Replies

Your argument doesn't withstand scrutiny or common sense. He only holds up under your shaky assumptions.

Sounds to me like a geek is being overly defensive of his favorite TV show.

I offered plausible arguments for my point. You debate semantics and think that equals making a point.

Nicholls story would have made sense if she claimed she met Rev. King in 1967 and he offered encouragement. She didn't. She chose to insert herself and her undevolped (at that time) role directly into the middle of the Civil Rights movement. I took issue with that dishonesty, and nothing more. Your counterpoints don't reflect an understanding of this.

Your "plausible" arguments are founded in nothing but conjecture and personal opinion and that was the foundation upon which you called the story total bull and Ms. Nichols a liar. You're the one who needs to do better.

My "counterpoints" consist solely of calling you on it. A civil rights leader wouldn't notice a black woman portrayed every week as a commissioned office on military vessel? Really, you think that? No one would've have mentioned that? Seems I've heard that somewhere before. Oh, yeah, in the part of my last comment which you chose to ignore because you thought you could elevate yourself by saying Semantics really? Is that it?
Seriously, put it to rest. You have no clue what you're talking about and you've practically admitted as much if if you haven't figured that out. Don't come back a week from now and start it over again.