>Bill was accused of spouting propaganda in his first post. He accused M$ of it, but I didn't take him 100% seriously. He gave examples of others using it to deny certain events. How is that an example of Bill using propaganda?

In message #028702 I quoted from what Wikipedia has on propaganda.
Even William has it quite right in his first post: "If they tell it enough times, and they keep opposing information suppressed, then that's the way it must have happened right?"
The irony is, his message was propaganda too, even by his own definition - what he said was repeated umpteen times on UT and on the media.
He then promptly change his definition for propaganda, saying "I do not think that stating fact is propaganda no matter how often it is stated. Stating fiction repeatedly while stifling fact is propaganda." Well, that is plain wrong, you must be very naive to believe that.

>... The answer is that it's not. The first shot was fired by Luis and came out of the blue and accused Bush of using it to justify the invasion of Iraq. Hey, no argument here, but you and others keep specifically pointing to Bill's first post as propaganda. He was talking about it, not using it. If you continue to think what he said in that first post was propaganda, then I can only assume you believe Tiananmen square did not occur and that you also deny the Holocaust. I'd like a specific response to those question, if you don't mind.

You make a lot of assumptions. Your question is aggressive and insensitive, and, more importantly, beside the point, but if it makes you sleep better, here is my answer: YES, I believe the events in Tienanmen square happened, and YES, I believe the Holocaust happened.

>
>My point is just that you're arguing over something inconsequential and untrue. If you want to debate the war, that's fine, but you and Hugo and others keep accusing Bill of propaganda is his first post, which it obviously was not, and you won't get off that subject. It's insane. Someone even said his "lit my fust" comment was in his first post and that is demonstrably false. Why argue over this side issue?
>

What message was that?

>
>>Ok, I'll "read" it, for you: The main issue is propaganda. William picked on MS propaganda, but marched on, knowingly or not, with... propaganda! I did not express a point view for the events he mentioned, just pointed out the propaganda aspects in his message. His of mark answer, asking me if the "stuff didn't happen" just shows how big the monkey of some of your guys shoulder is.
>>
>>>You had better read that post again. He responded only to the content of the original post and just was commenting - a bit tongue in cheek, I guess - about the omission of VFP (as being a part of VS 6) as propaganda. The lit my fuse comment came later after some comments on other issues with which he obviously took umbrage. I just read it. You need to read it again.
>>>
>>>>You mean he had a premonition that something in the thread will lit his fuse, and decided to lit it preemptively?
>>>>William's "lit fuse/propaganda" message was the second message in this thread, and it was an answer to the original post.
>>>>
>>>>>I think you'd better re-read the post. William didn't say the original post said anything about any particular thing, he just said that some things said in the thread "lit his fuse." What does it matter if it was said in the original post or not? It was said later and that's what bothered William. You are splitting hairs over inconsequential issues when you worry about what was said in the original post.