On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:40:52 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

> "Farm1" > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> >> "Farm1" > wrote in
> >>
> >>> Someone, did indeed say that and that someone was Churchill.
> >>> What we don't know is the source to whom he was referring.
> >>> We don't know if Churchill was actually quoting someone else
> >>> or if the source he was referring to was himself.
> >>
> >> But the point of an attribution is that it is given to the
> >> first person to say it,
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >> otherwise I could "say" it and insist I be
> >> given the attribution if the only reason you need is that you
> >> have "said" it. If you insist on innacuracies of that sort,
> >> quote attribution becomes largely meaningless.
> >
> > Just because an attributed quote included "it has been said"
> > does not mean that the person saying that is not the
> > originator.
>
> I can see that coming to terms with the possibility that Churchill
> did not say your favourite quote is hard on you.
>
> >> He didn't have to
> >> be there with Nicholson to be imparted that bit of knowledge.
> >> So I'm not saying Churchill didn't "say" it, I'm saying he
> >> was not the originator and therefore the quote cannot be
> >> attributed to him...and at some point, he admitted that.
> >
> > There is no suggestion that anyone else other than Churchill
> > said it anywhere, or at any time.
>
> Which is not actually a valid argument.

The rest of us can see that you're only arguing for the sake of
argument and can understand the difference between being "attributed
to" and being documented as the original person to make the statement.
IOW: the only person who cares enough to drag this on is you and
you're wrong.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.