"Phil Innes" wrote in message ...
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why,
however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

I guess I'll have to take your word on that... ;-)

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases,
right?

Yes. However, the fact that a statement is logical is irrelavent to
the question as whether it is also bigoted

But, Isidor, the statement is NOT logical, in terms of any sense, only
logical grammatically [This is the way you write the words which compound
two statements.] Because I lied in the past doesn't mean that I lie now.
Although I was a Celt, am I acting 'as a Celt' now?

Your first premise states: "I am a Celt" See above

Past actions can reasonably be construed to define a person's
character.
For instance, somebody who has murdered **in the past** is considered
to be a murderer. It would be absurd to only consider that person to
be a murderer **only** for the duration of the period that it takes to
commit the murder.

Anyway, YOUR example simply isn't germane to the question.

Likewise you are free to claim that Rolf's use of the phrase "Being a
Jew and Liar" is not logical. Irrespective of whether Rolf makes
comments that are logical, they may still be anti-semitic in nature.


Its the association of the two phrases, from the past to an implied present,
which contains no link.

In the case of Rolf, it is a single phrase "a Jew and a Liar", which
is linked by the conjuction, "and".

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies?

Of course: lying is part of the human condition

Or is it not
permissable to say so?

Under some circumstances I suppose that it would be "permissable".
However, I think that Rolf's usage of the phrase "a Jew and a Liar"
merits criticism. Moreover, on its merits, I think that the claim that
Rolf's comment was anti-Semitic is correct.

There are many aspects of Celtic culture that seem regressive and
destructive to me. Am I defaming Celts in saying this - am I anti-Celt?

Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on the nature and
context of what you say.

.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.

Except if it were in the sense I mention above.

I've already dispensed with your sophistry--yet, even without
having done so, there exists no exception.

We are now a long way from
the original text. What do you think of that now?

How amusing.

In your very next post you wrote, in this sequence:
~~~~~~~~
Do keep up, old boy, what, what?

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.

Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!
~~~~~~~

First there is the fatuous 'old boy' stuff then there follows "sensible" in
inverted commas, proposing that I would like to think of myself that way,
and that it is a quotation.

Actually, you seem to be confused by the nested "dialogue"

It was Houlsby, not me, that wrote:

" Do keep up, old boy...." Apparently, it was some feeble attempt to
be witty and ironic.


I am not a boy, no English 'old boy', I did not make a claim to wish to seem
sensible to myself.

Not explicitely. However, when you wrote:

"I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be
confused
and indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here."

you brought up the issue of whether you were sensible enough to
know what is meant by anti-Semitism. Since you seem to delight in
being deliberately obtuse, you are not acting in a sensible manner.
Hence, my remark.


So the writer of that piece becomes inventive and, well, lies!
right

If it pleases you to think so...However, I believe that it is a
reasonable inference that you implied that you are sensible by your
decision to judge the sensibility of the remarks.

Will you say it is only rhetorical, or something? Wasn't your intent to
diminish someone else - not based on what they said,

It was based ONLY on what you wrote.

but making up something
they said in order to rubbish them a bit?



Just a petty-defamation. I will
survive.

Jews (and other groups) should not be condemned because of the
supposed misdeeds of a few individuals; Likewise, individual Jews
should not be maligned because of the actions of a group of Jews (e.g.
the State of Israel)

O. I agree. However, lets be more honest connecting what is singular and
what is plural, and their inter-relation. Otherwise it is so easy to invent
what people think, isn't it?

I would definite;y encourage intellectual honesty on your part.

Phil

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.

Phil Innes

chapman Billy wrote in
message ...(to Bob Musicant):
Bob Musicant wrote (to Rolf Tueschen):
(snipped)
3. More serious questions about your motives and the possibility of your
having some unspoken agenda arise when you steer the discussion (in your
response to Larry Parr in this thread) around to the history of the
Holocaust and your belief that the death of European Jews in concentration
camps was simply a side effect of a policy of industrial exploitation, akin
to the practice of modern American companies of exploiting cheap labor by
permitting unhealthy conditions to exist in their Asian factories.
(For purposes of clarity, I am quoting the relevant passage from your
message to Larry at the bottom of this message). This is nothing but a
restatement of the thesis of David Irving. (A good account of the
discrediting of this English "historian" will be found in the book
"Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial,
by Richard J. Evans").

Dear Bob and Simon,

Also for further reading:
"The Holocaust on Trial: History, Justice and the David Irving Libel Case"
by D.D. Guttenplan

Rolf Tueschen, in a message to Larry Parr, wrote:
"The exploitation was the most important factor - NOT the killing!
But the avoiding of death certainly wasn't priority number one in
the heads of the leading Nazis."

Tueschen does not disclose his source for this bizarre and unorthodox
belief, which I have only heard from Neo-Nazis. To counter this untrue
assertion I quote below from Anatomy of an SS State by Helmut Krausnick
and Martin Broszat:

"Events in 1942/4, particularly in Auschwitz, were characterised by two
conflicting aims with two different authorities in charge; on the one hand
the transport and extermination of the Jews, for which responsibility lay
with the RSHA, on the other the exploitation of camp labour, for which the
Inspectorate of Concentration Camps of the WVHA was responsible. All the
other extermination camps in the East (with the single exception of
Lublin-Majdanek) had been set up specially and exclusively for factory-like
liquidation. In Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno the Jews who arrived
by train or lorry were regularly exterminated almost without exception
shortly after arrival. These were not camps in the true sense as there was
no intention ever of accommodating prisoners for any length of time. But
Auschwitz, with its three big camp complexes (parent camp, Birkenau and
Monowitz), was not only the largest of all the concentration camps and as
such became a vast arsenal of labour for the armaments industry but, with
the big gas-chambers and crematoria set up outside the camp enclosure of
Birkenau, developed into one of the largest installations for the
extermination of Jews.

"This meant that only in Auschwitz, where the two objectives (extermination
and use of Jewish labour) competed on the spot did the so-called selection
process develop to which almost every arriving transport of Jews was
subjected. At the so-called 'ramp' of Birkenau SS doctors and SS officers
separated from the mass of deported Jewish men, women and children -
probably depending on requirements and the state of health of the
transports - a large or small number of persons capable of working
(preferably youths, middle-aged men and able-bodied women without children)
who were made exempt from extermination, registered as prisoners and sent
to the neighbouring camp where they had a chance to survive provided they
remained working fit. Selection meant transfer to another authority for a
different function, with the objective, not of extermination but - at least
in theory - of using and to a certain degree preserving the working
capacity of the prisoners."

This can be found on pages 228 and 229 of the 1973 Paladin edition. Has
Tueschen read anything other than the likes of David Irving? Has Tueschen
read books such as Janowska Road, The King of Children, The Nazi Doctors,
Kaput, The Scourge of the Swastika, The Diary of Anne Franke, Five
Chimneys, Auschwitz, The Holocaust and the German Elite, Children with a
Star, Babi Yar, Britain and the Jews of Europe 1939-45, Vichy France and
the Jews, The Terrible Secret, the Drowned and the Saved, Those were the
Days, Lodz Ghetto ... . There has been a recrudescence of anti-semitism in
Europe, which is why Tueschen feels free to make his ignorant
expectorations. Has Tueschen heard of Martin Gilbert, Elie Wiesel, or
Primo Levi? Why did Tueschen choose as his subject such an emotive title?

A comprehensive scholarly history is
"The Destruction of the European Jews" by Raul Hilberg

A concise introduction to the subject is
"The Holocaust: A German Historian Examines the Genocide" by Wolfgang Benz

What is often understated is the suffering of other groups such as Gypsies
and Jehovah's Witnesses, probably due to a lack of articulacy amongst the
survivors: but this does not alter the fact that this was a largely
successful attempt at murder on an industrial scale of various so-called
untermenschen.

"A lack of articulacy amongst the survivors" seems to be at most a partial
explanation, which does not account for the evident continuing political
motives in understating the sufferings of non-Jews under the Nazis.

"Visiting the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., for example, I
was struck by *its marginalization of any other victims apart from the Jews*,
to the extent that it presented photographs of dead bodies in camps such as
Buchenwald or Dachau as dead Jewish bodies, when in fact relatively few Jewish
prisoners were held there. Little attention was paid to the non-Jewish German
victims of Nazism, from the two hundred thousand mentally and physically
handicapped Germans whom the Nazis killed in the so-called euthanasia campaign
to the thousands of Communists, Social Democrats, and others who also met their
deaths in the camps. The German resistance received almost no mention at all
apart from a brief panel on the student 'White Rose' movement during the war,
so the visitor almost inevitably emerged from the museum with a belief that
all Germans were evil antisemites."
--Richard Evans (Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial, pp. 261-2)

(Richard Evans is Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University.
He was the principal expert witness *against* David Irving at the trial.)

"Multiple motives lurked behind the (United States Holocaust Memorial) museum's
*marginalizing of the Gypsy genocide*. First: one simply couldn't compare the
loss of Gypsy and Jewish life. Ridiculing the call for Gypsy representation
on the US Holocaust Memorial Council as 'cockamamie', executive director
Rabbi Seymour Siegel doubted whether Gypsies even 'existed' as a people:
'There should be some recognition or acknowledgment of the gypsy people...if
there is such a thing.' He did allow, however, that 'there was a suffering
element under the Nazis'....Second: acknowledging the Gypsy genocide meant the
loss of an exclusive Jewish franchise over The Holocaust, with a commensurate
loss of Jewish 'moral capital'. Third: if the Nazis persecuted Gypsies and
Jews alike, the dogma that The Holocaust marked the climax of a millennial
Gentile hatred of Jews was clearly untenable. Likewise, if Gentile envy
spurred the Jewish genocide, did envy also spur the Gypsy genocide? In the
museum's permanent exhibition, *non-Jewish victims of Nazism receive only
token recognition*. Finally, the Holocaust museum's political agenda has
also been shaped by the Israel-Palestine conflict. Before serving as the
museum's director, Walter Reich wrote a paean to Joan Peter's fraudulent
'From Time Immemorial', which claimed that Palestine was literally empty
before Zionist colonization...."
--Norman Finkelstein (The Holocaust Industry, pp. 76-7)

(Norman Finkelstein, a son of Jewish Holocaust survivors, wrote his
Ph.D. dissertation on Zionism at Princeton University.)

Here's Norman Finkelstein's primer to the Israel-Palestine conflict:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id128.htm

For further reading:
"The Pariah Syndrome: An Account of Gypsy Slavery and Persecution"
by Ian Hancock

--Nick

(Nick) wrote the usual propaganda with the intention
to brandmark people for alleged anti-semitism:

[Message-ID: ]

(snipped)
3. More serious questions about your motives and the possibility of your
having some unspoken agenda arise when you steer the discussion (in your
response to Larry Parr in this thread) around to the history of the
Holocaust and your belief that the death of European Jews in
concentration
camps was simply a side effect of a policy of industrial exploitation,
akin
to the practice of modern American companies of exploiting cheap labor by

permitting unhealthy conditions to exist in their Asian factories.
(For purposes of clarity, I am quoting the relevant passage from your
message to Larry at the bottom of this message). This is nothing but a
restatement of the thesis of David Irving. (A good account of the
discrediting of this English "historian" will be found in the book
"Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial,
by Richard J. Evans").

Dear Bob and Simon,

Also for further reading:
"The Holocaust on Trial: History, Justice and the David Irving Libel Case"
by D.D. Guttenplan

Rolf Tueschen, in a message to Larry Parr, wrote:
"The exploitation was the most important factor - NOT the killing!
But the avoiding of death certainly wasn't priority number one in
the heads of the leading Nazis."

Tueschen does not disclose his source for this bizarre and unorthodox
belief, which I have only heard from Neo-Nazis.

[much snipped]



Has
Tueschen read anything other than the likes of David Irving?

[further snipped]


Here is a first link to the witness I always had in _science_, and it should be
clear that Irving, no matter how much details he reveiled in most of his works,
is not a scientist. Irving does _not_ have an academic title. He's _not_ an
academic historian. So he doesn't know of many basics of science which make
that "little" difference between soundness [not necessarily lack of mistakes,
because science as such is developping from refutations to conjectures and new
paradigms] and wild speculations of quacks. I do not say that Irving is a quack
but he's not a scientist.

My witness is a scientist. And he's a Jew. He's American. Je's seldom mentioned
in the actual debates about Holocaust. When I quoted him for the first time to
Larry Parr a couple of years ago [see Google], Parr warned me that I could get
close to Anti-Semitism if I said such things. Nobody researched my quotes, so
that this is here for the first time I speak about my source.

Please take a short look at this link
http://science.orf.at/science/events/29963
- I am talking about Henry Friedlaender. In German Friedländer or in American
Friedlander. His title is mentioned in that link. And below on the page you can
read a very short summary in English. Now, I have read a book of many hundred
pages. And in that book, available in English of course, this author explaines
step by step how the later Holocaust was planned and organised after the big
Euthanasy mass murder against the German disabled. The only new aspect of the
Holocaust is its incredibly high quantity of victims. But the whole technology
of the 'genocide' was already applied in the Nazi Euthanasy Program.

To be clear about it. The knowledge of such a context takes nothing away of the
evil of the Holocaust itself! It can't be used as an excuse. It makes the Nazi
crime as a whole even worse! So, it is ridiculous and absolutely stupid to
conclude that I could or should be an Anti-Semite, just because I give some
differentiations. Ok, perhaps I can confuse the usual propaganda speakers and
loudmouths, but scientifically I'm talking about something else than a denial
of the Holocaust or such things.

After the experience with the educated writer Parr I had no delusions that I
could expect that exactly in usenet, specifically in chess groups, experts
could understand what I was talking about. Basically it's about reading
abilities vs. knee-jerk-reactions.

As a psychologist usenet is a favorite field of mine. Also because everything
is held in the archives of Google, formerly Deja. At least one important aspect
of real life is lacking, namely the lying and denial about what a person has
really said.

Irving's lack of a scientifical education led him to the delusion that he could
win his trial because he hoped he could 'prove' certain theories. But that is
impossible in such a trial in England. A judge can't become a historian and
researcher for years. As a scientist Irving had known that he can't 'prove' his
hypotheses. But to be exact, that doesn't mean in a counter-conclusion that all
is neccessarily false what Irving had propagated.

One specific aspect was already mentioned when I clarified that I thought that
no chemical anlyses of pieces of walls could lead to anything sensical in terms
of science. But with such a verdict I oppose all actual Neo-Nazis and Holocaust
denial people and also Irving. Nevertheless on usenet people like this
anonymous bigmouth Nick can write the opposite.

These debates could be continued ad infinitum but the context of the original
question should be clarified. The thread about Omid David Tabibi ''Being a Jew
and a Liar"
wasn't initiated by an Anti-Semite. Anyway, thanks to all for the good
entertainment.
Case closed for my side at least.

Regards,
Rolf

http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/...ophisches.html or also
http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/..._Vorleser.html where I show the
inhuman language in Schlink's The Reader -
here is my chess page with computerchess, also with stuff in English -
http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/...henMosaik.html

Here is a good link to Henry Friedlander's main work:

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/...S/Friedlan.HTM

(in English!)

Rolf

Anyway, YOUR example simply isn't germane to the question.

Likewise you are free to claim that Rolf's use of the phrase "Being a
Jew and Liar" is not logical. Irrespective of whether Rolf makes
comments that are logical, they may still be anti-semitic in nature.

Isidor - this is the second time you invent what I think or will think.
Beyond this, please note that MY example was about MY statement on Celts,
nothing to do with Rolf's.

Perhaps you have some motive for doing this which you don't share with us?
Are we not sensible enough to understand it?

I really don't care what you conclude if you wish to proceed the same way.

~~~~~~

There are many aspects of Celtic culture that seem regressive and
destructive to me. Am I defaming Celts in saying this - am I anti-Celt?

Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on the nature and
context of what you say.

Good. Agree.

.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.

Except if it were in the sense I mention above.

I've already dispensed with your sophistry--yet, even without
having done so, there exists no exception.

But you just agreed above to something else! You wrote "It depends on the
nature and
context of what you say."

You see, I am interested in how intellectually honest you are, before
proceeding to the actual point at issue.

When I asked about if you have reviewed the context directly below, you
become coy ['amusing'] and make no answer!

We are now a long way from
the original text. What do you think of that now?

How amusing.

~~~~~~~~

"I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be
confused
and indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here."

you brought up the issue of whether you were sensible enough to
know what is meant by anti-Semitism. Since you seem to delight in
being deliberately obtuse, you are not acting in a sensible manner.
Hence, my remark.

What may be obtuse is your own understanding, which extends to such things
as suggesting that Sam Sloan may have influenced Henry Miller. I know its
difficult when people point to a seminal work or author on these tangles of
the human spirit, especially if you haven't read them yourself, or are even
aware they exist. However, the reference to Miller was an opportunity to
share his insights by reading his books - a sober undertaking, he is
sensible, bravely facing difficult issues, and I would recommend him.

It is not a suitable study for immediately reply on usenet. I did not talk
of Miller in order to deprecate your understanding since I did not know if
you had read him or not. It was no attack!


So the writer of that piece becomes inventive and, well, lies!
right

If it pleases you to think so...

O come on! You make an enemy in me by inventing and forecasting my opinion.
Now you are shy to admit it. Are you a stranger from the truth?

However, I believe that it is a
reasonable inference that you implied that you are sensible by your
decision to judge the sensibility of the remarks.

Your lies are now 'reasonable'?

Will you say it is only rhetorical, or something? Wasn't your intent to
diminish someone else - not based on what they said,

It was based ONLY on what you wrote.

No. You invented what I wrote, and then apply terms such as 'reasonable',
'inference' and [negatively] 'sensible'. You duck the question whether you
intended to diminish your invented correspondant.

but making up something
they said in order to rubbish them a bit?
~~~~~~

O. I agree. However, lets be more honest connecting what is singular and
what is plural, and their inter-relation. Otherwise it is so easy to
invent
what people think, isn't it?

I would definite;y encourage intellectual honesty on your part.

My God! And this is the same basis that you evaluate Sloan/Tueschen! You
defame other people a little bit because you think they defame you? I
suggest to you that what IS reasonable is to ask questions - see how many
questions I ask! Then there is less likelihood of misunderstanding and maybe
we can all learn to appreciate something about each other.

What irony! To take to task Tueschen and myself, two Europeans almost twice
your age, about hate-speech, by inventing hatred in them 'by reasonable
inference'.

Phil Innes

Phil

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be
confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.

Phil Innes

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
Case closed for my side at least.

Regards, Rolf

Rolf,

Perhaps the, "I rest my case" statement is more appropraite here
because Nick might come back and give his closing statement as well.

Plus, I haven't cross examined you yet. Here it goes:

In 1963, David Irving, only 25, published "The Destruction of
Dresden." The book addressed the February 1945 Allied bombardment of
that city, in which he claimed that tens of thousands of German
civilians died and which left the city nearly razed. He was accused of
inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in order to arrive at his
figures.

Do you think that these accusations led him to become a "Holocaust
Denier"?

Lance Smith

"Phil Innes" wrote in message ...
Anyway, YOUR example simply isn't germane to the question.

Likewise you are free to claim that Rolf's use of the phrase "Being a
Jew and Liar" is not logical. Irrespective of whether Rolf makes
comments that are logical, they may still be anti-semitic in nature.

Isidor - this is the second time you invent what I think or will think.
Beyond this, please note that MY example was about MY statement on Celts,
nothing to do with Rolf's.

Perhaps you have some motive for doing this which you don't share with us?
Are we not sensible enough to understand it?

YAWN

I really don't care what you conclude if you wish to proceed the same way.

Wow, you live up to your reputation.

You raised the example of Celt/Liar in defense of Rolf's use of the
phrase "Being a Jew and Liar". It is reasonable to assume that you did
this because you believed that Celt/Liar was somehow analogous to
Rolf's phrase. Then you made the point that your Celt/Liar statement
was not logical. I demonstrated that irrespective of whether your
statement is logical, it may still be bigoted in nature. Therefore, I
made the point that you are free to claim that Tueschen's phrase was
not logical (really, there is no logic to it at all), instead of
merely implying it. If you did make the pint, it would simply be moot.



~~~~~~

There are many aspects of Celtic culture that seem regressive and
destructive to me. Am I defaming Celts in saying this - am I anti-Celt?

Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on the nature and
context of what you say.

Good. Agree.

.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.

Except if it were in the sense I mention above.

I've already dispensed with your sophistry--yet, even without
having done so, there exists no exception.

But you just agreed above to something else! You wrote "It depends on the
nature and
context of what you say."

... And based on the nature and context of what Rolf wrote, I
concluded that the phrase was anti-Semitic.

You see, I am interested in how intellectually honest you are, before
proceeding to the actual point at issue.

When I asked about if you have reviewed the context directly below, you
become coy ['amusing'] and make no answer!

We are now a long way from
the original text. What do you think of that now?

How amusing.

~~~~~~~~

"I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be
confused
and indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here."

you brought up the issue of whether you were sensible enough to
know what is meant by anti-Semitism. Since you seem to delight in
being deliberately obtuse, you are not acting in a sensible manner.
Hence, my remark.

What may be obtuse is your own understanding, which extends to such things
as suggesting that Sam Sloan may have influenced Henry Miller. I know its
difficult when people point to a seminal work or author on these tangles of
the human spirit, especially if you haven't read them yourself, or are even
aware they exist. However, the reference to Miller was an opportunity to
share his insights by reading his books - a sober undertaking, he is
sensible, bravely facing difficult issues, and I would recommend him.

It is not a suitable study for immediately reply on usenet. I did not talk
of Miller in order to deprecate your understanding since I did not know if
you had read him or not. It was no attack!


So the writer of that piece becomes inventive and, well, lies!
right

If it pleases you to think so...

O come on! You make an enemy in me by inventing and forecasting my opinion.
Now you are shy to admit it. Are you a stranger from the truth?

Gee, so now it is some kind of crime to draw reasonable inferences
from another's prose on usenet. Nor can one comment on the
implications of what you wrote, because it "forecasts" your opinion.

However, I believe that it is a
reasonable inference that you implied that you are sensible by your
decision to judge the sensibility of the remarks.

Your lies are now 'reasonable'?

It was mockery of you, not "lies". Now you are inventing what I
wrote!

You truly are a nut case [Yes, that is officially an insult]

Will you say it is only rhetorical, or something? Wasn't your intent to
diminish someone else - not based on what they said,

It was based ONLY on what you wrote.

No. You invented what I wrote, and then apply terms such as 'reasonable',
'inference' and [negatively] 'sensible'. You duck the question whether you
intended to diminish your invented correspondant.

Liar. I wrote what I wrote. I never wrote that you claimed that
you were sensible. Indeed, clearly you are not.

***Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!***

Notice that nothing in the sentence that I wrote refers to what
you wrote, except for the direct reference "sensible", which I put
into quotes to indicate that I did not agree with your (mis) usage of
the word "sensibly".


but making up something
they said in order to rubbish them a bit?
~~~~~~

O. I agree. However, lets be more honest connecting what is singular and
what is plural, and their inter-relation. Otherwise it is so easy to
invent
what people think, isn't it?

I would definite;y encourage intellectual honesty on your part.

My God! And this is the same basis that you evaluate Sloan/Tueschen!

Are you implying that slaon and Tueschen are the same people? I
don't bother evaluating Sloan. There are more than enough people on
usenet who make an avocation out of doing so.

You
defame other people a little bit because you think they defame you? I
suggest to you that what IS reasonable is to ask questions - see how many
questions I ask! Then there is less likelihood of misunderstanding and maybe
we can all learn to appreciate something about each other.

Sure, OK, Pollyanna. In there real world, words sometimes have
meaning. People manage to communicate without parsing every sentence
and deconstructing every word. Very rarely does one have to ask what
the defintion of "is" is...

You reside in a miasma of miscommunication, while others seem able
to gain some glimmer of understanding.

You must be some psychological marvel; a poster boy for Asperger's
syndrome.

Or, maybe you are just a troll.

What irony! To take to task Tueschen and myself, two Europeans almost twice
your age, about hate-speech, by inventing hatred in them 'by reasonable
inference'.

Just how old are you and Tueschen?

Phil Innes

Phil

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be
confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.

Phil Innes

Liam Too wrote:

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
Case closed for my side at least.

Regards, Rolf

Rolf,

Perhaps the, "I rest my case" statement is more appropraite here
because Nick might come back and give his closing statement as well.

Plus, I haven't cross examined you yet. Here it goes:

In 1963, David Irving, only 25, published "The Destruction of
Dresden." The book addressed the February 1945 Allied bombardment of
that city, in which he claimed that tens of thousands of German
civilians died and which left the city nearly razed. He was accused of
inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in order to arrive at his
figures.

Do you think that these accusations led him to become a "Holocaust
Denier"?

Lance Smith

Dear Lance,

This (the above) is a somewhat ****-weak 'prosecution' don't you think?
Who are you to dare to cross-examine Rolfie-boy? What is Rolfie on trial
for? His prose exuberance? His karma for being born German? uh?! Rolf is
a very nice German usenet identity who clearly had nothing whatsoever to
do with the devastating firestorms that so engulfed Dresden, burning to
a crisp the little innocent German puddy-cats & pooches..

michael adams wrote in message ...
Liam Too wrote:

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
Case closed for my side at least.

Regards, Rolf

Rolf,

Perhaps the, "I rest my case" statement is more appropraite here
because Nick might come back and give his closing statement as well.

Plus, I haven't cross examined you yet. Here it goes:

In 1963, David Irving, only 25, published "The Destruction of
Dresden." The book addressed the February 1945 Allied bombardment of
that city, in which he claimed that tens of thousands of German
civilians died and which left the city nearly razed. He was accused of
inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in order to arrive at his
figures.

Do you think that these accusations led him to become a "Holocaust
Denier"?

Lance Smith

Dear Lance,

This (the above) is a somewhat ****-weak 'prosecution' don't you think?
Who are you to dare to cross-examine Rolfie-boy? What is Rolfie on trial
for? His prose exuberance? His karma for being born German? uh?! Rolf is
a very nice German usenet identity who clearly had nothing whatsoever to
do with the devastating firestorms that so engulfed Dresden, burning to
a crisp the little innocent German puddy-cats & pooches..

Dear Michael,

I know that Rolf is a very nice guy. I just came upon his discussion
with Nick and see if I can judge the case. I just wanted to find out
more info.

What doyathink?

Lance

P.S. I would pick Rolf over Nick any day.

Liam Too wrote:

michael adams wrote in message ...
Liam Too wrote:

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
Case closed for my side at least.

Regards, Rolf

Rolf,

Perhaps the, "I rest my case" statement is more appropraite here
because Nick might come back and give his closing statement as well.

Plus, I haven't cross examined you yet. Here it goes:

In 1963, David Irving, only 25, published "The Destruction of
Dresden." The book addressed the February 1945 Allied bombardment of
that city, in which he claimed that tens of thousands of German
civilians died and which left the city nearly razed. He was accused of
inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in order to arrive at his
figures.

Do you think that these accusations led him to become a "Holocaust
Denier"?

Lance Smith

Dear Lance,

This (the above) is a somewhat ****-weak 'prosecution' don't you think?
Who are you to dare to cross-examine Rolfie-boy? What is Rolfie on trial
for? His prose exuberance? His karma for being born German? uh?! Rolf is
a very nice German usenet identity who clearly had nothing whatsoever to
do with the devastating firestorms that so engulfed Dresden, burning to
a crisp the little innocent German puddy-cats & pooches..

Dear Michael,

I know that Rolf is a very nice guy. I just came upon his discussion
with Nick and see if I can judge the case. I just wanted to find out
more info.

What doyathink?

Lance

P.S. I would pick Rolf over Nick any day.

Well yes, I suppose so - Rolf would need to be the 'dominant' in any
marriage 'twixt t'em..