Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kebsis
Quote:
|
I don't understand the meaning of this sentence, so I am sorry if I'm missing some meaningful point that you are making.
|
Sign of the Times is Nancys page dedicated to things that...I don't know if this is the right word...prove that the whole pole shift alien invasion thing or whatever is real and is going to happen. The London bombings presence on that page means that Nancy is using it as evidence that her wacky ramblings are real. |
OK. I had forgotten the name of Nancy's page. I haven't been bored enough to go there in a long time. Anyway, if that's all the sentence meant, I wasn't missing anything.
Edited to add:
Maybe it is offensive for her to use the bombings as evidence for her theories. It depends to a great extent on how deeply she
believes whatever it is she says on the subject, and with her, that's hard to know. But I am leery of the argument that "it is disrespectful to the victims of the attack to use the attack as evidence for
x." Since Sept. 11, 2001 I've heard that way too many times from both sides of the political football game here in the U.S., and it always seems to be a very unfair and hypocritical argument, not least because it completely ignores the substance of what the other side is saying. It's a way of presumptively declaring your opponents' position out-of-bounds before hearing it. Maybe it's different, though, in this case, where the substance of what Nancy is saying is in all likelihood absurd.
Edited to add "Edited to add:" above because I forgot I was editing and not posting a new post.