[ SECRET POST #2577 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2577 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald-Crane, from the soap opera Passions]


__________________________________________________



03.
[BBC Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Nobunaga the Fool]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia from Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Quick and the Dead]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Nathan Fillion]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Warehouse 13]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 030 secrets from Secret Submission Post #368.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Remind me why I owe you evidence for that?

[chardmonster]

You don't. But the silence is pretty deafening!

[(Anonymous)]

Lol yeah, no. The old "ooooh, you won't tell me so it's not true" goading won't work. especially not from you, of all people. What would you even want me to say - you would only disregard all "evidence" as hearsay and ~stories they told you but that weren't true ~ because your opinion is already pretty fixed and you are just reproducing the same old tired stereotypes without any real "proof" behind it yourself - that's pretty clear , looking at your other answers. Short of telling you their names, there is no definite proof I could give and even then, I could be lying for all you know. So yeah, nice try, but I really don't have to justify myself to you.

[chardmonster]

The long paragraph about why you won't say a single damn thing is even more deafening!

I understand that you don't want to believe your grandfathers probably did some dodgy shit. Doesn't make your grandfathers evil but yeah they probably heiled a bit and a good portion was likely enthusiastic because they were normal and there was a terrible war going on.

[(Anonymous)]

No shit, they were enlisted in the army of course they "heiled" a bit if they didn't want to get shot on the spot you fucking moron. Doesn't mean you are a fan of the ideology. Not enthusiastically though, I am very certain of that. But again, what is that grand, beautiful proof you want? It's pretty clear you already made up your mind about it.

[chardmonster]

I don't know, actually saying something of substance?

Imagine our exchange if it were about something else.

"My great-grandfather was a confederate but he hated slavery, I'm sure of it."

"So was he an abolitionist? Did he subscribe to an antislavery newspaper? Was he a Free Soiler? What evidence do you have that he hated slavery?"

"HE SAID SO AFTER THEY LOST THE WAR OKAY GOD I DON'T OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT ANYWAY [paragraph continues without substance]"

[(Anonymous)]

And I ask you again: Why do you believe I owe you this particular piece of information? Why do you think you are so important that I should have to "give you proof"?

[chardmonster]

I don't think you owe me. I think we're on a message board and you didn't owe me a response to my question in the first place. I think I'm pretty clearly defining "proof" as "you saying something." Did you think I wanted scanned documents or something?

Is this Nuremberg?

I'd like to point out that you didn't refute anything.

[(Anonymous)]

You said, further down, that you were only curious. Had you actually asked like you were, I probably would have answered you. But you basically came and said "I demand you give me evidence to back up your claim" as if I owed you something.

[chardmonster]

And you overreacted a whole bunch and made your grandfathers look like Nazi dicks and still won't say anything substantial.

It seems like a dumb response.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, the only person hung up about how my grandfathers were Nazi dicks is you.

[chardmonster]

You keep coming back to say they weren't (without really saying they weren't).

[(Anonymous)]

No, I pretty much literally said they weren't. You're the one demanding "evidence". And quite frankly, it's ridiculous: You say that you would believe me if I said they were communist or Social Democrats, but you won't believe it when I say they weren't Nazis? Why is one thing more believable than the other?

[chardmonster]

Because "my grandfathers weren't Nazis because ______" is much more believable than "my grandfathers weren't Nazis because they said so, I don't owe you an explanation."

Of course you might fib but, again, this is a fucking message board.

[hwc]

How about an anecdote? I know that one of my grandfathers and his family were anti-Nazi, and from the top of my head I can think of two anecdotes that make that quite clear, not even counting the fact that they had Jewish friends and tried to flee the country after the NSDAP came into power. And I wouldn't have to name any names, as you claim up-thread for some strange reason.

Why are you so hellbent on chard already being pre-disposed to disbelief you? The way you went off makes it look like chard was right, and I say that as a German who, as mentioned, has a grandparent who wasn't a Nazi.

[(Anonymous)]

The reason I brought the names thing into it was because chardmonster kept asking for "evidence". She never made it clear that she just wanted a little anecdote and then she would have believed it, she literally wanted proof. And call me stupid, but an anon telling a story on the internet isn't exactly what I, personally, would count as "evidence" for anything, so I really never even thought about it. In my eyes, the fact that she demanded evidence for the original statement was reason enough for me to assume she didn't believe me from the start, because why else would she ask for that?

[chardmonster]

She never made it clear that she just wanted a little anecdote and then she would have believed it, she literally wanted proof.

Oh for fuck's sake. What the hell am I going to get on a message board besides an anecdote? Did you expect me to demand names and scanned documents so I can factcheck you?

And call me stupid,

Okay.

but an anon telling a story on the internet isn't exactly what I, personally, would count as "evidence" for anything, so I really never even thought about it.

You realize we're on a message board and you're not writing a paper for class, right?

In my eyes, the fact that she demanded evidence for the original statement was reason enough for me to assume she didn't believe me from the start, because why else would she ask for that?

Because you're saying your grandfathers fought for Germany in WWII but weren't Nazi supporters, which is interesting and I was wondering if you had anything to back that up--like, say, political leanings (communists, social democrats), religion (were they catholics angry about nazi meddling in church schools?), et cetera?

But no, you failed all over yourself at the sheer AUDACITY of people asking a simple question about your grandparents, who fought in the German army in World War II, which did some pretty fucked up things even if they were drafted.

I'm going to guess you've got nothing. Which is fine. You could have just said "that's just what they always said" and I might've just made a comment about German politics in the 1920s/early 1930s and how interesting it is.

[hwc]

Well, what other evidence other than anecdotal did you think she could possibly want? It's the only evidence you can give on a comm on the internet.

Of course you could be lying about the anecdotes - so could I. We could both be lying about having German grandfathers, for all anyone knows. But surely you see why "I know that my grandfather wasn't a Nazi because when he was [anecdote]" is more believable than "I know that my grandfather wasn't a Nazi BUT I WON'T TELL YOU WHY BECAUSE YOU WON'T BELIEVE ME ANYWAY!!!!!11!"?

[chardmonster]

Yeah, that's pretty much all I wanted.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I've just read the whole thread and chardmonster came off as really rude and illogical.

She herself stated that she would believe the other anon if they said the grandparents were left wingers (without evidence, anecdote, etc.) - but: she won't believe when the anon said the grandparents were anti-nazi without evidence for this.
Did I miss something? Why is an evidence necessary for the one thing but not for the other?

Chardmonster decided for herself what she's going to believe and even if the other anon would tell an anecdote or something like this, she would probably say that she still won't believe it because the anecdote could be a lie.

To defend her strange comments and her illogical arguments seems really strange to me.

You recount that you know anecdotes - that could be also false - what proof do we have? It's often that anecdotes change in course of time. And what about your other grandparent? What about when you don't have any anecdotes? When you just talked to your grandparents and they told you they were anti-nazi? When your grandparents can't give you a proof that they weren't?

Now I apply chardmonster's logic to your statement: You proudly emphasize that you have one grandparent who wasn't a nazi (but don't tell anything about the other one) and you don't even give us the two anecdotes - so I don't believe you. Chardmonster was demanding evidence first (until you asked if an anecdote was enough, which is completely different from an evidence), so I think you should give us an evidence, too.

I'm really surprised that arguments and comments as inconsequent as chardmonster's get positive feedback at all when they are only based on what she will believe.

[hwc]

Do you want me to give you the anecdotes? I'd be happy to, if you want. (I'm not sure if you actually want to hear the anecdotes or are just arguing your point, which is why I'm not including them here.)

I didn't say anything about my other grandparents as their families weren't against Nazis, at least not to the same extent as my grandfather's (as far as I'm aware). Other anon spoke about being certain that their grandfathers weren't Nazis - I can only claim that about one of my grandfathers. Why should I bring up the others in this discussion? The thread's not a competition to see who had the least Nazis in their family.

Being left-wingers would have been evidence for chard that anon's grandfathers weren't Nazis. Of course you always have to take what is said on the internet with a grain of salt, but surely you see why saying "grandpa wasn't a Nazi, he was in the SPD" is more believable than saying "grandpa wasn't a Nazi" and then refusing to say anything more on the subject and blowing a gasket. One is an explanation, the other is petulant pouting.

Of course I could be lying about the anecdotes - heck, I could be lying about being German, it's the internet, what do you know? Sure, any anecdote I tell you could be made up, but on the other hand, it's more likely that I'm telling the truth because I'm willing to back up what I said. Anon did the opposite - refuse to even consider backing anything up, and that makes their claim suspect because it sounds as though their only "evidence" is that their grandfathers said so - which is exactly what Chard was arguing about: After the war many German claimed to have been against the Nazis all along, when that just wasn't true in a lot of cases.

I don't always agree with Chard but in this case I really don't get why she's getting so much flack. Her initiat comment was a bit short, but that warranted neither anon's reaction nor her getting shit for any subsequent comments, IMO.