You are making a statement about the offended and not the offender.

I still don't understand why "history should offend"." that I started to think that you just wanted to wrangle semantics, so I played along.

sorry if the game became annoying. I thought it was your game.