Mythical beasts...?
steve...@my-dejanews.com
I often see the word 'troll' used on the internet - can anyone tell me what
this refers to? I know it's a mythical Scandinavian creature, but it can't
be that, surely?
Thanks,
Steve Summer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John O'Flaherty
troll v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls. --tr. 1.a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass. c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing. 2. Slang. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: “[Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways”
(copied from american heritage dictionary)
example- if your message was inflammatory and calculated to stir up
trouble, you'd be fishing
for angry responses.
john
Mark Daniels
The phrase - 'played for and got' springs to mind...
--
Mark Daniels
Belgrade,
Yugoslavia
If I'm honest, the sig's not coming along very well - I'm kind of wondering whether it's all even worth it...
Remove THE SMALL FISH from email address to respond.
M.J.Powell
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>troll v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls. --tr. 1.a. To fish for by trailing a
>baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. b. To fish in by trailing a
>baited line: troll the lake for bass. c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
>2. Slang. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: “[Criminals]
>troll bus stations for young runaways”
>
>(copied from american heritage dictionary)
Corruption of 'trawl' ?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Robert M. Wilson
"troll" (giant under bridge) from Scandinavian
"troll" (fishing) is usually given as from Middle German 'trollen' = stroll
"trawl" - not certain - but probably from M. Dutch = 'traghelen' from L.
'tragula'?
It is a coincidence that they sound alike; the method of fishing is quite
different, at least to fishermen. I found two dictionaries that give "troll"
as a synonem for "trawl".
Markus Laker
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
> <p>John O'Flaherty wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>steve...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
(and more in the same vein).
Mark, it would be be appreciated if you, John O'Flaherty and others
would reconfigure your Web browser not to vomit HTML on to the
newsgroups. I do appreciate that Netscape does this by default, and you
may not have realised it was happening.
Thanks
[Posted to a.u.e, mailed to sup...@netscape.com]
--
a.u.e FAQ and resources: http://welcome.to/aue
** News server is leaky; emailed copies of replies are requested.
Drop the 'drop this bit' bit of my email address to reply.
Mark Daniels
Markus Laker wrote:
> Mark Daniels <"markdTHE SMALLFISH"@eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> > <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> > <html>
> >
> > <p>John O'Flaherty wrote:
> > <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> > <p>steve...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> (and more in the same vein).
>
> Mark, it would be be appreciated if you, John O'Flaherty and others
> would reconfigure your Web browser not to vomit HTML on to the
> newsgroups. I do appreciate that Netscape does this by default, and you
> may not have realised it was happening.
>
>
Oh - sorry. No, you're right, I wasn't aware my browser was doing it - I
have now changed the setting.
John O'Flaherty
browser/newsreader,
render the html appropriately. What newsreader do you use that doesn't do
this?
john
Simon R. Hughes
> Mark Daniels <"markdTHE SMALLFISH"@eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> > <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> > <html>
> >
> > <p>John O'Flaherty wrote:
> > <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> > <p>steve...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> (and more in the same vein).
>
> Mark, it would be be appreciated if you, John O'Flaherty and others
> would reconfigure your Web browser not to vomit HTML on to the
> newsgroups. I do appreciate that Netscape does this by default, and you
> may not have realised it was happening.
Seconded. My ISP drops all news articles with inappropriate
Content-Type headers.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://skrik.home.ml.org
For ever the latter end of joye is wo.
God woot that worldly joye is sone ago
James Follett
spam...@merriewood.com "Mimi Kahn" writes:
>Agent, for one, John -- and Agent/Free Agent are among the most
>widely-used newsreaders out there.
And KA9 Simple News as used by many of us Demon subscribers who aren't
clever enough to use Windows-based software.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
James Follett
>this refers to? I know it's a mythical Scandinavian creature, but it can't
>be that, surely?
I'm pleased to note that no-one posted an inane comment along the lines:
Please don't call me Shirley.
It's good to see standards improving.
Peter Moylan
To the best of my knowledge, no real newsreader does it. It's
purely an artefact of using a web browser to read news.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
Larry Phillips
>
> Corruption of 'trawl' ?
No. Trawling is dragging a net, albeit a special kind of net (strangely
enough called a 'trawl', in order to net various types of creatures.
Trolling is dragging a lure in order to trick very spcific kinds of
creaturs, namely, those that will bite a lure, into biting and becoming
hooked. The words are completely unrelated except in the very broad
meaning "used to catch creatures'.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
I like deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound of them
as they go flying by.
Mark Daniels
Why does this thread even exist?!
JB
> steve...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > I often see the word 'troll' used on the internet - can anyone
> > tell me what this refers to? I know it's a mythical Scandinavian
> > creature, but it can't be that, surely?
> troll v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls. --tr. 1.a. To fish for by trailing
> a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. b. To fish in by
> trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass. c. To trail (a baited
> line) in fishing. 2. Slang. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or
> something: “[Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways”
>
> (copied from american heritage dictionary)
>
> example- if your message was inflammatory and calculated to stir up
> trouble, you'd be fishing for angry responses.
Quite logical as to verb usage, but troll is often used in this context as
a noun. Wouldn't one who trolls be called a troller, not a troll, since
the noun troll has an unrelated meaning? --JB
Mark Daniels
Polar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:51:04 -0700, Mark Daniels <"markdTHE
> SMALLFISH"@eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >James Follett wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <73lvbs$om7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> steve...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >>
> >> >this refers to? I know it's a mythical Scandinavian creature, but it can't
> >> >be that, surely?
> >>
> >> I'm pleased to note that no-one posted an inane comment along the lines:
> >>
> >> Please don't call me Shirley.
>
> Maybe you don't have the context on this "inane comment"?
>
> It was part of the bile emanating from Reinhold Aman, in this case
> directed toward me. I never answer him or participate in his threads,
> but thought you might want to reconsider your remarks, given the
> background.
>
> [...]
> --
> Polar
Oh - well, I'm not really interested in a.u.e politics, so my problem
with this thread is that it exists as the result of a blatant troll,
which is a good reason not to continue it.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
>
> > steve...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I often see the word 'troll' used on the internet - can anyone
> > > tell me what this refers to? I know it's a mythical Scandinavian
> > > creature, but it can't be that, surely?
>
> > troll v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls. --tr. 1.a. To fish for by
> > trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. b. To
> > fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass. c. To
> > trail (a baited line) in fishing. 2. Slang. To patrol (an area) in
> > search for someone or something: “[Criminals] troll bus stations
> > for young runaways”
> >
> > (copied from american heritage dictionary)
> >
> > example- if your message was inflammatory and calculated to stir
> > up trouble, you'd be fishing for angry responses.
>
> Quite logical as to verb usage, but troll is often used in this
> context as a noun. Wouldn't one who trolls be called a troller, not
> a troll, since the noun troll has an unrelated meaning?
The nominal usage was originally applied to the article, not the
person. This sense also comes from fishing:
troll n (1869) : a lure or a line with its lure and hook used in
trolling. [MWCD10]
The extension to the person doing the trolling probably had to do with
the (more widely known) mythological creature, especially in the
context of waiting under bridges for billygoats.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:51:04 -0700, Mark Daniels <"markdTHE
> SMALLFISH"@eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> >James Follett wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <73lvbs$om7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> steve...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >>
> >> >this refers to? I know it's a mythical Scandinavian creature, but it can't
> >> >be that, surely?
> >> I'm pleased to note that no-one posted an inane comment along the lines:
> >>
> >> Please don't call me Shirley.
> Maybe you don't have the context on this "inane comment"?
>
> It was part of the bile emanating from Reinhold Aman, in this case
> directed toward me.
Bile, schmile. Objective folks call it "ripping into that mythical
beast 'Polar' whenever her bullshit gets piled too high." And I'm not
the only anti-Polar bile-meister in AUE.
See "Polar," the Sex-crazed Social Activist: <----
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/polar.jpg <----
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Editor & Publisher, MALEDICTA
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Charles Riggs
>Actually, that was very helpful. I've been thinking about going back
>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
Charles
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> I've been thinking about going back to garter belts and
> stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
> wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
Which means that "Polar" (née Shirley Meric) is fat and short, like
your average East-European Jewess. And whenever Shirley wears panty
hose and lets a fart, her ankles swell up.
===========================
Visit Dr. Aman's Gallery of Net Geeks:
===========================
"Polar," the Sex-crazed Social Activist:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/polar.jpg <----
Obese MeMe "The Whale" Kahn:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-kahn.jpg
Young MeMe Kahn. Now, 50 years later, she looks worse:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-young.jpg
MeMe Kahn now. Her scary, hideous face can't be shown: <--NEW!
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-now.jpg
MeMe Kahn's mad attack dog, Mongoloid "Junior":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/junior.jpg
The Stupid, Boooring & Thieving "Red Queen":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/red-queen.jpg
--
Dr. Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Truly Donovan
>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:21:25 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, that was very helpful. I've been thinking about going back
>>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
>>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
>
>Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
When men were men and women? When was that?
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Fred Louder
Truly Donovan wrote in message <3678ddef...@news3.ibm.net>...
The answer to that power of a riddle must be: men yesterday, and men
tomorrow, but never men today.
Or so one might judge by the reams and reams of threads spun by a whole
troop of aeyoueers up on Folly Mountain, hunting the Abominable Aman.
Returning after a brief (perhaps not unwelcome absence), I'm amazed to see
nearly everyone taking a hand in this obsessive and disgraceful indoor
sport.
As for "and women...": and when not?
Regards to all,
Fred Louder
Fred Louder
Fred Louder shoulda wrote:
Returning after a brief (perhaps not unwelcome) absence.
Blusch,
FL
Robert Bryan Lipton
Truly Donovan wrote in message <3678ddef...@news3.ibm.net>...
>On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 06:17:37 GMT, ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:21:25 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
>>>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
>>
>>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>>What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
>
>When men were men and women? When was that?
October 31. Don't they telecast pictures of the Greenwich Village
Halloween Parade out where you live? No? I'm moving there soon, then.
Bob
K1912
>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:21:25 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, that was very helpful. I've been thinking about going back
>>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
>>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
>
>Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
>
But a lot of men have counterbalanced what you lament by wearing dresses, or,
Charles, are you asking whatever happened to hermaphrodites, who have the best
of both worlds?
George
K1912
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>[1] Elite Chinese women had their feet systematically broken from
>early childhood. Heel and toe were folded over toward each other.
>The girl child suffered excruciating pain while the "lily foot" was in
>formation. When complete, the foot was a tiny stub on which the
> woman could not walk, so she was carried everywhere.
>--
>Polar
Is there a legal movement to attach the assets of the Government
of China as recompense for the descendents of those whose
grandmothers suffered such agony and unpaid exploitation? The
Holocaust Industry must be creating like ventures. Statutes of
limitation seem to have no meaning once one's onto a good thing.
JNugent231
>>[1] Elite Chinese women had their feet systematically broken from
>>early childhood. Heel and toe were folded over toward each other.
>>The girl child suffered excruciating pain while the "lily foot" was in
>>formation. When complete, the foot was a tiny stub on which the
>> woman could not walk, so she was carried everywhere.
>Is there a legal movement to attach the assets of the Government
>of China as recompense for the descendents of those whose
>grandmothers suffered such agony and unpaid exploitation?
Best bet is probably to wait until the Prime Minister of China is visiting
another country and then issue a warrant for his arrst and extradition...?
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
I notice with some amusement your avoidance of the shekel aspect
of the idea and the the direct comparison with the Holocaust
Industry. I sympathise, but do not intend to be gagged by
bullies like Lieblich who wail about "anti-Semitism" when an
expression of disgust is voiced, wails which involve accusations
of frequenting Nazi web-sites.
As for Chile, has anyone noticed any great anxiety by the Chilean
Government to have Pinochet brought back home for trial? I have
not, but I am not Chilean.
JB
> As for Chile, has anyone noticed any great anxiety by the Chilean
> Government to have Pinochet brought back home for trial? I have
> not, but I am not Chilean.
Why should they be expected to? Under Chilean law, Pinochet is 'Senator
for life' (besides being former head of state) and therefore immune from
prosecution. --JB
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 06:17:37 GMT, ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:21:25 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Actually, that was very helpful. I've been thinking about going back
> >>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
> >>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
> >Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
> >trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
> >What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
> Good grief, you define people by their clothes?
One thing the moronic whale MeMe Kahn does not have to worry about
is whether to choose a dress or trousers. With her enormously obese
body covered with rolls of fat, her sole option is a huge, tacky,
tent-like muumuu to conceal that mountain of flesh and fat.
===========================
Visit Dr. Aman's Gallery of Net Geeks
===========================
Obese MeMe "The Whale" Kahn:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-kahn.jpg
Young MeMe Kahn. Now, 50 years later, she looks worse:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-young.jpg
MeMe Kahn now. Her scary, hideous face can't be shown:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-now.jpg
MeMe Kahn's mad attack dog, Mongoloid "Junior":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/junior.jpg
"Polar," the Sex-crazed Social Activist:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/polar.jpg
The Stupid, Boooring & Thieving "Red Queen":
Robert Lieblich
>
> On 8 Dec 1998 19:06:42 GMT, jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231)
> wrote:
>
> >>From: a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
> >
> >>>[1] Elite Chinese women had their feet systematically broken from
> >>>early childhood. Heel and toe were folded over toward each other.
> >>>The girl child suffered excruciating pain while the "lily foot" was in
> >>>formation. When complete, the foot was a tiny stub on which the
> >>> woman could not walk, so she was carried everywhere.
> >
> >>Is there a legal movement to attach the assets of the Government
> >>of China as recompense for the descendents of those whose
> >>grandmothers suffered such agony and unpaid exploitation?
> >
> >Best bet is probably to wait until the Prime Minister of China is visiting
> >another country and then issue a warrant for his arrst and extradition...?
>
> I notice with some amusement your avoidance of the shekel aspect
> of the idea and the the direct comparison with the Holocaust
> Industry. I sympathise, but do not intend to be gagged by
> bullies like Lieblich who wail about "anti-Semitism" when an
> expression of disgust is voiced, wails which involve accusations
> of frequenting Nazi web-sites.
Thank you, Clarence. Now we know at least part of what you mean when
you use the term "Holocaust Industry." You refer to people, some of
them survivors of the Holocaust, others the descendants of survivors,
who have the temerity to ask the banks of Switzerland, and the holders
of other assets of those who were taken off to death camps, to give back
the money either entrusted to them for safekeeping or simply stolen.
I never directly accused you either of being a Nazi or of frequenting
Nazi sites, I was lookiing for a definition of a term that you
voluntarily used, and have since frequently repeated in this NG, without
answering the politest inquiry I could muster as to what you meant by
it. I ran it through a search engine, and the first half-dozen hits
were Nazi propaganda. That struck me as more than a coincidence, so I
posted one of them. Had you said what you meant, I wouldn't have done
that.
For what it's worth, Charles Krauthammer, in Monday's Washington Post,
inveighed against those who seek to recapture these assets, with
particular emphasis on the lawyers -- of course. He was answered today,
also on the Post's op-ed page, by Richard Cohen and Ronald Goldfarb.
The responses are on the Web right now, and I have copied them in case
someone cannot locate them and wants them e-mailed.
If, in fact, Clarence means no more by "Holocaust Industry" than what he
said in this post, then he is not as odious as I inferred from his
refusal to explain himself. (He has, of course, every right to refuse
to explain himself, just as I have every right to infer what I please
from his refusal). He even has a respectable newspaper columnist in his
corner. That I find Krauthammer's views on this issue reprehensible
does not in itself render Krauthammer himself reprehensible, and perhaps
the same is true of Clarence -- that his reprehensible views in this one
area do not render him reprehensible.
But of course we still don't know what Clarence really thinks. And
although he will undoubtedly respond to this posting in his usual
contemptuous way, I doubt he will clarify anything. I sense that when
we do learn any tidbit about him or his views, it's through a mistake on
his part.
Okay, Clarence. Your turn.
Slightly less pissed off.
Eric The Read
> When men were men and women? When was that?
About an hour or two before the most recent performance of Les Ballet
Trockadero de Monte Carlo, I'd imagine.
-=Eric
Nitin Paul Batra
> tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) writes:
> > When men were men and women? When was that?
When instead of abbreviated possessive, John's shoe or Jane's shoe, it was
"John his shoe" or "Jane his shoe". 'He', 'his', 'man' all referring then
to the human individual- curious, has there, since those words emerged,
always been the words "she" or "woman" or "girl" to separate into sexes?
If so, the development would imply that a culture had male as the
standard, no?, if the male got the words for generic and the female had to
take the new words, rather than a new pair of word bunches for the new
division and no use of generic for one. But "man" is making comeback for
representing both female and male in 'Hey, man.'
Nitin Batra
Fred Louder
Mimi Kahn wrote .
>
>And what he posts is okay? C'mon, Fred....
>
You think I think what he posts is OK? Believe me, it's not OK. But what's
also not OK is that intelligent people have been feeding that old
manacle-forged old mindbender to a point where his evil nonsense is
practically taking over this newsgroup. If you don't believe me, go off line
for a week or two, then take a fresh look. R* A* on his own was bad enough,
but now his little Tabaqui from Vancouver is in on the act again, and of
course by now it seems there are new victims of his hate list trying to
fight back, and then a few more idle males jump in to show off their class,
and what I want to know (as long as I'm running this sentence out to the end
of the spool) is, what the hell sort of impression would a newcomer to AUE
get from this revolting sludge of moronic sexual innuendoes, anti-semitism,
Pinochet politics, trousers for women, and worst of all, the sane and
sensible members actually attempting to reply to this rubbish--not that
there haven't been a few admirable replies; but isn't it time perhaps to
call for a general boycott? I expect you'll tell me it's been tried long
ago, and failed; so try again.The Abominable A. is enjoying every minute of
it at your expense. There's just no clean end of the stick.
In sympathy,
Fred
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[The posters below are identified incorrectly, BTW]
> a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
> > >>From: a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
[snip]
> For what it's worth, Charles Krauthammer, in Monday's Washington Post,
> inveighed against those who seek to recapture these assets, with
> particular emphasis on the lawyers -- of course.
I'm certain that some of the bad blood here is caused by different
understandings of the phrase "Holocaust Industry." "Sir a1a" means one
thing by "H.I."; Bob L. means something else; and I and many others mean
something else again. My interpretation of "H.I." is simple: all
individuals -- Jewish or not -- in any country who make money off the
millions killed more than 50 years ago are engaged in the so-called
Holocaust Industry. Among such profiteers are novelists, filmmakers,
producers of TV specials, journalists, publishers, curators of certain
museums, and hordes of lawyers; Spielberg and Wiesel are two top
profiteers.
The articles Bob cited above were also published in my local paper.
Charles Krauthammer ("Unseemly Pursuit of Holocaust Funds") is a Jew who
argues for and against financial compensation for the survivors. He
advocates that Jewish organizations provide lawyers who work "pro bono,
or at most, on salary."
What he opposes are the shameless, bloodsucking H.I. legal profiteers
who want to reap maximum shekels for themselves (leaving little for the
actual victims) by demanding huge *contingency fees* (33% and up, I
believe) and starting *class-action suits*, which result in many
millions for a successful law firm and leave peanuts for the victims.
Krauthammer does not attack lawyers per se, Bob, just the greedy legal
vampires who want to make a financial killing off the killed.
Further, and more importantly, Krauthammer quotes Abe Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League, who warns of "an ***industry*** to be made on
the memory of victims." This is a crucial statement you may have
overlooked, Bob: Here you have a Jew, Foxman, who uses the word
"industry" and who implies what I and many others understand by
"Holocaust Industry." Krauthammer also supports the concept of "H.I"
with his statement that the "Holocaust ... is not an instrument for the
creation of money."
Both anti-Semites and Jews use or acknowledge the "Holocaust Industry"
with a specific, widely-accepted definition, which is very different
from yours. Because of your idiosyncratic understanding of "H.I." and
not knowing what others mean by it, you are unnecessarily pissed off at
others who understand something quite different by that phrase.
> He was answered today,
> also on the Post's op-ed page, by Richard Cohen and Ronald Goldfarb.
> The responses are on the Web right now, and I have copied them in case
> someone cannot locate them and wants them e-mailed.
[snipped remainder]
--
Charles Riggs
Kahn) wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 06:17:37 GMT, ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
>>Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
>>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>>What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
>
>Good grief, you define people by their clothes?
>
>I saw Frederica von Stade doing the Habanera from "Carmen" while
>wearing trousers -- and she was sexy as hell.
Who spoke of defining them? I just like pretty legs and believe women
ought to flaunt their assets.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
>>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>>What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
>>
>
>But a lot of men have counterbalanced what you lament by wearing dresses, or,
>Charles, are you asking whatever happened to hermaphrodites, who have the best
>of both worlds?
Indeed. When told to "go f..k yourself", they can say "Okay,
happily".
Charles
Charles Riggs
>On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 06:17:37 GMT, ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
>>Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
>>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>
>I bet you just luuuuv those spike heels (often combined with bunion-
>and corn-producing pointy toes) that give our legs *such* a fetching
>contour -- while throwing back and pelvis out of alignment, causing
>life-long health problems. Also preventing women from running and
>striding freely. Just a tad better than the Chinese "lily feet"[1]
>that put women completely at the mercy of their masters.
>
>[...]
>
>[1] Elite Chinese women had their feet systematically broken from
>early childhood. Heel and toe were folded over toward each other.
>The girl child suffered excruciating pain while the "lily foot" was in
>formation. When complete, the foot was a tiny stub on which the
> woman could not walk, so she was carried everywhere.
I think you're getting a bit carried away. I only said I like skirts
and dresses on women!
Charles
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Especially after Mad Mongo shoved it up your ass, Fred Loudmouth.
===========================
Visit Dr. Aman's Gallery of Net Geeks
===========================
Obese MeMe "The Whale" Kahn:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-kahn.jpg
Young MeMe Kahn. Now, 50 years later, she looks worse:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-young.jpg
MeMe Kahn now. Her scary, hideous face can't be shown: <--NEW!
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-now.jpg
MeMe Kahn's mad attack dog, Mongoloid "Junior":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/junior.jpg
"Polar," the Sex-crazed Social Activist:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/polar.jpg
The Stupid, Boooring & Thieving "Red Queen":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/red-queen.jpg
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Ph.D.
Mike Barnes
>On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 06:17:37 GMT, ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, that was very helpful. I've been thinking about going back
>>>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
>>>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
>>
>>trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>
>I bet you just luuuuv those spike heels (often combined with bunion-
>and corn-producing pointy toes) that give our legs *such* a fetching
>contour -- while throwing back and pelvis out of alignment, causing
>life-long health problems. Also preventing women from running and
>striding freely. Just a tad better than the Chinese "lily feet"[1]
>that put women completely at the mercy of their masters.
>
>[...]
>
>[1] Elite Chinese women had their feet systematically broken from
>early childhood. Heel and toe were folded over toward each other.
>The girl child suffered excruciating pain while the "lily foot" was in
>formation. When complete, the foot was a tiny stub on which the
> woman could not walk, so she was carried everywhere.
If the difference is "just a tad", I think you need a perspective
adjustment. If not, what's your point, exactly?
--
Mike Barnes
Using temporary hardware and software set-up due to a hard disk crash.
Apologies for any problem(s) caused thereby. Normal service will be resumed as
soon as possible.
James Follett
>>
>> >On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:21:25 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Actually, that was very helpful. I've been thinking about going back
>> >>to garter belts and stockings on the 3-1/2 occasions per annum when I
>> >>wear a dress. Panty hose are either too tight or too long or...
>
>> >Ah, what a pity women have picked up the masculine habit of wearing
>> >trousers. Dresses and skirts are so much more becoming on most women.
>
On those days when I step out wearing a dress, I seem to come in for
some definition. And I agree with Polar's comments about panty hose.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Lindsay
Charles Riggs wrote in message <369d3693....@news.anu.ie>...
>
>I think you're getting a bit carried away. I only said I like skirts
>and dresses on women!
>
ride a bike safely, run up and down stairs safely, stride out when they
want to *and* keep legs warm, I'll wear them.
Besides which, you'd see far of my legs in a pair of leggings than in a
skirt, Charles!
Linz
--
oh, not really a pedant, I wouldn't say
reply to: li...@earthling.net
You can also find linz at gofar dot demon dot co dot uk
Robert Bryan Lipton
useful, informative pieces for AUE.
Bob
Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote in message <366E36...@sonic.net>...
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> [The posters below are identified incorrectly, BTW]
>
>> a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>>> On 8 Dec 1998 19:06:42 GMT, jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231)
>>> wrote:
>
>> > >>From: a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>
>> > >>>[1] Elite Chinese women had their feet systematically broken from
>> > >>>early childhood. Heel and toe were folded over toward each other.
>> > >>>The girl child suffered excruciating pain while the "lily foot" was
in
>> > >>>formation. When complete, the foot was a tiny stub on which the
>> > >>> woman could not walk, so she was carried everywhere.
>
K1912
>Charles Riggs wrote in message <369d3693....@news.anu.ie>...
>>
>>I think you're getting a bit carried away. I only said I like skirts
>>and dresses on women!
>>
>Well, when skirts and dresses are designed so that the wearer can still
>ride a bike safely, run up and down stairs safely, stride out when they
>want to *and* keep legs warm, I'll wear them.
>
>Besides which, you'd see far of my legs in a pair of leggings than in a
>skirt, Charles!
>
More, tell us more. (Charles is not the only one rubbernecking.)
George
K1912
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:43:35 GMT, ri...@RemoveThisanu.ie (Charles
> Riggs) wrote:
>
> >Who spoke of defining them? I just like pretty legs and believe women
> >ought to flaunt their assets.
> wider view of their assets than tits and ass.
You *need* a wider view to see all of obese MeMe's ass. A panoramic
view, in fact, to take in her expansive, cellulite-laden buttocks
separated by a hairy cleft with dingleberries.
As to MeMe's legs, they resemble the concrete pillars of a bridge.
Small wonder she's envious of the cute, kissable legs of strippers.
Needless to say, her huge sagging tits look like saddlebags slung
across a burro's back.
For photographic evidence, see the pix below.
===========================
Visit Dr. Aman's Gallery of Net Geeks
===========================
Obese MeMe "The Whale" Kahn:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-kahn.jpg <--- ASS
Young MeMe Kahn. Now, 50 years later, she looks worse:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-young.jpg <--- LEGS
MeMe Kahn now. Her scary, hideous face can't be shown:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-now.jpg <--- TITS
--
Dr. Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 04:49:23 GMT, "Fred Louder"
> <flo...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mimi Kahn wrote .
> >>
> >>And what he posts is okay? C'mon, Fred....
> >You think I think what he posts is OK? Believe me, it's not OK. [...]
[Snipped Canadian drivel]
> Well, I've killfiled him
Fuckin' liar. Paranoid MeMe reads *every* line I post.
> and only see him when he's quoted,
Liar.
> and aue is
> a nicer place for that. "What a witless moron!" loses
> its originality after a few hundred repetitions.
What a moron.
> I agree with you, Fred.
MeMe's sucking up to a Canadian Loudmouth, eh? Lacking all
self-esteem and shame, MeMe Kahn sucks up to *anyone* -- even to
Canadians -- like a bitch in heat.
===========================
Visit Dr. Aman's Gallery of Net Geeks
===========================
Obese MeMe "The Whale" Kahn:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-kahn.jpg
Young MeMe Kahn. Now, 50 years later, she looks worse:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-young.jpg
MeMe Kahn now. Her scary, hideous face can't be shown: <--NEW!
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-now.jpg
MeMe Kahn's mad attack dog, Mongoloid "Junior":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/junior.jpg
"Polar," the Sex-crazed Social Activist:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/polar.jpg
The Stupid, Boooring & Thieving "Red Queen":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/red-queen.jpg
--
geoff butler
>On 8 Dec 1998, Eric The Read wrote:
>
>> tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) writes:
>> > When men were men and women? When was that?
>
>When instead of abbreviated possessive, John's shoe or Jane's shoe, it was
>"John his shoe" or "Jane his shoe".
The step to here from Truly's pointed comment escapes me. But anyway.
"John's shoe" is not a contraction of "John his shoe", it's a
contraction of the genitive form, "Johnes shoe" or, more likely,
"Johannes shoe". The "his" form turned up briefly, but it was probably
Lowth or one of his mates being typical. On the other hand, the "-es"
form goes all the way back.
Furthermore, Dutch, which we can look to for lots of parallels, does
indeed have the "his" form, "John z'n schoen", as alternative to "John's
schoen" (which is definitely a contracted genitive). However, the Jane
form of this is "Jane her shoe", "Jane d'r schoen", as you'd expect.
So, on the whole, the "John his shoe" derivation is a herring in the
tide of history, not to be taken much notice of.
(Or was it Louth, I can never remember?)
-ler
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:50:53 -0800, "Reinhold (Rey) Aman"
> <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >MeMe "The Mindless Moron" Kahn picked on wimpy Charlie:
> >
> >> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:43:35 GMT, ri...@RemoveThisanu.ie (Charles
> >> Riggs) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Who spoke of defining them? I just like pretty legs and believe women
> >> >ought to flaunt their assets.
> >> Perhaps you should start frequenting strip joints. Most women have a
> >> wider view of their assets than tits and ass.
> > You *need* a wider view to see all of obese MeMe's ass. A panoramic
> >view, in fact, to take in her expansive, cellulite-laden buttocks
> >separated by a hairy cleft with dingleberries.
> >
> > As to MeMe's legs, they resemble the concrete pillars of a bridge.
> >Small wonder she's envious of the cute, kissable legs of strippers.
> >
> > Needless to say, her huge sagging tits look like saddlebags slung
> >across a burro's back.
> I guarantee that she anticipated your response even as she gleefully
> typed her post.
And *I* guarantee that moronic MeMe did *not*; and I further
guarantee that you are, without any doubt whatsoever, a really, really,
really stupid asshole. Honestly. Narcissistic MeMe Kahn *hates* my
clever comments about her gross body and face -- especially as they
objectively describe that fat carnival freak.
> You do not seem to recognize that you are being trolled--and not just
> by me.
So, Madam Kahn allegedly trolls me, but then she allegedly has put me
into her alleged killfile to avoid having to read my accurate
descriptions of her corpus disgusti. Where's the fun in that, asshole?
When you troll someone, as I've been trolling Mad Mongo (the
self-annointed King of the "alt.aol-sucks" Troll Patrol vulgarians), you
want to *see* their reactions. That's the *point* of trolling, you
stupid asshole.
*You* couldn't troll anyone, because you're so obvious, boooring and
stoopid. The *only* reason why you respond to posts is *to flog* your
pathetic Web page -- first, a rip-off from "Alice," then a rip-off from
my Web site, and now another rip-off, your sophomoronic "parody"
(yechchch!) of my "Ideal Woman" page.
If Mad Mongo's favorite appellation, "loser," fits anyone, it's you.
Be sure to take this bait and flog your page AGAIN, loser.
~~~~~~
See photographic proof of MeMe Kahn's repulsive corpus:
Obese MeMe "The Whale" Kahn:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-kahn.jpg
Young MeMe Kahn. Now, 50 years later, she looks worse:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-young.jpg
MeMe Kahn now. Her scary, hideous face can't be shown:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-now.jpg
And see what a "trolling" asshole looks like:
James Follett
tr...@lunemere.com "Truly Donovan" writes:
>>What ever happened to the days "when men were men and women ..."
>
>When men were men and women? When was that?
It's today. On the rent boy meat rack outside London's Cumberland
Hotel.
Meat rack. Pedestrian sidewalk barrier. Secondary use is to prop-up
weirdos of indeterminate sex awaiting customers -- usually arabs
who've discovered that the nearest camels are in Regents Park and
therefore unavailable.
Brian J Goggin
<flo...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Fred Louder shoulda wrote:
> Returning after a brief (perhaps not unwelcome) absence.
Never mind. Welcome back.
bjg [post & mail]
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<flo...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Mimi Kahn wrote .
>>
>>And what he posts is okay? C'mon, Fred....
>>
>You think I think what he posts is OK? Believe me, it's not OK. But what's
>also not OK is that intelligent people have been feeding that old
>manacle-forged old mindbender to a point where his evil nonsense is
>practically taking over this newsgroup. If you don't believe me, go off line
>for a week or two, then take a fresh look. R* A* on his own was bad enough,
>but now his little Tabaqui from Vancouver is in on the act again, and of
>course by now it seems there are new victims of his hate list trying to
>fight back, and then a few more idle males jump in to show off their class,
>and what I want to know (as long as I'm running this sentence out to the end
>of the spool) is, what the hell sort of impression would a newcomer to AUE
>get from this revolting sludge of moronic sexual innuendoes, anti-semitism,
>Pinochet politics, trousers for women, and worst of all, the sane and
>sensible members actually attempting to reply to this rubbish--not that
>there haven't been a few admirable replies; but isn't it time perhaps to
>call for a general boycott? I expect you'll tell me it's been tried long
>ago, and failed; so try again.The Abominable A. is enjoying every minute of
>it at your expense. There's just no clean end of the stick.
>
>In sympathy,
>
>Fred
>
Goodness gracious Fred! Didn't you know Boycott was only a
Capting?
Charles Riggs
>On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:37:06 -0800, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
>Kahn) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:43:35 GMT, ri...@RemoveThisanu.ie (Charles
>>Riggs) wrote:
>>
>>>Who spoke of defining them? I just like pretty legs and believe women
>>>ought to flaunt their assets.
>>
>>Perhaps you should start frequenting strip joints. Most women have a
>>wider view of their assets than tits and ass.
Where tits and ass come into play here I don't know. I was speaking of
legs or are you so Victorian that they are some sort of unmentionable?
Like ankles, maybe? Pass me another chicken breast, dear.
Charles
Perchprism
>From: Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
>Date: 12/8/98 6:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <366DB...@erols.com>
>
<snip re a1a's use of "Holocaust Industry">
>
>Slightly less pissed off.
Heartening to see. I always suspected you were one of those mavericks unafraid
to apply their intelligence to any question.
Perchprism -- word tyke
Lindsay
K1912 wrote in message <19981209120651...@ng134.aol.com>...
often with ankle boots, so all anyone is going to see will be about 3"
of calf, tops.
When I wear leggings, they tend to conform to my leg-shape pretty
accurately so you'll see the shape of my legs all the way up to my, er,
my armpits :-). I am, of course, a super-model in my spare time which is
why my legs are *so* long...
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>Goodness gracious Fred! Didn't you know Boycott was only a
>Capting?
Oh? I hadn't realised that old Geoff had made it ....
bjg
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>Bob wrote:
>>From: Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
>>Date: 12/8/98 6:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <366DB...@erols.com>
>>
><snip re a1a's use of "Holocaust Industry">
>>
Aw!
>>Slightly less pissed off.
>
>Heartening to see. I always suspected you were one of those mavericks unafraid
>to apply their intelligence to any question.
>Perchprism -- word tyke
Since a lawyer's intelligence is rather like that of the bee your
use of 'their' is suspect on grounds quite other than those of
style. That's been worked to death anyway.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
How voracious of you! I had not realised that -ler was absent.
TJ
> Who spoke of defining them? I just like pretty legs and believe women
> ought to flaunt their assets.
Well, I like pretty legs, too, so just as soon as you show up in a mini
with heels, I'll do the same. Don't think you have pretty legs? Beauty
is in the hands of the behelder.
tj
Robert Lieblich
<snip lengthy preliminaries>
> My interpretation of "H.I." is simple: all
> individuals -- Jewish or not -- in any country who make money off the
> millions killed more than 50 years ago are engaged in the so-called
> Holocaust Industry. Among such profiteers are novelists, filmmakers,
> producers of TV specials, journalists, publishers, curators of certain
> museums, and hordes of lawyers; Spielberg and Wiesel are two top
> profiteers.
I've dealt with a similar point in an e-mail to an AUE-izen, and I take
the liberty of posting it here:
<quote>
Gee, [name], what are we to do about all those renaissance artists who
made their living painting religious subjects? Call them "the Jesus
industry" and accuse them of profiteering on the Crucifixion? Not to
mention that greedy Bach fellow, who wrote not one, not two, but three
"Passions" on the topic of the crucifixion. And all those other
tortured saints and martyrs! What is wrong with making art of even the
most horrific episodes in human history? (Plenty of other examples are
available.) Is the point that oil paintings and compositions for chorus
and orchestra are art but movies and novels aren't? Should Elie Weisel
(a survivor, no less) give back his royalties from *Night*? Is the
point that it's okay if done by people now dead, but not by our
contemporaries? Or is the point that Christians can do it but not Jews?
[...] The fact is, like it or not, that "Holocaust Industry" has a code
meaning, like "state's rights" in the US fifty years ago. I'm not sure
it has an innocent sense, but it damned sure has a guilty one. It's
like arguing that anti-Semites hate Arabs as well as Jews. The words
may imply that literal meaning, but the literal meaning is not what is
meant -- and anyone with any knowledge of the world knows that.
I ask you to think about what "Holocaust Industry" connotes and see if
you want to adhere to your present position.
<\quote>
>
> The articles Bob cited above were also published in my local paper.
> Charles Krauthammer ("Unseemly Pursuit of Holocaust Funds") is a Jew who
> argues for and against financial compensation for the survivors. He
> advocates that Jewish organizations provide lawyers who work "pro bono,
> or at most, on salary."
>
> What he opposes are the shameless, bloodsucking H.I. legal profiteers
> who want to reap maximum shekels for themselves (leaving little for the
> actual victims) by demanding huge *contingency fees* (33% and up, I
> believe) and starting *class-action suits*, which result in many
> millions for a successful law firm and leave peanuts for the victims.
> Krauthammer does not attack lawyers per se, Bob, just the greedy legal
> vampires who want to make a financial killing off the killed.
Okay, go after the lawyers. I won't try to defend them, because that's
not the point here. The point is that there are loaded terms and there
are more neutral ones. "Holocaust Industry" is a loaded term because it
is commonly used not to attack the ethics of a few lawyers but to tar
with the same pejorative brush anyone who so much as claims that there
*was* a Holocaust. It's like meeting a black man for the first time and
calling him "boy" and "nigger." He doesn't want to hear you explain
that you were using the terms innocently. He wants to punch your lights
out.
Clarence a1a, of course, was being provocative. He succeeded. (And I
don't accept your version of his position. What's *his* version?) I
regret that I allowed my response to this provocation to take up the
time or bandwidth of the many good citizens of AUE. I will do my best
to resist his further provocations.
Meanwhile, folks, if a whole bunch of black people asked you politely to
refrain from calling them niggers, I'll bet most of you would. Okay, I
ask that you think on the connotations of the term "Holocaust Industry"
and find some other way of setting forth such specific doubts or
criticisms you may have of those whose conduct in relation to the
Holocaust you disapprove.
Bob Lieblich
Frances Kemmish
> It's
> like arguing that anti-Semites hate Arabs as well as Jews. The words
> may imply that literal meaning, but the literal meaning is not what is
> meant -- and anyone with any knowledge of the world knows that.
>
And if that was what was meant, would that be all right?
Fran
Robert Lieblich
Maybe I'm too ethno-centric, but I find it hard to believe anyone can
encounter or use a term like "anti-Semite" more than once or twice and
not know what it connotes. Bill Clinton has his own definitions of "is"
and "sexual relations" and "alone," but he also knows what the words
really mean in context, and look at the trouble he got into by using his
own private definitions -- even though they are defensible -- if you are
strictly, robotically literal.
The point is that you can't be a robot. You have to know what the words
you use mean to your auditors. If you innocently stumble across
"anti-Semite" and deduce from its etymology that it denotes antagonism
to all middle Easterners (or whatever), you'll probably get corrected
the first time you use it to mean that. Thenceforward, aware of how the
word is actually used, you should use it accordingly. Otherwise, you're
playing semantic games at the level of Bill Clinton. The same goes, as
I argue elsewhere, for "Holocaust Industry."
I apologize for trying the patience of the group. Had the point of this
post not been one of usage or so I feel), I would not have posted.
Bob Lieblich
Repentant
Frances Kemmish
Obviously by trying to be succinct, I have failed to be clear.
You seemed to be implying that claiming to hate Arabs as well as Jews
would make being an "anti-Semite" somehow more acceptable. I can't see
that it would, and assume that you did not mean to imply that - but that
is how it looked from the way you said it.
Fran
John Doherty
| Frances Kemmish wrote:
| >
| > Robert Lieblich wrote:
| > > It's
| > > like arguing that anti-Semites hate Arabs as well as Jews. The words
| > > may imply that literal meaning, but the literal meaning is not what is
| > > meant -- and anyone with any knowledge of the world knows that.
| > >
| >
| > And if that was what was meant, would that be all right?
|
| Maybe I'm too ethno-centric, but I find it hard to believe anyone can
| encounter or use a term like "anti-Semite" more than once or twice and
| not know what it connotes.
Let's see what the reference works have to say.
The nearest dictionary says that "Semite" means "a member of any of the
peoples supposed to be descended from Shem, son of Noah (Gen., 10:21),
including esp. the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Phoenicians."
I don't know of many people who self-identify as Assyrian or Phoenician
these days, though I suppose there may be some.
The same dictionary says "Semitic" means "of or relating to the Semites,
esp. the Jews."
So it looks like "Semite" in contemporary use may refer (however ironically)
to both Jews and Arabs, with an emphasis on Jews.
So can we can conclude that "anti-Semite" refers to a person prejudiced
against both Jews and Arabs?
I don't know, but it's not what the dictionary says. It says "anti-Semite"
means "a person hostile to or prejudiced against Jews." That's it: no
mention of Arabs here at all.
Both of these definitions are completely in accord with my own experience.
"Semite" in "anti-Semite" means something different than "Semite" does
standing alone. Language in actual use is neither simple nor logical,
and political language is much less so than most.
If "anti-Semitic" really did refer to people hostile to or prejudiced
against both Jews and Arabs, I wonder what group of people it might
describe. Lots of people are hostile to one or the other, but not too
many I know of are hostile to both (except for some folks hostile to
almost everybody, in which case "anti-Semitic" is much too specific).
Best regards.
K1912
[...]
>>>Besides which, you'd see far of my legs in a pair of leggings than in
>a
>>>skirt, Charles!
>>>
>>More, tell us more. (Charles is not the only one rubbernecking.)
>>
>Well, I tend to wear calf- or ankle-length skirts when I wear them,
>often with ankle boots, so all anyone is going to see will be about 3"
>of calf, tops.
>
>When I wear leggings, they tend to conform to my leg-shape pretty
>accurately so you'll see the shape of my legs all the way up to my, er,
>my armpits :-). I am, of course, a super-model in my spare time which is
>why my legs are *so* long...
>
Thank god for leggings, and for such imagination-boosting phrases like "tend to
conform to my leg-shape pretty accurately so you'll see the shape of my legs
all the way up...."
Say, is it hot in here or is it just me?
George
K1912
K1912
>>Well, I tend to wear calf- or ankle-length skirts when I wear them,
>>often with ankle boots, so all anyone is going to see will be about 3"
>>of calf, tops.
>
>Back in the "good old days", that inch would have been a major
>turn-on. Like a inch of neck nape for Japanese. An inch of [what] for
>[which culture]?
>
Not only for Japanese. Give me an inch of neck nape and I'll take a mile.
K1912
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>>More, tell us more. (Charles is not the only one rubbernecking.)
>>
>Well, I tend to wear calf- or ankle-length skirts when I wear them,
>often with ankle boots, so all anyone is going to see will be about 3"
>of calf, tops.
>
>When I wear leggings, they tend to conform to my leg-shape pretty
>accurately so you'll see the shape of my legs all the way up to my, er,
>my armpits :-). I am, of course, a super-model in my spare time which is
>why my legs are *so* long...
Well now. *You*, I think, I'd like to see either way!
Charles
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>I apologize for trying the patience of the group. Had the point of this
>post not been one of usage or so I feel), I would not have posted.
>
>Bob Lieblich
>Repentant
I do believe you: and I believe Clinton never said a wrong word
to that "provocative" creature Paula Jones.
You dig a deeper hole for your "ethno-centricity" with every
post.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Doherty) wrote:
>If "anti-Semitic" really did refer to people hostile to or prejudiced
>against both Jews and Arabs, I wonder what group of people it might
>describe. Lots of people are hostile to one or the other, but not too
>many I know of are hostile to both (except for some folks hostile to
>almost everybody, in which case "anti-Semitic" is much too specific).
It is really very simple. In the mouths of some Jews the word
"anti-Semite" means that criticism is intolerable and the critic
is a Nazi, a terrorist, a subhuman, a filthy extractor of gold
teeth. all of those rolled up into one hysterical hate object.
Other Jews are more sensible but many. dismayed by the fate of
fellow Jews like Chomsky and Richler who stand for the free
expression of ideas, keep quiet.
Into which camp a fellow like Lieblich, "ethno-centric" (racist)
to the core, falls is hardly in doubt. His bullying, his leaden
humour and his soap-box posturing having been criticised (to the
point where he plaintively asks whether he is to be a Carthage to
be razed) it follows that the critic -- who also uses, in
dispassionate contempt the words "Holocaust Industry" -- must be
an "anti-Semite". All is explained.
Now, as he knew from the start, by "Holocaust Industry" I mean
what everyone means -- the shekel-grubbing exploitation of a
national tragedy. Who does most of the exploitation is
immaterial: it is just as disgusting.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
>
> <snip lengthy preliminaries>
>
> > My interpretation of "H.I." is simple: all
> > individuals -- Jewish or not -- in any country who make money off the
> > millions killed more than 50 years ago are engaged in the so-called
> > Holocaust Industry. Among such profiteers are novelists, filmmakers,
> > producers of TV specials, journalists, publishers, curators of certain
> > museums, and hordes of lawyers; Spielberg and Wiesel are two top
> > profiteers.
> I've dealt with a similar point in an e-mail to an AUE-izen, and I take
> the liberty of posting it here:
>
> <quote>
>
> Gee, [name], what are we to do about all those renaissance artists who
> made their living painting religious subjects? Call them "the Jesus
> industry" and accuse them of profiteering on the Crucifixion?
is indeed the "Jesus (Christ) Industry," the "Buddha Industry," "the
Mohammed Industry," the "Tetragrammaton Industry," the "Wotan/Odin
Industry," and all the other industries that make money off any god or
religious leader.
As I see it, your analogy is incorrect, because the veneration and
financial exploitation of a *god or major religious leader* cannot be
compared with the financial exploitation of the murder and memory of
millions of "common" (i.e., non-godlike) humans. (By "financial
exploitation" I do not mean the financial compensation and reimbursement
for victims and their relatives; I mean the money-making activities of
Spielberg, Wiesel, Wiesenthal and their ilk.) I have the gut-feeling
that there are other reasons why your analogy is faulty, but I can't put
my finger on them.
> Not to
> mention that greedy Bach fellow, who wrote not one, not two, but three
> "Passions" on the topic of the crucifixion. And all those other
> tortured saints and martyrs! What is wrong with making art of even the
> most horrific episodes in human history? (Plenty of other examples are
> available.) Is the point that oil paintings and compositions for chorus
> and orchestra are art but movies and novels aren't?
True, there are a few great works of art (books, films, paintings,
music) based on the Holocaust that were produced by artists more
concerned with eternalizing the horror than with raking in royalties,
but the majority of commercial products and services exploiting the
Holocaust are money-making junk targeting the mindless masses.
Again, with all due respect, Bob, you cannot compare the great
*religious art* of composers, writers, painters, architects, sculptors
and other artists (from pre-medieval times to the present and glorifying
any religion) with the tear-jerking, maudlin, dishonest trash peddled by
Spielberg and Wiesel. "Schindler's List," to name one money-making
scheme by Spielberg, was soundly thrashed by *Jews* for its inaccuracies
and Hollywoodization of horror.
> Should Elie Weisel
> (a survivor, no less) give back his royalties from *Night*?
Of course not. (BTW, I'm a "survivor," too, but I don't brag about
it or try to get sympathy or money for surviving.) Not everything
Wiesel (meaning "weasel" in German and pronounced "veezl") wrote is
exploitative trash, of course. I personally detest that fellow, because
he's a self-impressed fraud who shamelessly keeps making money off his
dead fellow Jews. Has he ever contributed one cent to the old and
suffering concentration camp survivors who are vegetating in squalid
conditions in Israeli old peoples' homes and insane asylums?
"Weasel" was a little Rumanian nobody, wrote a few good things, got
good reviews (as almost all works about the evil Nazis do), and was
awarded the politicized Nobel Prize, whether he deserved it or not.
Then his head swelled, his hair was dramatically combed over his
thinker's forehead, his biography was enhanced (he "studied at the
prestigious Sorbonne in Paris" -- wow! Actually, all he did was sitting
in a few lectures but never got a degree there), and became a
sought-after speaker (at about $50,000 per 50-minute gig) and
celebrity-party must-invitee, even hanging out with U.S. presidents.
He shat on Germany and the Germans and vowed never to set foot on
German soil, but when guilt-ridden suck-up krauts offered the Weasel
many thousands of deutsche Marks, Elie "Non Olet" Wiesel hopped on the
next airplane to Frankfurt am Main. Ptui.
Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi hunter (famous mainly because of
his expert blowing of his own horn), is a similar fraud who makes a good
living off his dead fellow Jews. Like the Weasel, he enhanced and
exaggerated his biography and Nazi-hunting accomplishments and is
venerated by the morons, Jewish and otherwise, who don't know what a
fraud he is. His sharpest critic was Bruno Kreisky, Austria's *Jewish*
president, who exposed all the bullshit, exaggerations and financial
irregularities of that Holocaust Industry profiteer. Enough already.
> Is the point that it's okay if done by people now dead, but not by our
> contemporaries? Or is the point that Christians can do it but not Jews?
You know very well, Bob, that both questions are silly, with all due
respect.
[snip]
> <\quote>
[more snips]
> "Holocaust Industry" is a loaded term
I agree 100%.
> because it
> is commonly used not to attack the ethics of a few lawyers but to tar
> with the same pejorative brush anyone who so much as claims that there
> *was* a Holocaust.
This is my biggest point of disagreement with you, Bob. There
probably are anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis who use the above meaning of
"Holocaust Industry," but it certainly is not the common understanding.
From certain sources I know your interpretation of "H.I.":
=== Begin quote ===
"Holocaust Industry" is a code phrase used by those who prefer to
believe either that the Holocaust never happened or that the Jews had it
coming -- if not both.
=== End quote ===
I just don't understand where you get this definition from (from a
skimming of Nazi and White Power sites?) and why you stick to it, even
though it makes little sense (to me). The keyword is *industry*:
commerce, manufacture and trade; making money off a product or service.
The meaning "the Holocaust never happened" and especially "the Jews had
it coming" has nothing at all to do with the concept of *industry* or
*someone making money off something*. Perhaps it's *my* fault that I
don't understand your logic and reasoning, and I look forward to your or
anyone's explanation.
> It's like meeting a black man for the first time and calling him "boy"
> and "nigger." He doesn't want to hear you explain that you were
> using the terms innocently. He wants to punch your lights out.
Sorry to say so, but that's another analogy I find poor. (You've
*gotta* work on your analogies and comparisons, Bob!)
> Clarence a1a, of course, was being provocative. He succeeded. (And I
> don't accept your version of his position. What's *his* version?)
I never stated his version of his position, because I don't know it.
I said that you, he, and I have different interpretations and
definitions of "Holocaust Industry." I gave mine and quoted yours
above, but I don't have any idea what "Sir a1a" means by it.
[snip]
> Meanwhile, folks, if a whole bunch of black people asked you politely to
> refrain from calling them niggers, I'll bet most of you would.
(We're drifting a bit off the "H.I.") I don't think most people call
blacks per se "niggers" (I don't); but some, like me, have the guts to
describe a *nigger* as a "nigger." Playing the devil's advocate --
comme toujours, as Polar would say -- I insist that there are "blacks"
and there are "niggers." (There are also krauts, wops, micks, limeys,
kikes, frogs, japs, etc., otherwise these derogatory terms would not
exist.)
I've lived and worked in close proximity with many Negroid African
Americans and *know* that most of them are "blacks," but some of them
are "niggers" -- because the latter act like niggers. Just one example,
Bob: if you walked up to a black college student in a university library
and asked him politely were the reference desk is, and he gave you a
disgusted look, spit in your face, and called you a "honky muthafucka"
-- would you describe him to your wife as an "African American" or
perhaps slip and call him a "nigger"? He's a genuine *nigger*, Bob,
trust me.
This happened to me, and I describe such a person as a "nigger,"
regardless of the howls of protest by liberal hypocrites and
bullshitters. As long as I'm at it: I also frankly describe my first
landlord in Milwaukee and my co-worker Steve at the Lompoc penitentiary
as "kikes," one of my Italian neighbors as a "wop," the inconsiderate
German tourists who spoiled my visit on Machu Picchu as "krauts," and
some of the members of the L.A. "Crips" gang who for 11 months disturbed
the peace of some 300 other prisoners as "niggers." Deal with it, pink
boys and girls.
[final snip & time for a nap]
--
khann
"anti-Semite" and "Holocaust Industry." I've discovered that the meaning
is variable with geography and society.
Shalom Bob,
A few years ago I was sitting in a hilltop bunker in northern Israel,
having a big kosher take-out lunch (good food from a local kibbutz) with
a group of IDF officers. As the idle conversation progressed (as in
a.u.e.) it turned to food, specifically Israeli wines from the Golan.
Well, they're not my favourite - too sweet, thanks. When one of the IDF
chaps asked me "What's your favourite Jewish wine?" I paused to consider
my reply. Then I turned to the one Israeli-American officer present and
said "I wanna go to Floridaaa." He cracked up, and the two of us
proceeded to tell JAP and mother jokes back and forth. At first, the
other IDF guys were scandalized, but they caught on within seconds and
started improvising some their own jokes. Odd, they came up with some of
the same ones heard in Canada from Jewish friends. (In the neighbourhood
in which I grew up those sorts of cross-confessional relations really
did, and do, exist.)
The point of this too-long introduction is that it served to remove most
of the usual inhibitions to deeper conversation and, within the course
of discussing current events, the terms "anti-Semite" and "Holocaust
Industry" were raised. I was a little surprised to hear that use of
"anti-Semite" and pursuit of the "Holocaust Industry" were greatly
disparaged. The IDF guys (mostly sabra) allowed that since the Jews were
a tiny minority among Semites in general it was too pretentious for some
among their number to arrogate the term to Jews alone. As for the people
they considered to be purveyors of the "Holocaust Industry," (and here
they were specifically discussing the pursuit of Swiss gold) I will not
repeat the words they used for fear of being branded anti-Jewish. But
the general concensus was that the whole thing was a ploy by (expletives
deleted) lawyers and greedy folks in the (multiple expletives deleted)
finance ministry of the Israeli government. Those who had relatives who
had survived the death camps seemed to have the strongest negative views
on the subject. Suffice to say that they professed to be somewhat more
than sick to death of hearing their people portrayed as perpetual
victims. I can't claim to have provided any added value to the
conversation but I certainly did a lot of careful listening.
So I've found that there is more divergence of opinion in the use of
these terms than some might like to admit. Among the group of Israelis
noted above, both terms were considered to be Jewish-American
affectations and/or instruments of propaganda - their words. No doubt,
as Bob Lieblich has mentioned, the terms are too-often used as code
words by those who deny the Holocaust or are anti-Jewish. But we should
be aware of the other side of the coin as well.
Lindsay
Charles Riggs wrote in message <3677b686...@news.anu.ie>...
>>often with ankle boots, so all anyone is going to see will be about 3"
>>of calf, tops.
>>
>>When I wear leggings, they tend to conform to my leg-shape pretty
>>accurately so you'll see the shape of my legs all the way up to my,
er,
>>my armpits :-). I am, of course, a super-model in my spare time which
is
>>why my legs are *so* long...
>
>Well now. *You*, I think, I'd like to see either way!
>
for a meal and a few drinks, but I'll probably be there *in a skirt*!
Eric
> Again, with all due respect, Bob, you cannot compare the great
> *religious art* of composers, writers, painters, architects, sculptors
> and other artists (from pre-medieval times to the present and glorifying
> any religion) with the tear-jerking, maudlin, dishonest trash peddled by
> Spielberg and Wiesel. "Schindler's List," to name one money-making
> scheme by Spielberg, was soundly thrashed by *Jews* for its inaccuracies
> and Hollywoodization of horror.
I know very little about this subject, and haven't even seen
Schindler's List, but before you can accuse Spielberg of
exploiting the holocaust, it seems to me you have to establish
that he made more money with that movie than he could have by spending
the same amount of time making ET II, or some other movie. He seems
to be able to make a lot of money making movies about any topic,
and as far as I know Schindler's list is not his biggest
money-maker.
George F. Hardy
>
>Maybe I'm too ethno-centric, but I find it hard to believe anyone can
>encounter or use a term like "anti-Semite" more than once or twice and
>not know what it connotes.
I am very confused about the term "anti-Semite". Does it mean anti-
Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, anti-Arab, anti-[some racial
group]? Religion? Country? Race? Ethnic? Or just a meaningless
insult, like "Nazi"?
GFH
Ross Howard
Kahn) wrote:
>The major, albeit unvoiced, objection to what has been termed "The
>Holocaust Industry" stems from the fact that there are some people
>among us who just don't want the Holocaust talked about...
If by "some people among us" you mean Reinhold Aman, if you hadn't
killfiled him you would have read his own definition of "Holocaust
Industry", as given in his calm and cogent reply to Bob Lieblich:
"the financial exploitation of the murder and memory of
millions"
So, there you have it. He talks about it. And far from denying or
belittling it, he fully recognises the scale and horror of it. The
only difference between you and him on the whole question of the
Holocaust seems to be that he chooses to be skeptical -- as are many,
many others, be they Jews, Gentiles or None-of-the-Aboves -- about the
motives of those who are making a nice little living out of all that
killing.
As for the rest of those "among us", well, we don't talk about the
rape of little children by their adult relatives much in this group
either -- does that mean that you think we are denying its existence?
Ross H.
Robert Lieblich
I asked the poster, politely, what he meant by the term. He declined to
answer. Look it up in DejeNews it you care. And at least one of my
postings, with quotations, makes clear that not everyone means by the
term what he claims to mean. Just as he doesn't believe me (see other
posting on this thread), I don't believe him.
On the substantive point: I continue not to understand why the survivors
of the Holocaust and their descendants are not entitled to seek the
return of their property. (There's an item in the Dec. 14 time about an
employee of a Swiss bank who saved from the shredder a sheaf of files
relating to accounts opened by Jews during the Nazi era. He was fired
for his efforts. Are the Jews to suffer the consequences of such
contumacy as the deliberate destruction of the records of their assets?)
If, on the other hand, the criticism is limited only to lawyers,
complain about the lawyers, not an entire "industry." I won't bother to
try to defend them, although defenses are available.
Well, this plainly is getting us nowhere. It's hard to maintain a
discussion (if that's what it is) between two people who don't even
believe each other. Take the last word, Clarence, as you always do.
Bob Lieblich
Robert Lieblich
Look it up, George. It has a standard meaning in the US. It means one
engaged in the hatred and persecution of Jews. The Nazis (the real
ones, led by the real Hitler) exemplify it at its most virulent, and
"ant-Semitism" was the English term used to describe their ideology on
the topic. Others have tried to assign other meanings to it in the hope
of diluting or evading its effect. But we aren't talking PC here -- the
word has a meaning. Look it up.
Bob Lieblich
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> True, there are a few great works of art (books, films, paintings,
> music) based on the Holocaust that were produced by artists more
> concerned with eternalizing the horror than with raking in royalties,
> but the majority of commercial products and services exploiting the
> Holocaust are money-making junk targeting the mindless masses.
>
> Again, with all due respect, Bob, you cannot compare the great
> *religious art* of composers, writers, painters, architects, sculptors
> and other artists (from pre-medieval times to the present and glorifying
> any religion) with the tear-jerking, maudlin, dishonest trash peddled by
> Spielberg and Wiesel. "Schindler's List," to name one money-making
> scheme by Spielberg, was soundly thrashed by *Jews* for its inaccuracies
> and Hollywoodization of horror.
Talk to me about James "I'm the King of the World" Cameron and the
hundreds of dead bodies toward the end of *Titanic*. Like Spielberg, he
got an Oscar. Do we denigrate the "Titanic Industry"?
Talk to me about the thousands of mediocre oil-paint slappers who went
all over Italy and much of the rest of Europe during the Renaissance
painting tortured saints on church walls for bed and board. Talk to me
about the selling of indulgences -- or if that's too ancient, just go to
Rome and see what's selling today.
What of *The Raft of the Frigate Medusa*? What of all those dead
Egyptians in DeMille's *The Ten Commandments*? What of the movie
*Philadelphia* (another Oscar) and the other dramatizations of live and
death with AIDS. Is there an "AIDS Industry"?
<snip ad hominems on Elie Weisel and others>
Let me just say this about Elie Weisel -- anyone who lived through the
death camps has paid his dues. Life owes him. It will continue to owe
him until he dies. No Survivor could lead a completely normal life.
Weisel is no saint. There's no way he could be.
> > "Holocaust Industry" is a loaded term
>
> I agree 100%.
>
> > because it
> > is commonly used not to attack the ethics of a few lawyers but to tar
> > with the same pejorative brush anyone who so much as claims that there
> > *was* a Holocaust.
>
> This is my biggest point of disagreement with you, Bob. There
> probably are anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis who use the above meaning of
> "Holocaust Industry," but it certainly is not the common understanding.
<snip much more>
Accepting your definition for purposes of discussion, Rey, i.e., that we
are using the term "Holocaust Industry" to describe only profiteers,
perhaps my problem is that in my experience few people are critics of
the so-called "Holocaust Industry" only in that sense and have no other
anti-Semitic axe to grind. I confess that it galls me to see criticism
of people seeking the return of their legitimate property that was taken
from their ancestors often as an incident to murder. If I could
identify one gold filling in the Nazi hoard that came from a relative of
mine (and I lost plenty of distant to middling cousins in the
Holocaust), I would fight like a tiger to get it back. If the effort is
not conducted as one would ideally have it conducted, and if someone
wants to criticize it for its imperfections (along with those causing
it), okay fine. I don't think it inconsistent, for example, to think
American blacks deserve better treatment and yet be revulsed by Louis
Farrakhan. (And BTW, if you're looking for anti-Semitism in action,
look at him.)
But, to return to the main thread of my argument, I don't think it
appropriate to denigrate all blacks and their cause just because it has
spawned a Farrakhan. I find that most critics of the "Holocaust
Industry" are critical of far more than just a few money-grubbers. I
also find that when I ask who those money-grubbers are, the answer is
either Stephen Spielberg et al. (as to which see above) or those evil
shysters. So why the big stink? Complain about the lawyers; I won't
try to defend them. And don't call *the* an entire industry. And stop
there. Please.
I've tried to deal with this dispassionately (with middling success),
and I appreciate your willingness to engage in a true dialogue. To the
extent we still disagree, I doubt we will bridge the gap. I regret
that.
Bob Lieblich
Fred Louder
John Doherty wrote in message ...
>In article <367089...@erols.com>, lieb...@erols.com wrote:
>
>| Frances Kemmish wrote:
>| >
>| > Robert Lieblich wrote:
>| > > It's
>| > > like arguing that anti-Semites hate Arabs as well as Jews. The words
>| > > may imply that literal meaning, but the literal meaning is not what
is
>| > > meant -- and anyone with any knowledge of the world knows that.
>| > >
>| >
>| > And if that was what was meant, would that be all right?
>|
>| encounter or use a term like "anti-Semite" more than once or twice and
>| not know what it connotes.
>
>
>The nearest dictionary says that "Semite" means "a member of any of the
>peoples supposed to be descended from Shem, son of Noah (Gen., 10:21),
>including esp. the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Phoenicians."
>
>I don't know of many people who self-identify as Assyrian or Phoenician
>these days, though I suppose there may be some.
>
>The same dictionary says "Semitic" means "of or relating to the Semites,
>esp. the Jews."
>
>So it looks like "Semite" in contemporary use may refer (however
ironically)
>to both Jews and Arabs, with an emphasis on Jews.
>
>against both Jews and Arabs?
***Point of information***
The fact is that "anti-Semite" was a term invented by and popularized by
anti-Jewish polemicists. It first appeared in an anti-Jewish tract written
by one Wilhelm Marr and published in Berne in 1873. The word was picked up
several years later in France by Edouard Drumont and his circle, and finally
achieved widespread currency at the first "Anti-Semitic Congress" in Dresden
in 1882.(It was considered to express a superior, even philosophical point
of view, rather in the way that "Teutonic" or "Aryan" was considered to
embody a racial archetype not merely some specific and quite possibly
impure, ethnic group.)
So historically, there is no question as to what people anti-Semites are
prejudiced against.
Hearty congratulations to Bob Lieblich for his staying power against the
latest wave of invincible ignorance on the matter of the "Holocaust
industry." I did not see Charles Krauthammer's article, but Bob's remarks
ring true, pro and con.
Fred Louder
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[Quickie Reply]
> What of the movie *Philadelphia* (another Oscar) and the other
> dramatizations of live and death with AIDS.
> Is there an "AIDS Industry"?
Of *course* there is an AIDS Industry!
> <snip ad hominems on Elie Weisel and others>
Why do you describe my honest, factual information about Wiesel (not
Weisel) and Simon Wiesenthal as "ad hominems"? All the criticisms
listed below are from official sources, including Wiesel's biography,
and my no-bullshit observations. All of the attacks on Wiesenthal are
from *fellow Jews* (Austrian and others) -- making them very believable.
No Austrian and German Gentile would publicly dare criticize that
fraud Wiesenthal, as they'd be branded "Nazis" and kicked out of
office. There's even a German law that forbids any kind of ridicule or
denial of the Holocaust. (German readers know more about these laws and
how much you get fined or how long you get imprisoned for publicly
denying that the Holocaust happened. I forgot the details about these
laws dealing with "Verleumdung" or "Verunglimpfung.")
I repeat what I stated and ask you to document just *one* of my
statements as being an ad hominem or untrue:
Wiesel [meaning "weasel" in German] was a little Rumanian nobody, wrote
a few good things, got good reviews (as almost all works about the evil
Nazis do), and was awarded the politicized Nobel Prize, whether he
deserved it or not. Then his head swelled, his hair was dramatically
combed over his thinker's forehead, his biography was enhanced (he
"studied at the prestigious Sorbonne in Paris" -- wow! Actually, all he
did was sitting in a few lectures but never got a degree there), and
became a sought-after speaker (at about $50,000 per 50-minute gig) and
celebrity-party must-invitee, even hanging out with U.S. presidents.
He shat on Germany and the Germans and vowed never to set foot on
German soil, but when guilt-ridden suck-up krauts offered the Weasel
many thousands of deutsche Marks, Elie "Non Olet" Wiesel hopped on the
next airplane to Frankfurt am Main. Ptui. (I trust y'all understand
the Latin, meaning "[money] doesn't stink," regardless of its source,
and derived from Roman toilet taxes.)
Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi hunter (famous mainly because of
his expert blowing of his own horn), is a similar fraud who makes a good
living off his dead fellow Jews. Like the Weasel, he enhanced and
exaggerated his biography and Nazi-hunting accomplishments and is
venerated by the morons, Jewish and otherwise, who don't know what a
fraud he is. His sharpest critic was Bruno Kreisky, Austria's *Jewish*
president, who exposed all the bullshit, exaggerations and financial
irregularities of that Holocaust Industry profiteer.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:22:26 -0600, na...@somewhere.sam (Eric) wrote:
>
> >I know very little about this subject, and haven't even seen
> >Schindler's List, but before you can accuse Spielberg of
> >exploiting the holocaust, it seems to me you have to establish
> >that he made more money with that movie than he could have by spending
> >the same amount of time making ET II, or some other movie. He seems
> >to be able to make a lot of money making movies about any topic,
> >and as far as I know Schindler's list is not his biggest
> >money-maker.
> is, for example, funding the filming of the testimony of Holocaust
> survivors while some of them remain alive.
The filming of interviews with "Shoah" survivors started long before
"Schindler's List" was a twinkle in Spielberg's financial portfolio.
How much is he donating? One percent of his *true* net income? Big
deal. (Hollywood studio accountants are among the most dishonest in
their profession. Even if a film raked in 200 million net cash, the
accountants' manipulated spread sheets document a loss of $500 million.)
> Making "Schindler's List" was financially risky, for that matter.
> Spielberg did it only after making enough money from blockbusters like
> "ET" so that he could afford to take the risk.
There is no proof of this claim.
> He followed
> "Schindler's List" with another high-risk film, "Amistad," this time
> about the slave trade. Was he then participating in "The Slavery
> Industry"?
Goddamn right he was. Spielberg *knows* how to exploit the stupid
masses and how to appeal to their guilt. "Amistad" is another
historically inaccurate tear-jerker, thrashed by *honest* critics and
scholars. One of the major black heroes (I forgot his name), portrayed
by Spielberg as a poor, mistreated slave, in Real Life was a
*slave-hunter who captured other West African Negroes and sold them to
the white slave traders*. So much for Mr. Spielberg's honesty and
ethics. His attempted book deal of trying to force all American high
school students to buy the book version of "Amistad" as required
textbooks was rejected, and this prevented Spielberg from making even
more money off the Slave Industry.
Another famous Merkin engaged in the Slavery Industry is Bubba
Clinton. The Master Apologist apologized to the American Negroes and to
various black groups on his African tour for past American misdeeds
against the blacks. Hey, a vote is a vote.
It may dismay lawyer Bob L. that Spielberg also exploits the people's
hatred of lawyers. Remember Spielberg's contribution to the "Lawyer
Industry" in his schlock-movie "Jewrassic Park" (heh-heh), where a
shyster gets killed while sitting on the john?
Wherever there is guilt and strong emotion, Spielberg will find it
and exploit it.
> The major, albeit unvoiced, objection to what has been termed "The
> Holocaust Industry" stems from the fact that there are some people
> among us who just don't want the Holocaust talked about...and their
> choice of terms draws, unfortunately, on age-old stereotypes of Jews.
This is too cryptic and mealy-mouthed to make much sense.
Nitin Paul Batra
Nitin Paul Batra
I think it is wrong to make money memorializing any tragedy at all. True,
these are some of the most, most important films because it helps us act
so as to have a bright future and not have these horrors again, but a
film-maker ought to be thought negatively of if he makes a profit out of
tragedy. For him to be respected for it would only encourage historical
inaccuracies, sensationalism, hiding and exaggerating realities so as not
to offend viewer-groups and financial sponsors (mercedes?), any thing that
increases his profit- as well as the simple intuitive wickedness of making
a profit off of tragedy. Unless the filmmaker chooses to give the profits
to a non-ideological charitable cause, then yes, he should be labeled a
persona non grata in my opinion. Batra.
(also, such films are important because some politicians
apparently do care what people 200 years from now feel when they hear
their names (don't ask me WHY they care!). for example, one of adolf's
final excuses for mass murder was that 'no one remembers the armenians'.
apparently, since no one had bad taste on their tongue when hearing about
ottoman empire or sultan, he thought people might still name their kids
adolf. easy to please our short vegetarian hypochondriac
Austrian-draft-dodger it seems!)
Eric The Read
> Now, as he knew from the start, by "Holocaust Industry" I mean
> what everyone means -- the shekel-grubbing exploitation of a
> national tragedy. Who does most of the exploitation is
> immaterial: it is just as disgusting.
That's not what 'everyone' means, Clarence. To the vast majority of
people I've met (and the five or six who happened to stop by while I was
pondering how to reply to your article), "Holocaust Industry" is a phrase
used only by people who deny the Holocaust existed, and refers to all
those who claim it did.
I've never seen anyone use it the way you claim to be, and, frankly, you
sound like a precocious 13-year-old, who knows what he believes to be the
"right" meaning of the word (i.e., the one that will upset the most
adults), and uses it in contradiction to common usage. And you react the
same way, too: arrogant and defensive, allowing the misunderstanding to
persist as long as possible, only admitting your true usage when pressed.
For cryin' out loud, Bob Lieblich is not just making this shit up out of
whole cloth. If you're going to use "Holocaust Industry" in a
nonstandard way, at least let us know you're doing it.
-=Eric
greg
>
> George F. Hardy wrote:
> >
> > In article <367089...@erols.com>, Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> says:
> > >
> > >encounter or use a term like "anti-Semite" more than once or twice and
> > >not know what it connotes.
> >
> > Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, anti-Arab, anti-[some racial
> > group]? Religion? Country? Race? Ethnic? Or just a meaningless
> > insult, like "Nazi"?
>
> Look it up, George. It has a standard meaning in the US. It means one
> engaged in the hatred and persecution of Jews. The Nazis (the real
> ones, led by the real Hitler) exemplify it at its most virulent, and
> "ant-Semitism" was the English term used to describe their ideology on
> the topic.
Just a side note...
I'm pretty sure the term anti-semitism was coined by the French in the
aftermath of the Dreyfus affair, and passed into English from there.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:56:47 GMT, rossh...@my-dejanews.com (Ross
> Howard) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:27:53 -0800, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
> >Kahn) wrote:
> >
> >>Holocaust Industry" stems from the fact that there are some people
> >If by "some people among us" you mean Reinhold Aman, if you hadn't
> >killfiled him you would have read his own definition of "Holocaust
> >Industry", as given in his calm and cogent reply to Bob Lieblich:
> >
> > "the financial exploitation of the murder and memory of
> > millions"
> I wasn't talking about Reinhold Aman or even specifically about aue.
> >So, there you have it. He talks about it. And far from denying or
> >belittling it, he fully recognises the scale and horror of it. The
> >only difference between you and him on the whole question of the
> >Holocaust seems to be that he chooses to be skeptical -- as are many,
> >many others, be they Jews, Gentiles or None-of-the-Aboves -- about the
> >motives of those who are making a nice little living out of all that killing.
> Earlier in his posting history here, he denied the magnitude of the
> Holocaust. Will the real Reinhold Aman please stand up?
I'm already standing up, ready to kick MeMe's fat ass. I know
exactly what that obnoxious, lying, paranoid bitch MeMe Kahn refers to.
Let that filthy cunt define "to deny" and "magnitude" and document her
foul accusations by citing my precise statements (archived on Deja
News). After she has posted it all here, I'll shoot down with facts
another of her triumphant balloons -- and rip her a new asshole, for
good measure.
> As for "those who are making a nice little living out of all that
> killing," I'm not sure I share that view of the motives of most of
> them. I believe that most of them want to keep the memory of the
> Holocaust alive, so that such a horror could not recur.
What a simple-minded twat. In most instances, the Holocaust is
shamelessly misused for propaganda purposes, for financial extortion,
for personal profiteering, and for Jewish fund raisers.
Despite keeping "the memory of the Holocaust alive" by ad nauseam
repetitions of TV shows, movies, news stories, and journal articles, the
horrors of the Holocaust have had *zero* effect on preventing other
ethnic/religious mass murders from (re)occurring. There's been only a
change of names and locales. Men, women and children are still
slaughtered, machine-gunned and gassed en masse.
Fifty-five years ago, the victims were called "Jews" and "Gypsies";
the place was Europe. During the past five decades, the victims
were/are called "Hutus" and "Tutsis" and "Cambodians" and "Albanians"
and "Bosnians" and "Croats" and "ethnic Germans" and "Kurds" and "Irish"
and "Tibetans"; the places were/are Africa, Asia, the Balkans,
Kazakhstan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, USSR, Irak, Turkey, Northern
Ireland, and Tibet. "Ethnic cleansing" and attempts at "Endlösung"
(final solution) continue, despite 50 years of Jewish cries of "Never
Again!" and "Remember the Holocau$$$t!" propaganda.
> >As for the rest of those "among us", well, we don't talk about the
> >rape of little children by their adult relatives much in this group
> >either -- does that mean that you think we are denying its existence?
> Again, I wasn't talking about aue, but about the world in general.
> I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I was *not* pointing a finger at
> Reinhold Aman or anyone else. God only knows what Reinhold Aman
> really believes -- he tends to state what he believes will yield an
> explosive reaction, i.e., he trolls.
A fuckin' nasty cunt, ain't she, that old woman? I state what I
believe, but I don't give a shit about any reaction. When I troll, pull
puppeteer's strings, and press buttons, it's about light-hearted
topics. I don't troll about millions of murdered Jews, Gypsies,
homosexuals, and Catholics.
While that stupid, moronic bitch MeMe Kahn gloats that she survived
the Holocaust (easy, as a chubby, spoiled teenager in New York, many
thousands of miles away from the slaughter), I, as a nine-year-old,
looked in the open blue and brown eyes of dead East-European Jews, mere
skin-covered skeletons lying by the road, who had died during the
death-march from Flossenbürg to Dachau.
Dead Jews are not funny.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> > (We're drifting a bit off the "H.I.") I don't think most people call
> >blacks per se "niggers" (I don't); but some, like me, have the guts to
> >describe a *nigger* as a "nigger." Playing the devil's advocate --
> >comme toujours, as Polar would say -- I insist that there are "blacks"
> >and there are "niggers." (There are also krauts, wops, micks, limeys,
> >kikes, frogs, japs, etc., otherwise these derogatory terms would not
> >exist.)
> (snip)
> ? And so.....Santa Claus, God, Tooth Fairy, the Creature from the Black
> Lagoon....These terms exist, and thus there must be such things.
Uh-oh. Another Lieblichesque poor analogy and faulty reasoning.
Lemme 'splain:
(1) Santa, God, the Tooth Fairy, and the Creature from the Black
Lagoon are *mythical, fictitious* beings, whereas niggers, krauts, wops,
micks, limeys, kikes, frogs, and japs are *real, concrete,
flesh-and-blood* beings.
(2) "Santa Claus," "God," "Tooth Fairy," and "the Creature from the
Black Lagoon" are not *derogatory* or negatively-valued terms. There is
"African American" (positive), "black" (neutral) and "nigger"
(negative), but there are no neutral or negative terms for, say, "Santa
Claus."
(3) Foithermore: Santa, God, the Tooth Fairy, and the Creature from
the Black Lagoon have never spit in my face. But a 6'2", 150-lb,
22-year-old nigger has.
I don't believe that Santa, God, the Tooth Fairy, or the Creature
from the Black Lagoon exist, but Ah sho' does b'lieve dat niggers do
exist.
Sean Holland
(snip)
> (We're drifting a bit off the "H.I.") I don't think most people call
>blacks per se "niggers" (I don't); but some, like me, have the guts to
>describe a *nigger* as a "nigger." Playing the devil's advocate --
>comme toujours, as Polar would say -- I insist that there are "blacks"
>and there are "niggers." (There are also krauts, wops, micks, limeys,
>kikes, frogs, japs, etc., otherwise these derogatory terms would not
>exist.)
(snip)
? And so.....Santa Claus, God, Tooth Fairy, the Creature from the Black
Lagoon....These terms exist, and thus there must be such things.
--
Sean
Due to spam filtering, mail from hotmail or prodigy will not reach me.
George F. Hardy
>It means one engaged in the hatred and persecution of Jews.
Then why are people who disapprove of Israel called anti-
Semites?
GFH
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>So, will you be boinking on the 28th? I know .ie is a fair way to come
>for a meal and a few drinks, but I'll probably be there *in a skirt*!
I don't know. What is "boinking"?
Charles
John Doherty
| Sean Holland wrote:
|
| > In article <367101...@sonic.net>, am...@sonic.net wrote:
| >
| > (snip)
|
| > > (There are also krauts, wops, micks, limeys, kikes, frogs, japs, etc.,
| > > otherwise these derogatory terms would not exist.)
|
| > ? And so.....Santa Claus, God, Tooth Fairy, the Creature from the Black
| > Lagoon....These terms exist, and thus there must be such things.
|
| (1) Santa, God, the Tooth Fairy, and the Creature from the Black
| Lagoon are *mythical, fictitious* beings, whereas niggers, krauts, wops,
| micks, limeys, kikes, frogs, and japs are *real, concrete,
| flesh-and-blood* beings.
It seems like that was the point of disagreement. I think he's suggesting
that the "niggers, krauts, wops, micks, limeys, kikes, frogs, and japs"
that are "real and concrete" to you are actually just figments of your
imagination.
| (2) "Santa Claus," "God," "Tooth Fairy," and "the Creature from the
| Black Lagoon" are not *derogatory* or negatively-valued terms.
I don't think comparing another person to the Creature from the Black
Lagoon would usually be meant as a compliment.
| But a 6'2", 150-lb, 22-year-old nigger has [spit in my face].
You probably had it coming.
| Ah sho' does b'lieve dat niggers do exist.
I'm sure you do. I'll bet that belief serves you real well, too.
TJ
> I find myself in the odd position of defending Schickelgruber's
> war record. It seems he fought bravely in WW I.
> --
There is a fine picture of him in his WWI uniform. Unrecognizable. He
looks like a boy, thin and very unsure.
I read some comments by people who served with him in the trenches and
they felt he was not so much 'brave' but fearless, in a bizarre way, in
that he did not acknowledge danger. To be brave, to me, is not to be
blind to danger.
Oh, and his cook swears he loved sausages, and not the kind made from
soya.
tj
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<emsc...@mail.uccs.edu> wrote:
[about the 'Holocaust Industry']
[ ]
>For cryin' out loud, Bob Lieblich is not just making this shit up out of
>whole cloth. If you're going to use "Holocaust Industry" in a
>nonstandard way, at least let us know you're doing it.
>
>-=Eric
You may cry as loudly as you wish, Mr Schwartz. You will not
stop Mr Lieblich's loathsome practices.
Skitt
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message <3672850f...@news.bctel.ca>...
Disclaimer: The following is interesting reading and my posting of its URL is
not aimed at anyone, OK?
http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0204/jpn0204b.htm
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
If you are posting a reply, please, do not email it. It just confuses me.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
>a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message <3672850f...@news.bctel.ca>...
>>On 11 Dec 1998 19:00:38 -0700, "Eric The Read"
>><emsc...@mail.uccs.edu> wrote:
>>
>>[about the 'Holocaust Industry']
>>
>>[ ]
>>
>>>For cryin' out loud, Bob Lieblich is not just making this shit up out of
>>>whole cloth. If you're going to use "Holocaust Industry" in a
>>>nonstandard way, at least let us know you're doing it.
>>>
>>>-=Eric
>>
>>You may cry as loudly as you wish, Mr Schwartz. You will not
>>stop Mr Lieblich's loathsome practices.
>
>Disclaimer: The following is interesting reading and my posting of its URL is
>not aimed at anyone, OK?
>http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0204/jpn0204b.htm
>--
>Skitt
NOTICE
If I have inadvertently copied someone else's joke then I want it
known that this disavowal stands in full payment of any royalty
and that any objection to this notice on the grounds that only
complete Teutonic seriousness ought to breathe through any
reference to His Reverence Robert (Bob) (RL) (pissed off)
(slightly less pissed off) Lieblich will be treated with all due
respect.
Fred Louder
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message
<3672850f...@news.bctel.ca>...
>On 11 Dec 1998 19:00:38 -0700, "Eric The Read"
><emsc...@mail.uccs.edu> wrote:
>
>[about the 'Holocaust Industry']
>
>[ ]
>
>>For cryin' out loud, Bob Lieblich is not just making this shit up out of
>>whole cloth. If you're going to use "Holocaust Industry" in a
>>nonstandard way, at least let us know you're doing it.
>>
>>-=Eric
>
>You may cry as loudly as you wish, Mr Schwartz. You will not
>stop Mr Lieblich's loathsome practices.
It's your practice that's loathsome. Consider yourself short-listed for the
Year 2000 Ernst Zundel Award.
FL
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
I have always used that abbreviation for the English version of
'capote anglaise', Freddie. I think in your case I might make a
true acronym out of it -- UFFL.
Truly Donovan
<nba...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>I think it is wrong to make money memorializing any tragedy at all. True,
>these are some of the most, most important films because it helps us act
>so as to have a bright future and not have these horrors again, but a
>film-maker ought to be thought negatively of if he makes a profit out of
>tragedy. For him to be respected for it would only encourage historical
>inaccuracies, sensationalism, hiding and exaggerating realities so as not
>to offend viewer-groups and financial sponsors (mercedes?), any thing that
>increases his profit- as well as the simple intuitive wickedness of making
>a profit off of tragedy. Unless the filmmaker chooses to give the profits
>to a non-ideological charitable cause, then yes, he should be labeled a
>persona non grata in my opinion.
He probably wasn't coming to your house anyway. The film-maker who
makes a profit isn't making the profit from the tragedy but from the
inspiration and talent brought to bear on presenting the tragedy in
such a way that it would attract enough people to make a profit as
well as have social impact. I can't think of any good reason why that
film-maker should be denied a profit because the choice was made to
apply those talents to presenting something of social worth rather
than simply grinding out another "Animal House."
If a film such as "Schindler's List" informs a generation in such a
way that they are less likely to tolerate a recurrence, there is a
major profit being turned to social good, and the money someone banked
from the box office receipts doesn't matter much.
If no-talent Joe Doakes makes a low-budget film about a tragic chapter
in human history because Joe Doakes can't make a buck doing anything
else and no one shows up to see it, where's the benefit in that? If
someone who could be applying his time and talents to producing
another "E.T." makes a "Schindler's List" instead, he is welcome at my
house any time, regardless of how much he may have made off the deal.
(Of course, "E.T." has its own social merits -- I just can't think of
any other Spielbergs at the moment.)
Is the other side of this equation the $100 million somebody just gave
for infant innoculations meaning that it is all right for that
somebody to continue predatory practices and viper-in-the-bosom
partnerships?
> (also, such films are important because some politicians
>apparently do care what people 200 years from now feel when they hear
>their names
Such films are important because they raise awareness among the people
who might be influenced by politicians, not because the politicians
worry about their box office appeal 200 years hence.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Fred Louder
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote >>>
>>>You may cry as loudly as you wish, Mr Schwartz. You will not
>>>stop Mr Lieblich's loathsome practices.
>>
>>It's your practice that's loathsome. Consider yourself short-listed for
the
>>Year 2000 Ernst Zundel Award.
>>
>>FL
>
>I have always used that abbreviation for the English version of
>'capote anglaise', Freddie. I think in your case I might make a
>true acronym out of it -- UFFL.
Well, that might just be the one big enough to fit you, topknot to toenail.
Suit yourself.
FL
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> The film-maker who
> makes a profit isn't making the profit from the tragedy but from the
> inspiration and talent brought to bear on presenting the tragedy in
> such a way that it would attract enough people to make a profit as
> well as have social impact.
If that were so, why doesn't Spielberg produce movies about the great
tragedies by the Ancient Greeks or Shakespeare? Or about any of the
other human tragedies past and present not involving Jews and Negroes?
Because the sheeple [1] don't know of the many other great tragedies
worldwide. And if they knew, they didn't care. People who don't know
and don't care don't pay $5.00 to $7.50 at the box office.
Spielberg is a cynical, glorified businessman without a trace of
idealism and altruism. Suffering Jews can be marketed ("Schindler's
List"). Suffering Negro slaves can be marketed ("Amistad"). Everyone's
heard of them. Most of the Jewish and black movie goers want to see
films about "their" people and how they suffered; and they leave the
movie theater teary-eyed and full of indignation about what *they* did
to *their* people.
Most of the non-Jews and non-blacks who see these two films are drawn
by publicity, massive advertisements, curiosity,
everyone's-talking-about-them word-of-mouth -- plus guilt and
(subconscious) fear. Guilt and fear are powerful but dirty tools used
by advertisers and businessmen to sell anything, from schlocky movies to
vaginal sprays.
The (thinking) non-Jewish or non-black movie goers experience pangs of
guilt and are distressed, because they or their parents or ancestors did
nothing to prevent the Jewish Holocaust and slavery. They may fear that
a similar fate could befall them when *their* group becomes the next
target for mass annihilation.
Spielberg's "E.T." and "Jewrassic Park" exploit the fear of the
unknown (alien invasion, destruction of the world, people-eating
monsters and dinosaurs). He's of course not the only film-maker who
does that for fun & profit. My film-making acquaintances/friends Wes
Craven, Milton Subotsky, and Stanley Kubrick do it. Nothing wrong with
it.
But what's wrong is Spielberg's *blatant exploition* of dead Jews and
dead Negroes, two popular subjects every Merkin cretin has heard of.
What's next on Spielberg's to-do movie topics list? Let's see:
-- JEWS: Done.
-- NEGRO SLAVES: Done.
-- INDIANS: Some good scripts are on my desk. Major $$$ expected.
-- ESKIMOS: Nah. Who cares about those swarthy, oily alcoholics. Not
photogenic enough. And not Jewish. Let them eat whales.
-- GYPSIES: Yeah, but play up the romanticized and sexual aspects, and
cool it with the extermination stuff. Not enough people care about what
happened to Roma, Sinti & Co., those chicken-thieves, furtune-tellers,
and drive-way-resurfacing swindlers. Perhaps I'll call it "Laszlo's
Lovers."
-- GAYS & AIDS: Yeah, but don't make it *too* gay, otherwise the
heteros will be turned off, and the only people paying $7.50 at the
movies will be gays, lesbos, bis, transsexuals, guilt-ridden liberals,
and socially-sensitive PC types. Perhaps I'll call it "Kaposi's
Sarcoma: Emission Impossible" to lighten up this major bummer.
-- BREAST CANCER: Yeah! Cool! Every woman that can walk or be wheeled
in will see my next blockbuster! I've gotta aim it strictly at women,
though, because the few males who'll pay $7.50 will be forcibly dragged
in by their wives or are sensitive types who want to show their feminine
side. Title? "Mastectomy!"
-- PROSTATE CANCER: Nah. Who cares.
-- ETHNIC GERMANS: Nah. Who cares about the millions of Germans driven
from Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and other countries
Merkins have never heard of. So what if hundreds of thousands of German
girls and women were raped, slashed to shreds, had their bellies torn
open and breasts cut off by Russian soldiers, who outperformed any Nazi
cruelty? Who cares about the hundreds of thousands of German old men
and boys who were nailed alive to barn doors and left to die, who were
burned alive, slashed, and machine-gunned by Czechs and other
East-European Ehrenberg [2] fans?
No. Fuck 'em. They were just Germans. They were not Jewish or
black. No money in this project. If American television and
publications would inform the public about these unspeakable atrocities
with just a tiny fraction of the fervor they spend on endless repetition
of the Holocaust tragedy, perhaps I, the Great Spielberg, *could* use my
inspiration and talent to make a quickie about this mass murder, to show
what a noble person I am. Call it "Goyocaust" perhaps?
-- ARMENIANS: Nah, ditto. So, millions were wiped out. Big deal.
Happens all the time. And it happened too long ago. This genocide
doesn't get enough press. So, fuck 'em. They were not Jewish or
black. No money in this project.
-- KOREANS: Nah. History-handicapped Merkins would just confuse the
mass killings of Koreans by the Japs way back with the current mass
killing by starvation of millions of Koreans. Too confusing. We
Merkins don't identify with Koreans anyway. They're kind of like Japs
and Chinese, again too confusing for the Merkin masses. Fuck 'em.
Besides, they were not Jewish or black. No money in this project.
-- YUGOSLAVIANS: Nah, not interesting. The various ethnic and
religious groups there have been killing one another since the Middle
Ages. Balkans will be Balkans. And who could tell apart all those
Serbs and Croats and Bosnians and Albanians and Slovenes and Hungarians
and Rumanians and Turks and Gypsies and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox
and Muslims and Jews in that place? Too confusing.
Hey, Jews in Yugoslavia! Nah, damn, not enough of my "lantslayt"
left. So, fuck 'em. I can't make tear-jerker movies about *every*
Jewish group in the Diaspora, you know. Perhaps about Argentina,
though. Those bombed, collapsing buildings housing Jewish agencies, and
survivors running around with clothes aflame would be kind of neat,
visual-wise. I could work in the Nazis-in-South-America cliché and
Wiesenthal's Nazi hunters.
-- KURDS: Nah. Kurds, Schmurds. All right, so thousands of babies,
women and old geezers were gassed and shot, just like Jews in
concentration camps, but those ragheads were not Jews or black. No
money in this project.
-- AFRICAN NEGROES: Nah. Sure, lots of neat mass killings and rapes of
school children, nuns and nurses, vignettes of throat-slashings of white
settlers, blacks burning with flaming car tires around their bodies,
Hutus clubbing and hacking Tutsis to death (or is it vice versa?), and
black kids having their legs blown off by land-mines. All, like, really
neat stuff, guilt- and visual-wise -- but not *Jewish* enough.
> If a film such as "Schindler's List" informs a generation in such a
> way that they are less likely to tolerate a recurrence, there is a
> major profit being turned to social good, and the money someone
> banked from the box office receipts doesn't matter much.
Wow, this idealism from a cynical realist like Ms. Donovan. Too bad,
though: "Schindler's List" and "Amistad" will have NO such effect on
anyone or anything. Neither this, nor any future generation, will have
the power to prevent or stop ethnic/religious mass murders as long as
there are politicians and "them" and "us." C'est la fucking vie.
[1] sheeple. From "sheep" + "people": the great unwashed masses; the
hordes of ignorant humans; the mindless, uncritical "American People"
currently thrown about by Bubba Clinton and other politicians,
pollsters, and talking heads.
[2] Ehrenberg, a Jew, was Stalin's propaganda minister during World War
ll. He proclaimed: "The Germans are not human beings! From now on the
word 'German' means to us the most terrible oath. If you have not
killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day. If you kill
one German, kill another. There is nothing more amusing for us than a
heap of German corpses. Kill! Nothing in Germany is guiltless.
Neither the living or the yet unborn. Follow the words of Comrade
Stalin and crush forever the fascist beast in its den. Break the racial
pride of the German woman. Take her as your legitimate booty. Kill,
you brave soldiers of the victorious Soviet Army!" [Translated from the
Russian]
Hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers took the above-quoted
exhortation literally. Records of the savage crimes committed against
millions of (ethnic) German civilians fill eight volumes of 600 to 800
pages each of documented atrocities. These documents have been
suppressed as "classified" by the American and British political powers
and have never been allowed to be published by the Federal Ministry for
Expellees, Refugees and War Victims of the German Federal Republic.
You can't have more than one Holocaust, you see. Holocaust-like
horrors suffered by many millions of non-Jews would detract from the
propaganda- and extortion-value of the one and only allowed and pushed
ad nauseam.
That's just the facts, ma'am.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Ph.D.
The Chocolate Lady
Flash, geo...@mail.rlc.net (George F. Hardy) reported:
Maybe because Israel is considered to be the homeland for the Jews.
(As opposed to Palestine which will eventually be a homeland for the
Palestinians - who are Arabs who lived in the British Mandate land
which was partitioned for the State of Israel in the late 1940's.)
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Procrastinatorial, Persnickitorial Pugnascitoralist."
--- Chris.tine Mclaughlin
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.lutzbooks.com/booksale/