There is that paradox, Zhampir, but it's all very true, and that just reinforces the argument, if both sides of the coin are used towards proving the same thing. (A curiosity, but for those studying history, I am positive you'd agree. For instance, if you've done GCSE History or equivalent in school, then there is a part of the exam where you're given a statemnt, usually stating a cause and effect, and are aksed to use 8 sources and your own knowledge to either agree or disagree with the statement. A typical answer would be to say that the statement is right, but doesn't include other causes. What is of much higher interest is that usually 4 sources ostensibly back the statement, and 4 sources contradict it, but upon closer inspect, and I really love this part, when source analysis is performed, it's so easy to maniuplate them to fit both sides of the story, so that all sources are used to back up completely opposite points of view. The hilarious part is that sometimes the same quotes from one source can be used, in conjunction with other date, for the opposing arguments.)
I'm sure many, myself included, would disagree, hellboy222: there are many users here who post coherent, solid and very logical arguments which can easily stand the test of scrutiny from other users.
