in article cl5b97$26n$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp, Scott Reynolds at
sar@gol.com wrote on 10/20/04 6:31 PM:

> On 10/20/2004 5:49 PM, Ernest Schaal wrote:
>> in article cl58gi$s8u$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp, Scott Reynolds at
>> sar@gol.com wrote on 10/20/04 5:44 PM:
>> 
>>> On 10/20/2004 5:15 PM, Ernest Schaal wrote:
>>> 
>>>> in article cl56d8$p0q$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp, Scott Reynolds at
>>>> sar@gol.com wrote on 10/20/04 5:08 PM:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> A lot of the criticism about Japanese whitewashing seems to focus on
>>>>> what people (politicians, etc.) didn't say, rather than on what they
>>>>> actually said. I'm happy to hear that you don't subscribe to that sort
>>>>> of thinking.
>>>> 
>>>> I disagree with you. The criticism about Japanese whitewashing is similar
>>>> to
>>>> that about Yoshida, who argues that all stories of the abuses and
>>>> atrocities
>>>> are overblown, without any admission that abuses and atrocities really
>>>> occurred. It isn't that they are condemned for their silence, but for their
>>>> blanket rejection of any hint of the atrocities.
>>> 
>>> On the contrary. Yoshida-san never said there were no atrocities. You
>>> are jumping on him for not saying there were atrocities, rather than for
>>> something he actually said.
>> 
>> I specifically asked him to clarify his position, and he tried insults,
>> lawyer jokes, citing books in Japanese, etc. Based on his "active"
>> avoidance, in combination with his previous Chinese bashing, it is not an
>> unreasonable assumption to assume that he would deny the atrocities.
> 
> It might not be an unreasonable assumption, but it is still an
> assumption on your part.

The assumption is made stronger and stronger each time he hedges, or tries
to get cute, to avoid the question. If he realized that there were
atrocities, he should say so, and get on with his life, but instead he seems
to be classic denial mode.
 
>>>> A similar situation would be a Southerner who refuses to condemn slavery,
>>>> but instead heaps praise on the South for resisting the Union's
>>>> "interference" with their economy.
>>> 
>>> But here again, you cannot assume that such a person actually thinks
>>> slavery was beneficial, or does not think it was wrong, just because he
>>> "refuses to condemn slavery."
>> 
>> Not if he kept silent, but you sure could if he heaps praise on the South
>> for resisting the Union's "interference" with their economy.
> 
> YOU sure could. As for me, I would try not to jump to conclusions.

It isn't "jumping to conclusions." It is making a reasonable inference. Too
bad you can't tell the difference.