Nothing of value, huh? Then why are you having such a hard time explaining what I asked? Maybe you should read it again, trying to understand the meaning of the words you see.
i'm not. I'm reffering to the fact that you resorted to pointing out several spelling errors instead of argueing your point further.
How's that answering my question?
I'm answering your question with a question myself. And the point was, would you still find it offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?
Granted my version was shorter and said nothing of exact 12th century christians, but it seems more to the point and less
Perhaps I should make my own quote..
So you're telling me I should only worry when it's offensive against me. That's rather selfish.
So you're saying that you are "sticking up for the little guy" then? fair enough I guess.... whatever..
Of course it would be equally offensive - against them. But in this case those groups are already generally disliked, and for a reason. So no one would care if you said that, except them.
Ah yes, they are disliked by large amounts of people, but does that make it right? Just because a large mass of bodies say it is ok, then is it?
And you say nobody likes them? I highly doubt that. Watch the news. Al-Qaeda un particukar. There seems to be a lot of people that liked them. Especially when Bin Laden was kickin' it with them, blowing up innocent people.. sick yes? but did nobody like them? I think that is incorrect.
I'll admit the Nazist party is an assumption, but I know some people did like them. Sick ****s? Perhaps, yes, but that doesn't change it.
As for Shivans, that one is blatently obvious as modeled by our buddy and administrator, Carl.