[ 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)]

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.