(07-10-2020 02:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes we have had some good back and forths. And some tense ones, and typically those tense ones were defused.

You decided to make a snide as fk comment about 'if you were really reading the histories'. I returned you tone. Perhaps you should actually read the back and forth there. Perhaps I mentioned that above. Perhaps you didnt read that. Perhaps not.

I am simply returning the tone noted to me above. Perhaps there are two people to lecture here.

Well, on 7/8 at 4:26 pm (post #2733) you wrote:

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By actually taking a quick look look at the record. When you bother to do that, the rationales kind of stand out rather starkly. Or, perhaps you should fire up the ol' history book, study it, then come back to us with *your* view of the historic rationales. Or not.

I don't think I wrote anything objectional before that. So if you really want to point fingers at who was snide first in our current exchange and think that is a productive use of time...

I guess this comment is absolutely pure:

Quote:As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"?

Cute use of quotes mind you.

So the answer is: "By actually taking a quick look look at the record. When you bother to do that, the rationales kind of stand out rather starkly. Or, perhaps you should fire up the ol' history book, study it, then come back to us with *your* view of the historic rationales. Or not. "

Which is a straight answer your question, mind you.

When you followed with the 'if you really did read that' snark, those two in conjunction engendered my 'tude, I surmise.

On the initial point, based on lads disparaging comment on the 'state of North Dakota', I was actually curious myself. I looked it up. If you wish to look it up and change it, go ahead. As I invited you to do above. I take it you have not done so.