(Lion) wrote:

Rolf,

I am going to state this one last time: No amount of concessions by
the Israelis would satisfy many of the militant Palestinians. Your
entire argument about the weak and strong is meaningless if the weak
refuse to accept any negotations.

You may criticize the Israeli government, the Orthodyx Settlers, or
the military, but it all amounts to nothing, if the militant
Palestinians will accept nothing short of complete control over all of
Israel. Groups like Hamas don't care about Israeli politics, and they
couldn't care less if Israelis were racist or not. They have stated
plainly that they will not coexist with Israel.


What a relief that must be for you!! Otherwise you were forced to think about
your own positions in Israel. If Leibowitz would still be here he would slap
you your nonsense around your ears. That is so low. It's incredible. You don't
even notice that you are playing with words. All the politeness in your
language doesn't help.

I for one have the following ladder of decency.

-- sound arguments and politeness

-- sound arguments and noise

-- sound arguments and personal insults

-- bad arguments and politeness

-- bad arguments and noise

-- bad arguments and personal insults


As you can see you are ranking between 4 and 5. I see myself on 2 due to my
lack of mastership of the English language.



The one other point I want to make, is that terrorism is not
comparable to war. You said that the recent Israeli deaths are the
result of the plans of generals and such. Israeli schoolchildren on a
bus to school are not soldiers. They are not "collateral damage."

Objection!

You already had stated that terrorism is allegedly directed NOT against
soldiers but civilians. Wrong!

Because you are in a civil war in Israel. Didn't you know that? Terrorism in
Germany often was directed against the US military in Germany. The same now in
Iraq.



They are not lives to be sacrificed to win some land. The same is
true of the Palestinian teenagers that are encouraged to throw their
lives away by their leaders with bombs strapped to their chests.

I have said everything that I can to present the perspective of
Israelis, as well as my own view on the situation. I am sorry that
you consider me "arrogant", "impolite", and "dickheaded." Hopefully
we will have both Palestinian and Israeli leaders for whom these
adjectives do not apply.


It would be enough if you would start to think about Israel and not the
Palestinians. Let them make their own decisions. Do you only say what you want
to do for the peace in your country.


Hopefully the Palestinian leader will be
able to control the terrorists, and the Israeli leader will be able to
remove the settlements. I will not have time to respond to any
further arguments.


So, you can hide that you have no arguments. What a pity.



Let us hope that the negotiations go better, with more mutual
understanding and goodwill, then this discussion has had.

Well, here we are united! I hope the same!

All the best to you,
Rolf

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...

I feel very sad that you must also suffer in your personal family of what
the
Nazi murder has done to so many people.

Thank you.

The more so I respect your objective judgement of the inhuman military
policy
of Israel.

But let me also say that I will never have tolerance for your public
extremism
in the causa Fischer. You should better analyse if the American people and
its
representatives have treated him with the necessary care.

The tragedy of Bobby Fischer is the basic negligence for a chess genius in
the
USA. He was applauded when he has beaten the whole Soviet team around
Spassky,
but then Americans expected him to behave like all famous hypocrites. But
Bobby
from his youth on always was standing on his own. Instead of respecting
his
ideosyncrasies the spin doctors and money spenders tried to domesticate
him.

Look, Fischer never has done what Kasparov is guilty of. He never cheated
his
chess opponents! He never behaved impolite against his chess opponents
over the
board.


Agreed. Throughout his chess career, Fischer was notable for his perfect
conduct at the chessboard. In that respect, he serves as a model for all
chessplayers.


I wished you could imagine a bit better what it means to be a genius in
chess
living in the USA. And being a Jew as Fischer is a terrible handicap. If
you
have reason to believe that they cheated you. Then you are all alone.

I wished that people like you, also with the personal wound from the past,
should make better thoughts about Bobby Fischer than just spreading
foolish
psychiatric vocabulary.

Rolf

Rolf,

When has being Jewish ever been a handicap in chess, particularly post-WWII
in the USA? How, in particular, was Fischer ever handicapped by his
ancestry?

Incidentally, are you aware how much Fischer would resent being called
Jewish? Are you familiar with his 1984 letter to the Encyclpedia Judaica,
asking that his name be removed from later editions, stating, "I am not
today, nor have I ever been, a Jew"?

Bob

"Bob Musicant" wrote:

Rolf,

When has being Jewish ever been a handicap in chess, particularly post-WWII
in the USA? How, in particular, was Fischer ever handicapped by his
ancestry?


Incidentally, are you aware how much Fischer would resent being called
Jewish? Are you familiar with his 1984 letter to the Encyclpedia Judaica,
asking that his name be removed from later editions, stating, "I am not
today, nor have I ever been, a Jew"?

Bob



You answered your own question. That and the many radio messages are answer
enough. But - don't take me wrong, we both don't know anything personal to make
deep conclusions, not to speak of psychiatric diagnoses. But that exactly was
always my argument against you and some others on the net.

Look, I'm not a Jew, I'm not an Anti-Semite. My English is not the best, to say
the least, but I can well feel the hatred of the many Bobby Fischer bashers,
most of them Jews. That is the answer I can give you. You must open your mind
to see it. Again, the mechanism is clear but the details, you seemed to expect,
are lacking for obvious reasons. You might even know more than me as an
American. And as a Jew you also know terra bytes more than me about Jewish
*self*-hatred.

As to the original topic "Being a Jew and a Liar" only No-more-Chess hit the
nail on its head (that the fact of lies seems to be no problem for a Jew IF he
has by chance a German at hand or an Anti-Semite whom he can counter-attack,
because then the lies become a tool to survive the holocaust so to speak),
while others like you and Parr found it exaggerated to call every German a
'Nazi *******', because that was it what the Israeli propagandist had done.
Because the named German politician wasn't a Nazi at all, he had just
criticised the military policy of the Sharons. And he had dared to speak of the
danger that such policy in Israel could increace the Anti-Semitic attitudes in
the German people. Exactly this is a taboo in German politics. But I can ask
you, would you deny - as a Jew - that there is a connection? Not dominant but
existing? - Which leads back to the question I asked the propagandist Omid
David: could Israel or the Jews EVER _once_ be wrong themselves?
The next question would have be as follows: if yes, would people (and Germans?)
be allowed to tell - without being insulted as Anti-Semites? But I still wait
for an answer to the first question. Could you take that on your shoulders?

The Israeli philosopher Leibowitz is already dead unfortunately (since 1994).

He said: "Man is unable not to know what he knows!" Shouldn't that be a
protection against lies?

Rolf

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

Rolf,

When has being Jewish ever been a handicap in chess, particularly
post-WWII
in the USA? How, in particular, was Fischer ever handicapped by his
ancestry?


Incidentally, are you aware how much Fischer would resent being called
Jewish? Are you familiar with his 1984 letter to the Encyclpedia
Judaica,
asking that his name be removed from later editions, stating, "I am not
today, nor have I ever been, a Jew"?

Bob



You answered your own question. That and the many radio messages are
answer
enough. But - don't take me wrong, we both don't know anything personal to
make
deep conclusions, not to speak of psychiatric diagnoses. But that exactly
was
always my argument against you and some others on the net.

I have no idea what this means.

Look, I'm not a Jew, I'm not an Anti-Semite. My English is not the best,
to say
the least, but I can well feel the hatred of the many Bobby Fischer
bashers,
most of them Jews.

?!??!!!!????

That is the answer I can give you. You must open your mind
to see it. Again, the mechanism is clear but the details, you seemed to
expect,
are lacking for obvious reasons. You might even know more than me as an
American. And as a Jew you also know terra bytes more than me about Jewish
*self*-hatred.

As to the original topic "Being a Jew and a Liar" only No-more-Chess hit
the
nail on its head (that the fact of lies seems to be no problem for a Jew
IF he
has by chance a German at hand or an Anti-Semite whom he can
counter-attack,
because then the lies become a tool to survive the holocaust so to speak),
while others like you and Parr found it exaggerated to call every German a
'Nazi *******', because that was it what the Israeli propagandist had
done.
Because the named German politician wasn't a Nazi at all, he had just
criticised the military policy of the Sharons.

That seems to be what is in dispute between David and you, whether
Moellemann had "just" criticised the policy. I don't know enough about the
Moelleman incidents to offer a judgment, and I am not interested in getting
into that discussion. Your original question dealt with the rightness of
YOUR response to David, and my original thoughts remain the same, REGARDLESS
of how correct or incorrect David is.

Which leads back to the question I asked the propagandist Omid
David: could Israel or the Jews EVER _once_ be wrong themselves?

Could Israel ever be wrong, in particular in its policies with respect to
the Palestinian Arabs? Sure. The settlement policy is wrong. The policy
of putting up the barrier in a way that disrupts the lives of Palestninians
is also wrong. Could "the Jews" be wrong? That assumes a monolithic view
held by all Jews, an assumption I don't accept.

The next question would have be as follows: if yes, would people (and
Germans?)
be allowed to tell - without being insulted as Anti-Semites? But I still
wait
for an answer to the first question. Could you take that on your
shoulders?

I think they should be able to make appropriate criticism. But again, in
reference to Moelleman, the question was exactly what his intended meaning
was. David had his view. Don't expect me to either speak up in his defense
or join you in attacking him.

wrote in message ...

Rolf Tueschen (dick?) = semiaziz spams his
antiSem,itic propaganda, and then says something
funny:

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

But to you, neoNazy, this is a badge of "honor".

Wlod

PS. Hey guys, make it less attractive for this
semiazis full Nazy character, remove his hate
propaganda title from the post, when replying
to him, replace it with something meaningful.

PPS. Are his stupid posts some kind of a social
experiment? Is someone playing a sick joke?

"Bob Musicant" wrote:


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

Rolf,

When has being Jewish ever been a handicap in chess, particularly
post-WWII
in the USA? How, in particular, was Fischer ever handicapped by his
ancestry?


Incidentally, are you aware how much Fischer would resent being called
Jewish? Are you familiar with his 1984 letter to the Encyclpedia
Judaica,
asking that his name be removed from later editions, stating, "I am not
today, nor have I ever been, a Jew"?

Bob



You answered your own question. That and the many radio messages are
answer
enough. But - don't take me wrong, we both don't know anything personal to
make
deep conclusions, not to speak of psychiatric diagnoses. But that exactly
was
always my argument against you and some others on the net.

I have no idea what this means.

I know. Because you still continued to make your long-distance psychiatry
against Bobby although you are NOT a medical expert and have NOT examined him
personally.




Look, I'm not a Jew, I'm not an Anti-Semite. My English is not the best,
to say
the least, but I can well feel the hatred of the many Bobby Fischer
bashers,
most of them Jews.

?!??!!!!????

Was my observation over the years. The USA citizans bashing Bobby Fischer who
were the most harsh were Jews.




That is the answer I can give you. You must open your mind
to see it. Again, the mechanism is clear but the details, you seemed to
expect,
are lacking for obvious reasons. You might even know more than me as an
American. And as a Jew you also know terra bytes more than me about Jewish
*self*-hatred.

As to the original topic "Being a Jew and a Liar" only No-more-Chess hit
the
nail on its head (that the fact of lies seems to be no problem for a Jew
IF he
has by chance a German at hand or an Anti-Semite whom he can
counter-attack,
because then the lies become a tool to survive the holocaust so to speak),
while others like you and Parr found it exaggerated to call every German a
'Nazi *******', because that was it what the Israeli propagandist had
done.
Because the named German politician wasn't a Nazi at all, he had just
criticised the military policy of the Sharons.

That seems to be what is in dispute between David and you,

Bob, you are completely wrong. I never had a debate with Omid David about
Moellemann. I thought you knew that because I already had stated it here in the
thread. I was NOT in the thread with him and entered only after I had read the
'Nazi *******'.

I had former disputes with him about other topics. But NOT Moellemann.



whether
Moellemann had "just" criticised the policy. I don't know enough about the
Moelleman incidents to offer a judgment, and I am not interested in getting
into that discussion. Your original question dealt with the rightness of
YOUR response to David, and my original thoughts remain the same, REGARDLESS
of how correct or incorrect David is.

Yes, that is all ok. Perhaps you react this way as a Jew.




Which leads back to the question I asked the propagandist Omid
David: could Israel or the Jews EVER _once_ be wrong themselves?

Could Israel ever be wrong, in particular in its policies with respect to
the Palestinian Arabs? Sure. The settlement policy is wrong. The policy
of putting up the barrier in a way that disrupts the lives of Palestninians
is also wrong.

Thanks so much. It gives me some hope again. Because you lose hope if you have
to read Omid David and the famous Amir Ban in that forum. You know, they follow
the line that Jews always are ok. And that begins a fortnight before Adam&Eve
were born and ends next week, with the same game next week.




Could "the Jews" be wrong? That assumes a monolithic view
held by all Jews, an assumption I don't accept.


I don't do that either. But I have never read something that the two persons
ever wrote something the like that they meant this or that and that they said
that many other Israelis meant something _else_. It's always the masturbation
of one-dimensional nonsense. Wrong is Europe, the whole world or just the
correspondent, but NEVER ever the two themselves.

But I always read that Jews by definition are in love with debating, also among
themselves. So by definition [in my books!] not all the parties could be right!
But I don't want to teach you lessons you already knew. Sorry.




The next question would have be as follows: if yes, would people (and
Germans?)
be allowed to tell - without being insulted as Anti-Semites? But I still
wait
for an answer to the first question. Could you take that on your
shoulders?

I think they should be able to make appropriate criticism. But again, in
reference to Moelleman, the question was exactly what his intended meaning
was.

You are a bit funny. That reminds me of the Bobby Fischer debate. What did he
say with his radio interviews. What did he mean? You are not a clairvoyant, I'm
not either.




David had his view.

I told you that it's a fact, that Moellemann is no Nazi, no Anti-Semite. Not
sufficient for you? You want to insinuate that Omid David could have meant
something relevant?



Don't expect me to either speak up in his defense
or join you in attacking him.

I thought you would follow the facts. But now I see that in case it's a young
Jew who is insulting a German, you claim some extra rights. - Not in my books!

And yes, I know that you already had answered how you evaluated my therapeutic
reply. A German has NOT the right to call a lying Jew a 'lying Jewish *******'
[thus pasting the reverse of the 'Nazi *******']


You could also react like this: on the base of what you say, I must assume that
Moellemann is no Nazi. But then the insult by Omid David was a gross mistake. I
can therefore understand how you meant your response. You didn't want to
insult- primarily - but you wanted to show Omid David how such a mean worked
in himself. As I said, all on the de facto assumption, that what you said,
Rolf, is correct. - -

Bob, could you also address my little info that Moellemann as a thoughtful
politician, like sociologist, mentioned the possibility that the "usual level
of anti-semitism" in the German public could be increased by the actual
military policy of Sharon? I think it's easy for you because you already said
that you think that this is NOT the right policy. So - how could people in
Israel and also Germany itself, say that Moellemann by saying this, became a
danger to German politics and his own party? That was exactly what happened.
His party threw him out, Israel was content. Cocaine-Friedman form the Jewish
council in Germany had reached his goal. Disgusting.

Rolf

..
But to you, neoNazy, this is a badge of "honor".

Wlod

PS. Hey guys, make it less attractive for this
semiazis full Nazy character, remove his hate
propaganda title from the post, when replying
to him, replace it with something meaningful.

PPS. Are his stupid posts some kind of a social
experiment? Is someone playing a sick joke?



Some people just don't get it.




Knee-o Knotsies have no trouble with spelling, unlike troulz, like Wlod here.

This is so simple, even a troll should be able to get it: Mr. Tueschen
pointed out a factual error by a lying propagandist, and was promptly
mislabelled an "anti-semite" by the propagandist, in retaliation. Kapish?
Comprende? Nine? Basket-case? Ya? Braindead? Da. Well, not all trolls are
created equal.... =-]

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:

Rolf Tueschen (dick?) says something
funny:

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

But to you, neoNazy, this is a badge of "honor".

Wlod

Dear Wlod,

I am not convinced that Tueschen is anti-semitic; although he is
certainly somewhat lacking in the social graces and in the awareness of the
effects of his remarks.

I can recall a couple of articles about Moellemann in the UK papers
I read, the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph; nonetheless, I have to
agree with an earlier poster that it is too much to expect non-German
readers in RGCM to remember much about him. Tueschen could, for instance,
have given a link such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2965952.stm ,
if only to refresh memories. That article and the links from it clearly
indicate the doubts about Moellemann's probity, and the populist thrust of
his politics; I confess I have always tended to despise populist
politicians, whatever their hue: Moellemann was definitely after the
extreme right-wing vote, although that does not make him a neo-nazi, he was
also under investigation for financial irregularities. I wonder if Tueschen
is outraged at the expulsion of Martin Hohmann from the CDU?

What Tueschen does not appear to grasp is that there are plenty of
Jews who do not approve of Sharon's policies; there are also plenty of
Jewish Israelis who disapprove too, witness the recent reports of the views
of former leaders of Shin Bet one of the Israeli security services.
Tueschen also does not see the very real differences in attitude and
outlook between Jews living in the West and Jews living in Israel; one
could qualify further that there are considerable differences between the
many different views of American Jews and Jews living in Britain, and so
on. Tueschen seems to know less about America than he expects his readers
to know about Germany, he does not appear to know that many "right wing"
(for want of a better description) Christian groups in the US are staunch
supporters of Israel.

Tueschen writes:
'1) As a German I follow the perception that is protected by the Law in
Germany.'

One can be sent to prison in Germany for Holocaust Denial, I don't believe
this is a factor in Tueschen's views, but I could be wrong.

Tueschen adds:
'Hence
2) I believe in the Holocaust of 6 Million Jews.'

1) is a curious reason to believe in 2), Tueschen's epistemology is
certainly rather odd.

Tueschen writes:
'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 following
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.'

I don't believe an anti-Semite would have written this in these
circumstances. However, his views do seem strange. Here is part of Robert
Jay Lifton's intoduction to part I of The Nazi Doctors:

'Of the five identifiable steps by which the Nazis carried out the principle
of "life unworthy of life," coercive sterilization was the first. There
followed the killing of "impaired" children in hospitals; and then the
killing of "impaired" adults, mostly collected from mental hospitals,in
centers especially equipped with carbon monoxide gas. This project was
extended (in the same killing centers) to "impaired" inmates of
concentration and extermination camps and, finally, to mass killings,
mostly of Jews, in the extermination camps themselves.'

Above Tueschen claims:

'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.'

Actually the euthanasia programme was known of, that is why it was stopped.
Returning to Robert Jay Lifton (page 89):

'What eventually persuaded Nazi leaders to cancel the project officially was
not psychiatric resistance but rather general resistance among the German
people, articulated and heightened by a few courageous Protestant and
Catholic leaders...

'A provincial probate judge wrote to Franz Gürtner, the minister of Justice,
stating... "everyone knows as well as I do" that "the murder of the
mentally ill is as well known a daily reality as, say, the concentration
camps".

'And Else von Löwis, a leader in the Nazi women's organization... wrote...
"When the farmers of Württemberg see the cars go by, they too know what is
going on - just as when they see the smoke pouring from the crematory
chimneys day and night".

'Indeed angry crowd reactions came close at times to public demonstrations
against the killing of mental patients... One report ... tells of a priest
offering communion to patients forced into a bus before large crowds of
Catholic townspeople, complains of the visibility of the whole operation
....'

Tueschen says:

'The main purpose of these camps was meant to allow the exploitation of the
workers, not their killing. '

He is excluding the death camps and the Einsatzgruppen; why is he including
only a part of the picture? Millions died in the death camps and from the
actions of the Einsatzgruppen: they cannot be excluded. Does Tueschen
believe that Himmler's intention, for instance, was anything other than
death, at least up until he imagined that a deal could be struck with the
Western Allies near the war's end. Here is a quote attributed to Speer the
armaments minister from page 414 of Lodz Ghetto:

'Greiser ... knew that Germany was heading towards disaster. He was smart
enough to see the advantages that our war effort had from the employment of
the Jews ... This points to a truly bizarre situation, utterly eccentric in
its tragedy. Greiser's fanatical anti-Semitism, his hatred and his
obedience outweighed any rational consideration. He accepted the execution
of production together with the execution of the Jews.'

Greiser was the Gauleiter at Lodz. By trying to suggest "arbeit macht frei",
Tueschen comes close to swallowing the neo-nazi view.

Regards,

Simon.

--

'These were middle-class Poles, judging from their features and from their
clothing. I recognised some as railway men, rapid transit workers, postman,
nuns, and schoolboys. They were not marching fast enough to suit their
guards, so the latter spurred them on with clubs and whips and revolver
shots.

'Suddenly, a man about sixty years old in postman's uniform lost his balance
and fell. A youth of about eighteen tried to help him get up. The old man
was trying to rise when an S.S. man came up and with one revolver shot
coolly slaughtered him.

'I stood about three yards away with my neighbours.

'I cannot describe the look that the dying man fixed on the youth who had
sought to save him. Nor can I suggest the despair and grief in the young
man's voice as he cried "Oh, father!"

'Meanwhile the S.S. assassin took out his pocket lighter and tried to light
a cigarette. He carefully protected the flame from the wind. The breeze was
strong and he had to try many times. It was certainly easier for him to
destroy a human life than to light a cigarette...'

From Five Chimneys by Olga Lengyel, page 140.

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...

[Musicant wrote]:
That seems to be what is in dispute between David and you,

Bob, you are completely wrong. I never had a debate with Omid David about
Moellemann. I thought you knew that because I already had stated it here
in the
thread. I was NOT in the thread with him and entered only after I had read
the
'Nazi *******'.

Rolf,

This is a language problem. By "dispute" I simply meant "different views
on." I might not have chosen the best way of expressing it, but a native
English speaker would understand me if I were to say "I have a dispute with
Ariel Sharon about West Bank settlement policy," as meaning "I am opposed
to Sharon's policy."

[Musicant wrote]:
I don't know enough about the
Moelleman incidents to offer a judgment, and I am not interested in
getting
into that discussion. Your original question dealt with the rightness of
YOUR response to David, and my original thoughts remain the same,
REGARDLESS
of how correct or incorrect David is.

Yes, that is all ok. Perhaps you react this way as a Jew.

Actually, I react this way as a closet Christian and as a student of Dale
Carnegie:

43"You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate
your enemy.'
44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good
to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and
persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes
His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on
the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do
not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren
only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
-- 5 Matthew

"I am convinced now that nothing good is accomplished and a lot of damage
can be done if you tell a person straight out that he or she is wrong. You
only succeed in stripping that person of self-dignity and making yourself an
unwelcome part of any discussion."
-- How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part 3 Chapter 2.

You said that your goal was to educate David and make him see his error. I
said early on that I would assume that David was INCORRECT. Your answer to
him had exactly the result that Carnegie says it would: You accomplished
nothing except to confirm David in his view of Germans and get yourself
barred from the forum. The idea that your "turnabout" on him was a "lesson
from psychology" misses the fact that you did not have the sort of
pre-existing therapeutic or friendly relationship with him that might have
allowed your tactic to succeed. I am simply talking about the application
of general principles of education and persuasion. The actual subject
matter is irrelevant.

Bob

..
That last spiel, about loving thy neighbor and so forth, seems to assume that
Mr. Tueschen's actions were intended solely for the "benefit" of the target of
his criticism. But there are a multitude -- verily, I say unto you -- a
multitude of other readers, a few of which may have noticed the propagandist's
cheap trick, thanks to Mr. Tueschen's unwelcome interruption of that
propagandist's ranting.

Now, we know that Mr. Tueschen explained his motivation for attacking that
propagandist as a psychological counterattack, but this does not mean he was
completely unaware of the existence of other readers there, nor that he truly
expected a dyed-in-the-wool propagandist to recant, simply because one reader
saw through the shallow rhetoric he was spewing forth.



(Oops, breaktime is over -- it's back to work, collecting taxes.
Does anyone else think it is unfair, the way crucifiers, slave-holders,
axe-murderers and so forth, got off Scott-free, while we mere tax-collectors
take all the heat as if we were the lowest form of scum? If you ask me, that
Jesus fellow had a major hangup regarding rendering unto Caesar, that which
*was* Caesars....) :-)



It is laughable the way some people here try to take Mr. Tuschen's claim that
the Nazis wanted to exploit some of the Jews to death, rather than just kill
them straight-out, and magically TWIST that into him being a neo-Nazi.
Hahahaha! Hahaha. Huh. Bigots. Guilt by proximity. This is no different
than Jerome Bibuld claiming that all "Uhhmurikkkans" are evil racists, due to
being here, and not someplace else.




"I am simply talking about the application
of general principles of education and persuasion."


Attempting to persuade a hardcore propagandist to cease and desist, and doing
this from a pre-existing friendly relationship, as suggested, is obtuse.
First, this approach preempts all but the propagandist's closest friends from
even making an attempt to enlighten him! Why on Earth a close friend would
communicate via impersonal internet newsgroup postings, is an enigma. Even
heard of the telephone? The mail? :-)
Second, this completely ignores what a propagandist is, and does! No
self-respecting propagandist would ever let mere facts get in the way of doing
his "job." Don't just take my word on this -- ask Larry Parr.



"The actual subject matter is irrelevant."


I noticed that, too. All that seems to really matter here, is that a) some
Jew was criticized; and b) the critic was German. Hence, therefore, and
without further adiu, we "automatically" leap to predetermined conclusions,
don't we? :-)





"Judge not, lest ye be judged."



"Except, of course, for those lowdown, dirty, no-good tax-collectors, thee
all should go straight to Hell, for all I care. Father, are you listening?
Smite them all, as though they had blasphemed thy very name!" --Matthew,
addendum