Re: [ImmoderateAfghanistan] Digest Number 487

From: Stewart Stansfield <stu_stansfield_at_jX9Y1xWju84lCxWd31fPHfS2ZBLuv-NPpY5wAdWEdWBbUhZP2dqy4d187A3Fq>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:16:20 -0000

I wrote a semi-long e-mail in defence of Mark's attack on these deterministic/teleological* tendencies peculiar to ImmoderateHeroQuest's own brand of Whig history... but found it had too little profanity. In fact unless people misbehave, I'm going to ask Julian to immoderate you.

So I decided I couldn't be fucked. I mean, if Mark suggests that evidential bases for an act are lacking... and David counters this by suggesting that at least 90% of evidence in the mode of analysis is subjective bollocks anyway, we're a bit buggered either way, aren't we?

Maybe I should just mention Hitler and be done with it?

Cheerio,

Stu.

*which sadly has nothing to do with teals