[scripter]

I can't say for sure, I haven't read the book.

You said in post post 437

I did read the book...

So which is it?

But call me crazy, something about the vocabulary of her summary leads me to believe that she's sensationalizing the book a bit.

Something about the results of a search on this book tell me the author is accurately representing the book. And I just ordered a copy from Bolerium Books. I collect similar books so I can demonstrate folks like yourself make statements without any supporting evidence.

You also said

Her summations are, how to say it, a bit propagandistic.

So now we see you have nothing to base that on. You haven't read the book so you just make it up as you go.

[tdadams]

Sorry, make that... "I did read the link"

You weren't just being captious were you?

[tdadams]

So now we see you have nothing to base that on. You haven't read the book so you just make it up as you go.

Are you seriously going to be this obtuse? In your little world, am I not permitted to surmise conclusions based on what I've seen. Do you not think the woman's summations were a bit sensationalistic?

No, you probably don't. You probably think she's completely evenhanded and unbiased, just like you! < /sarcasm>