That is a very easy thing for you to say. It is, however, an answer, even if you think it is incorrect. You haven’t even tried to take mine on, however. Do you need more time or something?
Uh huh. If you think this charade of yours is fooling me, you’re mistaken.
Of course I do not know why with any certainty, nobody but those that were there can really know. This is fundamental to history, where records were written by people, who have biases and ulterior motives. We can only suspect when it comes to people’s reasons for doing things.
This does not mean my answer is not an answer, though. An answer … is an answer. You just don’t like it I guess.
Uh huh. If you think this charade of yours is fooling me, you’re mistaken.
Is it a charade to stick to my original point?
This does not mean my answer is not an answer, though. An answer … is an answer. You just don’t like it I guess.
Can you please link me to what you consider to be an answer? I do not see it in this thread.
Of course I do not know why with any certainty, nobody but those that were there can really know. This is fundamental to history, where records were written by people, who have biases and ulterior motives. We can only suspect when it comes to people’s reasons for doing things.
The only reason I’m in this thread is to get you to admit that you, specifically, do not know what you think you know. That you’ve been brought up on propaganda by osmosis, and that what you think are foundational facts are not.
If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?
It was not a question. This is the full quote of your original claim:
Your implications are:
I asked: “If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?”. I think that neutralizes all three of your implied claims.
You have not answered.
I actually have addressed that one with other commentators, if you check out the rest of this thread.
I don’t agree that you have.
I’ve seen you make unsupported speculations as to what caused him to resign, and why those resignations were refused.
It’s ok to admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think my argument about how it’s not actually physically possible to be unable to resign was rather compelling.
Regardless I have answered your question, even if you dislike my answer. I have certainly tried at least. Can you answer mine yet?
I just said that I don’t agree that you have.
That is a very easy thing for you to say. It is, however, an answer, even if you think it is incorrect. You haven’t even tried to take mine on, however. Do you need more time or something?
You specifically did not answer me, and did not answer the question.
It’s ok to say you do not know (because you do not), but you will need to admit that you do not know what you are talking about.
Uh huh. If you think this charade of yours is fooling me, you’re mistaken.
Of course I do not know why with any certainty, nobody but those that were there can really know. This is fundamental to history, where records were written by people, who have biases and ulterior motives. We can only suspect when it comes to people’s reasons for doing things.
This does not mean my answer is not an answer, though. An answer … is an answer. You just don’t like it I guess.
Is it a charade to stick to my original point?
Can you please link me to what you consider to be an answer? I do not see it in this thread.
The only reason I’m in this thread is to get you to admit that you, specifically, do not know what you think you know. That you’ve been brought up on propaganda by osmosis, and that what you think are foundational facts are not.