'@ImportViking' "So instead of changing the subject"
I told that JFK was accused of admiration of fascism. You asked for links, I gave you the links. After a second link you've changed the subject to how it's not really JFK's fault because reasons. Since you've started moving goal posts first, I will insist that you establish the terms first.
"As said, you brought up the term in a way that's not entirely in line with mine"
"I believe that I have far above average understanding of it. "
Prove it, because in context of describing ideological conflict of 20th century that next quote looks really bad.
"Pancakes and hot cocoa have a lot in common, but to me they're totally different things"
Right now it looks like you're arguing with dictionary to prove that Spitfire is as related to B-29 as to V-2.
There were so many "totally different" ideologies in 20th century that theorist with (what he thinks is) new idea declares it to be fourth.
Since my original point was sufficiently proven in first couple of replies, this "discussion" is extraneous. If your next reply is going to be the same old "no u", don't bother writing because I won't reply.
317
'@ImportViking' "So instead of changing the subject"
I told that JFK was accused of admiration of fascism. You asked for links, I gave you the links. After a second link you've changed the subject to how it's not really JFK's fault because reasons. Since you've started moving goal posts first, I will insist that you establish the terms first.
"As said, you brought up the term in a way that's not entirely in line with mine"
"I believe that I have far above average understanding of it. "
Prove it, because in context of describing ideological conflict of 20th century that next quote looks really bad.
"Pancakes and hot cocoa have a lot in common, but to me they're totally different things"
Right now it looks like you're arguing with dictionary to prove that Spitfire is as related to B-29 as to V-2.
There were so many "totally different" ideologies in 20th century that theorist with (what he thinks is) new idea declares it to be fourth.
Since my original point was sufficiently proven in first couple of replies, this "discussion" is extraneous. If your next reply is going to be the same old "no u", don't bother writing because I won't reply.