[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: revisionism

To: prestokelvo at yahoo_com, dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu, fionaeval at yahoo_com
Subject: Re: revisionism
From: Kendrickjd at aol_com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:06:50 EDT
CC: Over-the-Rhine at actwin_com

In a message dated 6/21/01 3:14:39 PM Central Daylight Time,
prestokelvo at yahoo_com writes:

Once again, you're speaking about perspective and
interpretion of a thing. I can say 2+2=7 until I'm
blue in the face, but that won't make it so. Even if
I'm colorblind, purple is what it is. If evolution
were a fact, my not believing it wouldn't make it not
factual. I'm just saying that, wether we can get to
it or not, there is a fact/truth underlying all these.
ofen elusive, but still there

I see what you're saying, but most (not all, though, as you and Don pointed
out) things in history aren't (seemingly--we don't want to start this fight)
objective like 2+2 = 7. Most things are treated as fact based on the
perspective of the person bringing us the (hi)story.

Jan

Prev by Date: Re: revisionism
Next by Date: Re: HIStories and HYSTeria
Prev by thread: Re: revisionism
Next by thread: Re: revisionism
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread