I know he’s not supposed to be a depiction of a principled war resistor, but he is supposed to be a depiction of a GI that blew away his commanding officer. I’m just saying it’s an ahistorical representation of the type of person who actually did that.
I’m just saying it’s an ahistorical representation of the type of person who actually did that.
That’s fair enough, and I think I understand what you mean in that context. That’s also not really the part of the take that I was objecting to I guess. :shrug-outta-hecks:
I know he’s not supposed to be a depiction of a principled war resistor, but he is supposed to be a depiction of a GI that blew away his commanding officer. I’m just saying it’s an ahistorical representation of the type of person who actually did that.
That’s fair enough, and I think I understand what you mean in that context. That’s also not really the part of the take that I was objecting to I guess. :shrug-outta-hecks: