[003]
71.231.82.199
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
OK, the part that says the was an king OF Prussia is wrong. He was the king IN Prussia. This was to not piss the Hapsburgs off too bad
to:
OK, the part that says there was an king OF Prussia is wrong. He was the king IN Prussia. This was to not piss the Hapsburgs off too bad
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
EDIT: That was to the first reply you made, just above this, not the second.
to:
EDIT: That was to the first reply you made, just above this, not the second.
\\\"That is, wrong about many things, but in particular, about what I\\\'m saying and what, if anything, you should be annoyed at.\\\"
That isn\\\'t particular, and even a broad \\\"many things\\\" comment is fallacious, as it assumes my assurance in this one point means I can\\\'t admit I\\\'m wrong in other things. Certainty of a fact is not the same as belief in never being wrong.
\\\"That is, wrong about many things, but in particular, about what I\\\'m saying and what, if anything, you should be annoyed at.\\\"
That isn\\\'t particular, and even a broad \\\"many things\\\" comment is fallacious, as it assumes my assurance in this one point means I can\\\'t admit I\\\'m wrong in other things. Certainty of a fact is not the same as belief in never being wrong.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Something tells me you didn\'t actually read what I wrote, and are just assuming I\'m not listening to you, when I clearly responded, and even partially admitted to, your points.
to:
Something tells me you didn\\\'t actually read what I wrote, and are just assuming I\\\'m not listening to you, when I clearly responded, and even partially admitted to, your points.
EDIT: That was to the first reply you made, just above this, not the second.
EDIT: That was to the first reply you made, just above this, not the second.
