"ian burton" wrote:
Why are you addressing this to rec.games.chess.misc? Find some other forum.


Easy one. It is about a young chess programmer from Israel, Omid David. Who
called a late German politician 'Nazi *******'.
So it fits into 'chess.misc' somehow. I think you know what Misc means.

Rolf

(Jürgen R.) wrote:

I judge that you are seriously misrepresenting the character of
Moellemann. What is much worse - dishonest, in fact - is that you have
not made clear why he is being called a Nazi.


Are you kidding. The Israeli called Moellemann a 'Nazi *******'. Why should I
explain why he did it? IMO there is no reason at all. Please dont cheat the
facts. Omid David didn't call him a 'Nazi' but a Nazi *******. Therefore I
called him in return a lying Jewish *******. The question now to the readers
here was

a) assumed that Moellemann was no Nazi at all and he wasn't - or do you want to
claim the opposite?

b) was it then allowed to call Omid David a lying Jewish ******* in return?

The question was NOT, if the readers could tell me if Moellemann was a Nazi.

Hope this helps

Rolf


Rather than summarizing these omissions I suggest that you do so.

You cannot expect the readers of this forum to know much about a minor
German politician such as Moellemann; you cannot expect them to know
that his death occurred the day before the police were scheduled to
search his offices; etc. ect.

If you ask people to "judge", let them know the whole story.

Jürgen

Bob Musicant wrote:

Rolf,

rec.games.chess.misc is an extraordinary place. A place where an
educated, middle-aged, European professional can tell an audience of
similarly educated people from around the world that he called a young
Israeli a "lying Jewish *******," ask for their opinions about his
justification for such an action, and receive at least some thoughtful
responses.

I will get back to that in a moment, but first a few observations:

1. I think it was misleading on your part to describe Moellemann in
your first message as just an honest German politician who had simply been
critical of the policies of the Ariel Sharon government. I am also
critical, very much so, of Sharon and his policies, and I don't think I
will
ever be called a "Nazi *******." You left out that Moellemann was under
investigation for corruption at the time of his suicide and that his
remarks were regarded by at least a portion of the German public as
raising questions about whether he had gone beyond mere criticism of a
policy, into
the zone of outright anti-Semitism. Such questions about his true
feelings are a legitimate reaction to the form that his criticism of
German
television host Michael Friedman took. (Saying that Friedman's
"intolerant, spiteful manner" encouraged anti-Semitism).

2. I did not mention it in my first reply to you, but like the forum
managers, I also think that there is a large difference between harsh
criticism of a public figure like Moellemann, dead or alive, in an
internet forum, and your personal attack on another member of the forum.
Particularly so when the politician in question was one who made it a
point
of pride to be "controversial" and flamboyant. I am keeping in mind the
possibility that David's comments could have been understood as slanderous
of the German people as a whole, a fact that you could find personally
offensive, and I would have no problem if you had confined your response
to pointing that out to David by appropriate means.

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").

4. You have on a number of occasions tried to present your personal
views and remarks as being the product of a professional psychological
background. Nothing, absolutely nothing, you have said in this forum
convinces me that you have made any use of your education other than as a
prop by which you
justify your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies. In my own work as an
attorney who specializes in cases involving medical issues, as well as in
my personal life in which I have been acquainted with large numbers of
persons involved in the work of psychotherapy, I have encountered a fair
number of professional therapists who manage to remain ignorant of fairly
fundamental
principles despite their education and experience. I would have to count
you as being a member of that group. Why are you asking this group what
it thinks of your use of the term "lying Jewish *******" as part of an
effort
to "educate" a young man? Why don't you make it the subject of a paper at
a
professional gathering? Do you expect us to believe that fellow
psychologists would nod their heads in agreement and say, "Of course, a
very sensible thing Dr. Tueschen did, pefectly understandable, and
beneficial to Mr. David, besides." ?

Getting back to what an extraordinary place rgcm is, and the kind of
response its members give to a psychologist who thinks he will teach
something to another person by calling him a "lying Jewish *******," the
correct response from the outset should have been that the speaker is at
best a fool (Dummkopf), and more likely, a mean, spiteful person who tries
to cover his anger and hatred with pseudo-intellectual blather
(Geplapper).

Bob Musicant

Dear Bob,

Your post is one of the best I have read in this newsgroup.


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?

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.



Regards,

Simon Spivack.

On 09 Nov 2003 21:36:49 GMT, (Rolf Tueschen)
wrote:

(Jürgen R.) wrote:

I judge that you are seriously misrepresenting the character of
Moellemann. What is much worse - dishonest, in fact - is that you have
not made clear why he is being called a Nazi.


Are you kidding. The Israeli called Moellemann a 'Nazi *******'. Why should I
explain why he did it? IMO there is no reason at all. Please dont cheat the
facts. Omid David didn't call him a 'Nazi' but a Nazi *******. Therefore I
called him in return a lying Jewish *******. The question now to the readers
here was

a) assumed that Moellemann was no Nazi at all and he wasn't - or do you want to
claim the opposite?

b) was it then allowed to call Omid David a lying Jewish ******* in return?

The question was NOT, if the readers could tell me if Moellemann was a Nazi.

Hope this helps

It doesn't.

But perhaps this does: Moellemann made a crude attempt to exploit
latent German anti-semitism during the last national election
campaign. He did this by distributing a widely critized flyer that
contained various ugly insinuations. The man was a sleazy and
unprincipled politician. Of course, he was not a Nazi, nor was he a
"fascist". He was an opportunist whose actual attitudes toward Jews,
Israel, Arabs and any other subject are completely uninteresting.

I find it easily understandable that a militant Israeli might call
Moellemann a "Nazi *******"; and I find it completely disingenuous for
you to characterize this as a lie since neither part of the slur can
have been meant literally.

Jürgen


Rolf


Rather than summarizing these omissions I suggest that you do so.

You cannot expect the readers of this forum to know much about a minor
German politician such as Moellemann; you cannot expect them to know
that his death occurred the day before the police were scheduled to
search his offices; etc. ect.

If you ask people to "judge", let them know the whole story.

Jürgen

So fine. Your position is at least one. You tolerate the insulting of a German
as Nazi ******* because it might not be meant literally. Fine. But I have a
different view, so we might agree to disagree. I call a lie a lie. And a liar a
liar.

Rolf

Just for clarification I want to give a link to my page about the case
Auschwitz, its personal in form of a woman called Hermine Braunsteiner (later
Ryan) and the organizer of the transportation of the Jews from all oer Europe,
Eichmann. There I also quote Raul Hilberg, a famous Holocaust expert.

I think the page proves my perception of the Nazi Holocaust.

The page is at

http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/..._Vorleser.html

Another question is the existence of camps for slavery work and obious
extinction camps.

I did never deny the existence of the latter. And as I wrote, the highest
responsibles had been found guilty at the Nuremberg trials. They were all
condemned to death by hanging.

Perhaps it came to lingual misunderstandings but I spoke about the motivation
of the Nazis in the exploitation of slavery work in camps for those workers. An
exploitation at a minimum cost which led by definition to death by starving.

I am far away from praising such work camps, but they prove the priority of the
exploitation and NOT the direct killing.

If someoe has read me as if I would follow the so called Holocaust denial then
this is a terrible misunderstanding. Since at the end of the exploitation in
work camps there stood the death by starving. But the exploitation was the
cynical goal, not the killing, that was all I had said. More than once in the
past I did also state that this doesn't make the Nazis less guilty or the
German people as a whole. Just take a look into Google for that matter.

So, I don't get the interest of people who try to put me into a false corner
just because I had called a young Israeli for what he is when he insulted a
German politician as a 'Nazi *******'. I called him a lying Jewish *******.
And I heard no arguments why I shouldn't do that.

Rolf

I did answer your message in the thread. You must have misread what I had
written. NB that I did NOT write that the killing was not intentional. Of
course it was and therefore the main responsibles were condemned to death by
hanging in Nuremberg. The latter was exactly what Musicant had snipped from his
quote.

Hope this helps.

Rolf

Rolf,
You should be pleased that you have accomplished at least one positive thing
with this discussion: You have made me realize how offensive it can be to a
German to hear another German described as a Nazi *******.

As to whether I misunderstood your original question, your own restatement
of it below was precisely what I thought the question was. And you wanted
our opinion, was your reaction a "good" one (and I fully accept your
characterization of the remark by Omid David as extremely offensive) or not.
Once again: It is not a "good" reaction coming from anyone of any
nationality. And if you go back to my original response to your question,
you will see my reasons for saying that it sounds particularly ugly coming
from a German.

If you are going to describe Moellemann as just "an honest German
politician, who is dead BTW" [YOUR words], then I think a little additional
backgound information on l'affaire Moellemann is not improper. And I
realized after I posted my statement about him that I should have referred
to his "apparent" suicide, as described in some of the English press.

You wrote (see below):
What the hell has Irving to do with Omid Davids insult against
Moellemann, dear attorney???

A very good question. Perhaps when you feel like it you could explain why
you brought David Irving's thesis about the nature of the concentration
camps into this discussion.

Bob Musicant


"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
"Bob Musicant" wrote:

Rolf,

rec.games.chess.misc is an extraordinary place. A place where an
educated,
middle-aged, European professional can tell an audience of similarly
educated people from around the world that he called a young Israeli

No no no. If he was just a young Israeli, he had been of no interest to
me. The
truth is, Omid David is a young computerchess expert, he will participate
in
the Wch right in the end of November (Graz in Austria). If such a man
calls a
German politician a Nazi ******* this is of special interest for me. So
please,
if you collect all sorts of data from the many messages in this thread
then
please take them all and don't forget exactly those who would oppose your
view.



a
"lying Jewish *******," ask for their opinions about his justification
for
such an action, and receive at least some thoughtful responses.

Also that was NOT the question at all. The true question was if the
response on
that malicious 'Nazi *******' insult, namely the expression 'lying Jewish
*******' was a good reaction or something worse or even evil when it came
from
a German. I thnk you don't like that question as a topic and therefore you
put
more attention on other interesting side topics. But no matter what you
did, I
find all the topics very interesting to discuss.




I will get back to that in a moment, but first a few observations:

1. I think it was misleading on your part to describe Moellemann in
your
first message as just an honest German politician who had simply been
critical of the policies of the Ariel Sharon government.

There you go with your first lie. If you search with care you will find
where I
have written that "B) he was not innocent like a new born baby" or such
similar. Moellemann - like all politicians - had some weak points. But I
don't
see what these points should have to do with our debate here. And you also
fail
to make it clearer.



I am also
critical, very much so, of Sharon and his policies, and I don't think I
will
ever be called a "Nazi *******." You left out that Moellemann was under
investigation for corruption at the time of his suicide and that his
remarks
were regarded by at least a portion of the German public as raising
questions about whether he had gone beyond mere criticism of a policy,
into
the zone of outright anti-Semitism.


Have you smoked something forbidden tonight, or what is the reason for
your
fantasies? I left out that Moellemann should have been involved in
corruption
before his suicide? What are you talking about? Suicide? Who told you
that? Is
it proven? And you want to be an attorney? Hehehe. Give me break. Since
when
lawyers take fantasies for facts? Really a funny man you are. Excuse me,
but
this becomes disgusting.

That is the same malicious method of this Omid David and now you from the
distance, perhaps with internet data here copied there pasted. What a
hoax!

But let's read how you will substatiate your theory of Moellemann's
anti-semitism.


Such questions about his true feelings
are a legitimate reaction to the form that his criticism of German
television host Michael Friedman took. (Saying that Friedman's
"intolerant,
spiteful manner" encouraged anti-Semitism).

Hehehe. You are now in defense of Friedman? Hehe. A Jew in the highest
Jewish
institution called Council in Germany, who was just convicted by a Court
for
possession of cocaine, who had contact to the Ukrainian pimp organization
who's
actually in court trial - because Friedman had ordered prostitutes from?
You
are defending this guy? That he does NOT encourage Anti-Semitism? You bet!
He's
the prototype of someone who is certainly not favorable for any cause.

That is interesting for me. You claim that you criticise Sharon and nobody
ever
called you Anti-Semite. But how come? Amir Ban another computerchess
expert and
Wch claims that the critic against Sharon is the veiled trick of
Anti-Semites.
Or are you personally a Jewby chance? Then of course you can't be an
Anti-Semite? Tell me, what's the trick here? Something doesn't sound
kosher
IMO.


BTW could you elaborate why corruption, if it could be proven, note it
hasn't
been proven yet, only you are fantasising as if it was, why corruption
could be
speaking for Anti-Semitism?

BTW could you further explain why a suicide, if it was a suicide, but it
was
said that this never could be proven, only you as a lawyer, you seem to
know
that it was a suicide, how a suicide could speak for Anti-Semitism?

BTW could you further explain why the opposition to the cocaine man
Friedman
could speak for Anti-Semitism???

Three BTWs and perhaps no answer from your side? That could be fatal?

A forth one?

C'mon!

Why in hell all these aspects justify calling Moellemann a Nazi *******?
Could
you please elaborate, attorney?




2. I did not mention it in my first reply to you, but like the forum
managers, I also think that there is a large difference between harsh
criticism of a public figure like Moellemann, dead or alive, in an
internet
forum, and your personal attack on another member of the forum.
Particularly so when the politician in question was one who made it a
point
of pride to be "controversial" and flamboyant.

Hehe. Excuse me. You confuse a bit your data, methinks, attorney!

It was not Moellemann but Friedmann who is proud of his controversial
style.
Excuse me, but the truth should be protected a little bit IMO.


I am keeping in mind the
possibility that David's comments could have been understood as
slanderous
of the German people as a whole, a fact that you could find personally
offensive, and I would have no problem if you had confined your response
to
pointing that out to David by appropriate means.


Nazi ******* was NOT a malicious insult to a German? And it is excused
because
Moellemann was a bit corrupt, commited suicide and had attacked the
cocaine man
Friedman??? Attorney, please, could you please clarify?




3. More serious questions about your motives and the possibility of
your
having some unspoken agenda

Uhm, this is becoming nasty methinks.
But I won't talk with you about my message to Larry Parr if you allow.
This
would be double talking since I want to concentrate myself on the
important
points. You have none methinks. So you must take some from my messages to
Parr.
What a lame strategy.


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").


And you want to insinuate that the case of Irving did exactly prove what?
Do
you want to play games here? Confusing the people about what the court
case
meant? What the hell has Irving to do with Omid Davids insult against
Moellemann, dear attorney???



4. You have on a number of occasions tried to present your personal
views
and remarks as being the product of a professional psychological
background.

Yes, and I am proud of having opposed your psychiatric nonsense diagnosing
of
Bobby Fischer.


Nothing, absolutely nothing, you have said in this forum convinces me
that
you have made any use of your education other than as a prop by which you
justify your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies. In my own work as an
attorney who specializes in cases involving medical issues, as well as in
my
personal life in which I have been acquainted with large numbers of
persons
involved in the work of psychotherapy, I have encountered a fair number
of
professional therapists who manage to remain ignorant of fairly
fundamental
principles despite their education and experience. I would have to count
you as being a member of that group. Why are you asking this group what
it
thinks of your use of the term "lying Jewish *******" as part of an
effort
to "educate" a young man?


Did I ask that question, attorney? Hehe. Not in my books. You are
fantasising,
attorney.


Why don't you make it the subject of a paper at a
professional gathering? Do you expect us to believe that fellow
psychologists would nod their heads in agreement and say, "Of course, a
very
sensible thing Dr. Tueschen did, pefectly understandable, and beneficial
to
Mr. David, besides." ?

Watch your blood pressure, attorney. Afterwards I am responsible for your
problems.



Getting back to what an extraordinary place rgcm is, and the kind of
response its members give to a psychologist who thinks he will teach
something to another person by calling him a "lying Jewish *******," the
correct response from the outset should have been that the speaker is at
best a fool (Dummkopf), and more likely, a mean, spiteful person who
tries
to cover his anger and hatred with pseudo-intellectual blather
(Geplapper).

The question is also what Mr. Attorney Musicante is hiding? A hatred
against
Bobby Fischer? [To those of the readers who are new here, please search in
Google about Musicant and Bobby Fischer, A reveiling event will open.]


Bob Musicant

Rolf Tueschen, in a message to Larry Parr, wrote:
"Something comparable, excuse me, this will be discussed only after some
further 30 years of silence, to many practices worldwide, where people
die
too early because of unhealthy conditions of their work. Even most famous
companies, from the USA included, make use of children's work, mostly in
Asia, where they work under unhealthy conditions. No protection against
chemical pollution etc.

"It was a war in Central Europe. And likewise the war against Poland, the
Ukraine and the whole Soviet Union was inhuman and racistic, the whole
ideology of the "Untermensch" [= subhuman ] included, the murderous
liquidation of the Jews in an industrial process with work at low costs
and
maximal exploitation was inhuman and racistic too.

"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."

He the attorney snipped the most important part of the quote where I added
that
for this reason because of their murderous intentions these nazis were
condemned to death by hanging in the Nuremberg trials.

Now we have seen what your true motives are, attorney. You are a crook,
nothing
else.
You want to make a case where is none.

Let's see if you can answer the three or four open questions, you had
prematurely answered already. Why it is allowed to call Moellemann the
late
german politician a nazi *******? Your chance now to rehabilitate your bad
status as a crook, attorney.

Rolf

"chapman Billy" wrote in message
...

Dear Bob,

Your post is one of the best I have read in this newsgroup.


Thank you, Simon.

"Bob Musicant" wrote:

You wrote (see below):
What the hell has Irving to do with Omid Davids insult against
Moellemann, dear attorney???

A very good question. Perhaps when you feel like it you could explain why
you brought David Irving's thesis about the nature of the concentration
camps into this discussion.

Bob Musicant

Thanks for the question. It allows me to reveil an even worse misunderstanding.
You hae completely misuderstood me. It was directed to Larry Parr with whom I
had a debate some two years ago. It wasn't meant to be important for the
original question I put here about the 'Nazi *******' insult. Excuse me if you
have misunderstood me, I should have marked the side aspect clearer as
belonging to another debate with Parr.

But since it came up now let me clarify:

1) As a German I follow the perception that is protected by the Law in Germany.
Hence

2) I believe in the Holocaust of 6 Million Jews.

In special I do NOT believe that the Holocaust could be made smaller or less
important by language games or chemical research in Auschwitz.

As a German of the first after the war generation I take the responsibility for
the crimes in the name of the German people on my own shoulders too. There is
no question about it.

What I meant in the debate with Larry Parr is something that is followig Jewish
authors who reveiled certain important news. For example that the techology of
the Holocaust was already applied in the so called Euthanasy mass murder of the
disabled Germans. Also the in the same hidance. With complete veil in language
too so that the people could not understand it. (That is NOT my personal
opinion, it's state of the art in science.)
Then as a second point the industrial extinction of the workers in the work
camps. I read a lot about the calculation of the food and I know that the
minimum of food was not enough to survive. but the main purpose of these camps
was meant to allow the exploitation of the workers, not their killing. Here I
don't speak about mass liquidation camps which also existed of course.

Dear attorney, if you knew me you would ot even think a moment that I could
believe in a sort of whitewash ceremony of the German people. Not in my books.

But in the debate with the knowledgable Larry Parr I am interested in certain
details. That shouldn't insult you BTW.

Could you perhaps try to find some answers to the four questions I gave you in
my last message?

Rolf