3 ms·
This is seriously misleading. The OP doesn't even mention William Lehey, let alone include a howler about him. And you accuse other people of red herrings! Sur
by gruseom 13y ago
This is seriously misleading. The OP doesn't even mention William Lehey, let alone include a howler about him. And you accuse other people of red herrings!
Surely if you had found even the tiniest flaw in the OP, you'd have shared it with us by now. Instead your comments are positively incontinent with innuendos and slurs: "UFO stories", "pseudo-science", "revisionists", "9-11 guys", "cherry picking", "selectively arranging facts", "pump up", "add authority", "rewriting history to suit current fashion", "emotional reasoning" (since deleted, unless my memory is playing tricks), and my favorite: "From the author's comments, and those on this board"—as if the two were colluding instead of obviously having nothing whatever to do with each other.
I don't have an opinion about why Japan surrendered in WWII, but when an apparently well-reasoned case provokes this kind of thing, it seems likely that there is something to it.
- Scramblejams 13y agoI don't even know what you're looking at. He was referring to this message upstream: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5815793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5815793
- gruseom 13y agoYes, I know. And then he switched back to the OP as if the two were the same thing, when in fact they're entirely unrelated. That's the dictionary definition of a red herring.
- Scramblejams 13y agoOr he had moved his commentary beyond the original piece to include the commenters whose positions he was criticizing, which is how I read it.
- gbog 13y agoKnowing a bit about the Asian way to handle conflict, I think it is possible that the bombs gave a good pretext (not the best word) to end the war. It would mean that many in Japan headquarter knew it was foolish to continue the war but it was not possible to change boat without a special new circumstance that can be used to explain the change.