excellent equivocation, C4, sparkling use of English as usual. and i don’t mean to flip it off with a glib one-liner. However. If one genocide is more familiar than another, does it lessen the one? I’m not gonna go into the whys of the familiarity –we all know them, WW2 is still the biggest stage in the human mind, and the then heartland of the First World, in living memory, in the modern world, murdering in a fell swoop the bulk of its intellectual, professional, civic, and arts society, on race/religious grounds, is, i’m sorry, the pivot point of western civ & world history –and this is in no way a de-minimus of Rwanda, Cambodia, or any other horror. And, most importantly to my previous post’s criticism (i guess i should’ve been more explicit), “special” is the word the Nazis used.

As such, to use it in direct attack –if but verbal/intellectual –on the Nazi’s same target, and then to claim that it has no more meaning there, than the general dictionary gives it anywhere and everywhere, is to deny the entire truth of context as a layer of meaning in verbal communication.