> You stated that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction. I did not. > I linked to an article that directly demonstrated the

> You stated that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction. I did not. > I linked to an article that directly demonstrated the existence of, and examined the effects of, that exact narrative. You may have linked to an article that directly demonstrated that, but since I did not state that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction, whether or not your article demonstrates that is irrelevant. > Given that you consider that "irrelevant," It is irrelevant since I did not say that "the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction". I did not even say anything remotely similar to that. > I agree that I will not convince you of your incorrectness You will not be able to convince me of my incorrectness in saying something which I did not say. Since I did not even say the thing that you claimed me to have done, it is very hard for me to become convinced that I was or am incorrect about what you claim I said. The only logical way out of this conundrum is for you to go back to what I wrote, and notice that I didn't say what you seem to think I did. > since there is clearly no good faith or intelligent discussion to be had with you. Now, if you have a new-found desire for an intelligent discussion, the jumping off point for you, to try to make your future discussions more intelligent, is to actually read the words the other person has written, then respond to them. If you respond to something the other person has not written, that will not result in an intelligent discussion. The failure of intelligence here is not the failure of the other person to say something intelligent, but a failure of yours to read the other person's words.