US-Canada interests in WWII (was: LIPPAI IS ZAKARIASS)
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada
In a previous article, vl...@usa.net (VR) says:
>The Foreigner wrote:
>>
>> Let us think for a moment that Europeans bequeathed unto the world this
>> century, the two most lethal wars in history. Twice this century, Canada
>> sent its youth to help quell the dictatorial flames of Europe. The only
>> thing that Canada ever received in return were body bags and maimed youth.
>> Now you ask a multigeneration Canadian what they think of Europeans. Get it,
>> asshole?
>
>Well, among other things Canada received in return for its WWII
>participation is its "#1 country to live in" label.
>
>Since at the time CA was a UK dominion it *had* to participate in the
>war just as, for instance, India did.
Canada acquired her independence in 1931. It didn't had to participate,
there was a vote, English-Canada voted in favour of conscription, Quebec
against it, thus ensuring that the Quebecers will have one more item on
their complaints lists agaist E-CA.
>Moreover, from the North American point of view, there was an entire
paranoia movement about Nazi u-boats "invading" the eastern coasts (not
only of the U.S., but also of CA's Newfoundland.)
Heck, the Navy even cut deals with the Mob and enlisted mobsters to find
out whether the German U-boats are refuelled by traitors somewhere along
the US shores.
>On the other hand CA (and the U.S.) were just recovering from the
>depression, and war is usually a very good way of reboosting one's economy
That's correct. The depression in CA-US was so deep that you had millions
of people rolling on freight trains w/o any prospects for a future. Hitler
was a God sent economy kickstarter here w/o whom thy'd have never gotten
out of the economic deep shit for a long, long time. Most of the people
who joined the armed forces did it so because after being haunted with
baseball bats from city to city by locals whose property taxes supported
their home relief cheques had enough of it, and were happy to put on a
uniform that meant clean clothes, food, shelter, a buck a day of which they
could send home a few cents to their kids and family.
Economically, it was a "bread and butter for arms" thing just like it was
in Germany.
>(especially when the war is not fought on one's territory.) CA might not
>have directly taken economical advantage of its sending troops on the Old
>Continent, but the U.S. most certainly did. The point is that, despite
>your despising your southern neighbours, probably 90% of CA's development
>is owed to the U.S. (both in terms of economical ties & immigration.)
That's correct too. Canada is nothing but "plant land USA". The joke
around here is that the US doesn't invade us because the Pentagon is affraid
of the US Army of Lawyers that will sue their asses off for damaged US
property, hahaha...
If you get right down to it, CA can't produce almost nothing w/o US: not
cars, not ships, not locomotives, not airplanes (ok, maybe Bombardier can
make small aircraft).
>Don't ask me why CA had to fight as a UK dominion, I don't know who
>decided it (was it the parliament, was it the governor, i.e. the
>"elected" or the "appointed"?) What I *can* tell you is that, by not
>allowing the Nazis to take over W. Europe (the UK), CA & the U.S. spared
>themeselves a costly war on their own territory (the coastline, and even
>inland territory had the Germans managed to further develop rocket
>technology.)
That's correct too, and they knew it at the high political levels, don't
you worry. Only the John Doe from the street couldn't get it. The Germans
had the plans for the Aggregat-4 (V-4) intercontinetal missile ready, it
was just a matter of time to produce it and make it operational.
>North America might have been facing the prospect of fighting the war on
>two fronts, both E and W (Nazi DE, & JP.) Moreover, North America and
>Germany were competing for the nuclear bomb,
Japan had a nuclear program too, and they reached as far as separating
Uranium 235 with a cyclotron.
>and harassing the Germans was one way of trying to delay the latter's
>progression by forcing German research and industry into more pressing
>matters (planes, rockets.)
Nevertheless, the German nuclear project was sabotajed by many scientist,
their own political bureaucracy and Hitler, who, in his small mindedness,
couldn't understand what the concept of the atomic bomb means, all his
brain could grasp was thanks, submarines, rockets, and more divisions.
Thank goodness, only in the US did people realise what it really meant. And
if you think that that was due mainly to the Danish Carlberg Beer Co., it
makes you have another drink of it, hahaha... ;-)
>Since the war was considered inevitable (sooner or later the Germans
>could attack North America), a 24th hour fight would have been much
>costlier in human life and $$$ (the atomic bomb was not an option yet)
>than an early fight with a weaker Reich having the support of British
>intelligence and of the French underground.
The greatest contribution to the war was done by the Polish underground.
They mounted the biggest resistance movement against the Nazis, not the
bloody French whose reputation is mainly based on de Gaulliesque
mythmaking. It was the Poles that captured the Enigma machine and smuggled
it out to the UK so that the British could read with it the German coded
comunications. Polish emigres made up roughly 10-15% of RAF pilots, but it
was this 10-15% that shot down 80% of the German airplanes.
>Even if DE won and did not attack N. America (unlikely), the U.S. would
>have taken a very hard and long-lasting blow economically (Asian and
>European ties severed beacuse of DE & JP.)
That's true too, but US capitalistic interest would have come to an
agreement with them sooner or later. But of course, the world would have
been a hard place for much more many people, and some would have been just
postponed for a while.
>Had, however, DE lost the war without North America's intervention (a
>much more likely possibility), it would have been to the Soviets.
>Who would have liberated London? Well, 1984 says it all.
W/o the US's economic support, the SU wouldn't have had any chance against
DE and would have colapsed. As they used to say, the British bought the
time, the Soviets provided the blood, and the Americans the money.
>Why would North America have cared? Well, the economical ties with the
>Old World (which *were* worth the Marshall Plan) would have been severed
Not only that, but w/o the Marshal Plan, Communist Parties would have taken
over many W. European countries, so not ONLY the economic ties and markets
would have been affected.
>and, most important, N. America would have had a much, much colder Cold
>War(i.e. they would have lost it.) And, incidentally, where would von
>Braun have landed?
At one point, maybe even a hot one, too.
>BTW, if you don't agree please care to discuss it while trying not to
>make excessive use of donkeytrap words.
Wally is only trying to be funny and cre@ive. By now, you should have
gotten this . . ;)
(NOTE: Answers to this posting will be monitored mainly on the
"soc.culture.romanian" newsgroup.)
--=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
sda...@freenet.hut.fi http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bv561/
--
jester
> comunications. Polish emigres made up roughly 10-15% of RAF pilots, but
it
> was this 10-15% that shot down 80% of the German airplanes.
>
where in gods name did you find THIS statistic???????
E. Barry Bruyea
On 26 Jun 98 20:33:02 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
>
>
>> comunications. Polish emigres made up roughly 10-15% of RAF pilots, but
>it
>> was this 10-15% that shot down 80% of the German airplanes.
>>
>
>where in gods name did you find THIS statistic???????
Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada
The figure if I recall correctly was mentioned in a CBC documentary that
tried to set straight Polish contributions to the war effort and was aired
1-2 yeas ago. Also, the stats refer to the Battle of Britain, and not for
the entire war.
As to the Western propagated myths about the WWII Polish Airforce:
What do you mean - in World War 2? Wasn't the Polish Air Force
destroyed in September 1939?
No. While it indeed succumbed to German advantage in 1939, a large
proportion of both ground personnel and aircrew were evacuated and
interned in Romania and Hungary. With the help of Polish embassies and
consulates, which provided false papers and bribe money, most of them
were able to make their escape through the Mediterranean to France and
England in time to take part in the defence of France and in the
Battle of Britain. The Polish Air Force in Great Britain, though
organizationally and operationally within the RAF structure, was an
independent air force, and many decisions (like sending Polish pilots
away from the European theatre) had to be agreed on with the Polish
command. Numerically, it was the fourth largest Allied air force,
after the Soviet Union, the U.S. and Great Britain (of course, many
times smaller than any of the three). Also, the equipment it used was,
as that of the entire Polish Army in the west, leased by Great Britain
to the Polish government. After the war, a bill for over 68 million
pounds sterling, covering the equipment and operating costs of the
Polish Air Force in Great Britain, was paid from the Polish gold
reserves deposited in Canada.
Ref.: Polish Aviation - WWII Myths
http://ornak.waw.pdi.net/~robertp/history/myths.html
As to the statistical importance and the Polish Air Force's role in the
Batle of England:
Anyone who is interested in World War II history knows the
significance of the Battle of Britain, and that it was won by the
narrowest of margins. Fewer people are aware, however, of the
contribution made during the Battle by Polish pilots, contribution
which is perhaps most vividly described in the words of Air Chief
Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding, the C-in-C of the RAF Fighter Command
during the Battle: "(...) had it not been for the magnificent material
contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I
hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same."
When examining the importance of the Polish contribution during the
Battle, the first look, as usual, has to be at the numbers. Overall,
144 Polish pilots took part in the Battle, and scored 201.5 confirmed
victories (17 of which were scored by the famous Czech ace, Josef
Frantisek, who officially was a member of the Polish Air Force). 29
pilots were killed (including several in accidents), many more or less
severely wounded. While this yields quite an impressive 'kill ratio',
in terms of pure numbers can hardly seem a decisive factor (the entire
RAF claimed 2698 'confirmed' victories). However, the statistics don't
tell the most important thing. It is generally agreed that the single
most important factor that could have lead to British defeat was the
shortage of pilots. As the result, the British were forced to rely on
their allies to fill this gap, and Polish pilots, with their excellent
pre-war training and experience from two campaigns performed
beautifully in that role.
In terms of numbers, in the crucial days of September 1940, every one
in eight pilots of the Fighter Command was a Pole, and 303 Squadron's
contribution was nothing short of amazing. Hence the opinion of Sir
Hugh Dowding, cited at the top of this page.
Nor was the success of Polish fighter pilots lost on the British in
the long run. No more difficulties in expanding the Polish Air Force
were made after the Battle. By the end of 1940, three more fighter
squadrons - No. 306, 307 (night) and 308 were formed, to be joined by
No. 315, 316 and 317 in early 1941. By the end of 1943, a total of 14
Polish Squadrons (ten of them fighter sqns.) and a complete
infrastructure were in existence, making the Polish Air Force the
fourth largest Allied air force of the war.
Ref.: Polish Aviation - Battle of Britain
http://www.waw.pdi.net/~robertp/history/bob/
Remember Churchill's "never have so many owed so much to so few" when
praising the fighter pilots during the Battle of England?
Other useful links:
Polish Aviation History Page
http://ornak.waw.pdi.net/~robertp/aviation.html
http://www.waw.pdi.net/~robertp/aviation.html
Polish Contribution to Victory in The Second World War
http://www.zem.co.uk/polinuk/fed/contrib.htm
Polish mathematicians' contribution in the code-breaking of Enigma
http://members.gnn.com/nbrass/1enigma.htm
"There's magic in the web." - Shakespeare (Othello, III, 4)
PS: and Barry, if you don't want to kiss the asses of those Polish pilots
to whom you may partially thank that you don't quack in German nowadays,
then at least learn to write properly sentences in English. In what slang
is your famous "their are"? ;-)
E. Barry Bruyea
On 27 Jun 1998 23:56:33 GMT, sda...@mail.freenet.hut.fi (Stephen
Dancs,Toronto Canada) wrote:
You make an excellent, if not jingoistic post and drop your guard and
move into a spelling or grammar criticism. As ot the reference
vis-a-vis the Germans, I suggest you back off on that asshole, as my
father lies in a European grave courtesy of those nazi bastards. My
reply was meant to point out how ridiculous the statement was
regarding the stats on the kills made by Polish Pilots: and it was
ridiculous as proven by historical fact. If I had wanted to take a
shot at the Poles then I would have moved into a little history
myself, especially that part of history covering the chunk of
Czechoslovakia peeled off by Poland when hitler took his piece.
Barry Bruyea
jester
> >>>> comunications. Polish emigres made up roughly 10-15% of RAF pilots,
but
> >>>> it was this 10-15% that shot down 80% of the German airplanes.
> >>>
> >>>where in gods name did you find THIS statistic???????
> >>
> >>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
> >>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
> >>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
> >>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
ok you fuckn melodramtic piece of shit, the known universe happens to only
be the fuckn west, as im sure the tribes of rwanda couldnt give two shits
about the polish exploits in wwII.
> > during the Battle: "(...) had it not been for the magnificent
material
> > contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry,
I
> > hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same."
and theres hundreds of other quotes, just like the above, that extoll the
virtues (in your melodramatic rhetoric) of the canadians, the australians,
the new zealanders....etc.
> > When examining the importance of the Polish contribution during the
> > Battle, the first look, as usual, has to be at the numbers. Overall,
> > 144 Polish pilots took part in the Battle, and scored 201.5 confirmed
> > victories (the entire RAF claimed 2698 'confirmed' victories).
ONCE AGAIN.......where in gods name do you get 80% of the kills out of the
above mentioned numbers??!! it seems to be a mere 7.5% of the overall
kills.
> > However, the statistics don't
> > tell the most important thing. It is generally agreed that the single
> > most important factor that could have lead to British defeat was the
> > shortage of pilots. As the result, the British were forced to rely on
> > their allies to fill this gap, and Polish pilots, with their
excellent
> > pre-war training and experience from two campaigns performed
> > beautifully in that role.
once again, there were a lot more countries involved than just the polish
air force and infantry forces in the war. i realise the importance of
remembering the lives that have gone on before us....but for gods sake,
have some humility!! it is known that the polish air force was very good,
but they were by no means the best in the air. for example, i beg of you
to read up on the history and overwhelming statisctics of the canadian
fighter pilots in BOTH world wars. you may be pleasantly surprised to
discover that the polish air force was not the "be all end all" for the
battle of britain, just a mere player in the battle.
jester
"the better part of valour, is discretion"
-- falstaff (the jester of all jesters), henry the iv.
J.H.Minkiewicz
[...]
>ONCE AGAIN.......where in gods name do you get 80% of the kills out of the
>above mentioned numbers??!! it seems to be a mere 7.5% of the overall
>kills.
The figure that I always heard (and read) was that almost 17 or 18% of all
German planes
shot down during the Battle of Britain were shot down by Polish pilots.
Perhaps the other
author also meant 18 instead of 80...
>once again, there were a lot more countries involved than just the polish
>air force and infantry forces in the war.
Correct. But how many of those countries were occupied by the Germans?
It's a safe bet to say that of all the occupied nations, Poland had the
biggest
contingent in the Allied Forces.
>i realise the importance of
>remembering the lives that have gone on before us....but for gods sake,
>have some humility!! it is known that the polish air force was very good,
>but they were by no means the best in the air.
The two exclusively Polish squadrons during the Battle of Britain (302 and
303 Sqns)
had the highest loss-kill ratio of any fighter squadron during that battle.
I would say
they're the best by that token.
Patryk Minkiewicz,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada
In a previous article, jhm...@wxs.nl ("J.H.Minkiewicz") says:
>
>>ONCE AGAIN.......where in gods name do you get 80% of the kills out of the
>>above mentioned numbers??!! it seems to be a mere 7.5% of the overall
>>kills.
I corrected myself already, I said the stats referred only to the Battle of
Britain, not to the whole duration of the war.
>The figure that I always heard (and read) was that almost 17 or 18% of all
>German planes shot down during the Battle of Britain were shot down by
>Polish pilots. Perhaps the other author also meant 18 instead of 80...
That's very plausible, as I said, it was in a CBC TV documentary, and most
probably I wasn't attentive enough and misheard 18 for 80 (Hey, when it
comes to love, who cares if it's 18 or 80? Love knows no age, isn't it?
hahaha ;-) ). My mistake. Well, at least the 1 in 8 number off the web
stands behind the claim of 10-15% of the pilots being Polish.
>>once again, there were a lot more countries involved than just the polish
>>air force and infantry forces in the war.
>
>Correct. But how many of those countries were occupied by the Germans?
>It's a safe bet to say that of all the occupied nations, Poland had the
>biggest contingent in the Allied Forces.
The issue started whether the Polish or French resistance's contribution
was more decisive and significant. Because de Gaulle and all that, many
people believe that the French contribution was more key, I happen to
disagree, I think the Poles did the utmost, followed by, maybe, the Czech
resistance, and then maybe we can talk about the French resistance too, but
I think the French resistance is most of the time overblown in proportions
by de Gaullist myth making and French glorifications of French WWII
history.
>>i realise the importance of
>>remembering the lives that have gone on before us....but for gods sake,
>>have some humility!! it is known that the polish air force was very good,
>>but they were by no means the best in the air.
>
>The two exclusively Polish squadrons during the Battle of Britain (302 and
>303 Sqns) had the highest loss-kill ratio of any fighter squadron during
>that battle. I would say they're the best by that token.
The guy thinks that I'm a jingoistic Pole who tries to overblown Polish
contributions. He couldn't be more wrong, I'm Hungarian, have never in my
life had anything to do with Poland or France, I'm only interested in the
plain facts that tell it as it really was, and do not try to glorify
things out of proportion.
J.H.Minkiewicz
[...]
>The guy thinks that I'm a jingoistic Pole who tries to overblown Polish
>contributions. He couldn't be more wrong, I'm Hungarian, have never in my
>life had anything to do with Poland or France, I'm only interested in the
>plain facts that tell it as it really was, and do not try to glorify
>things out of proportion.
I couldn't agree more, especially with your last line.
E. Barry Bruyea
On 28 Jun 98 15:37:21 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
>
>> >>>> comunications. Polish emigres made up roughly 10-15% of RAF pilots,
>but
>> >>>> it was this 10-15% that shot down 80% of the German airplanes.
>> >>>
>> >>>where in gods name did you find THIS statistic???????
>> >>
>> >>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>> >>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>> >>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>> >>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
>
>ok you fuckn melodramtic piece of shit, the known universe happens to only
>be the fuckn west, as im sure the tribes of rwanda couldnt give two shits
>about the polish exploits in wwII.
You poor ignorant little man. Get a life or a sense of humour: you
might be able to make good use of either. And while you're at it,
look around for a larger brain if you can find the room.
E. Barry Bruyea
On 28 Jun 1998 19:06:25 GMT, sda...@mail.freenet.hut.fi (Stephen
Dancs,Toronto Canada) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, jhm...@wxs.nl ("J.H.Minkiewicz") says:
>>
>>>ONCE AGAIN.......where in gods name do you get 80% of the kills out of the
>>>above mentioned numbers??!! it seems to be a mere 7.5% of the overall
>>>kills.
>
>I corrected myself already, I said the stats referred only to the Battle of
>Britain, not to the whole duration of the war.
>
>>The figure that I always heard (and read) was that almost 17 or 18% of all
>>German planes shot down during the Battle of Britain were shot down by
>>Polish pilots. Perhaps the other author also meant 18 instead of 80...
>
>That's very plausible, as I said, it was in a CBC TV documentary, and most
>probably I wasn't attentive enough and misheard 18 for 80 (Hey, when it
>comes to love, who cares if it's 18 or 80? Love knows no age, isn't it?
>hahaha ;-) ). My mistake. Well, at least the 1 in 8 number off the web
>stands behind the claim of 10-15% of the pilots being Polish.
>
>>>once again, there were a lot more countries involved than just the polish
>>>air force and infantry forces in the war.
>>
>>Correct. But how many of those countries were occupied by the Germans?
>>It's a safe bet to say that of all the occupied nations, Poland had the
>>biggest contingent in the Allied Forces.
Larger than the Free French?
>
>The issue started whether the Polish or French resistance's contribution
>was more decisive and significant. Because de Gaulle and all that, many
>people believe that the French contribution was more key, I happen to
>disagree, I think the Poles did the utmost, followed by, maybe, the Czech
>resistance, and then maybe we can talk about the French resistance too, but
>I think the French resistance is most of the time overblown in proportions
>by de Gaullist myth making and French glorifications of French WWII
>history.
>
>>>i realise the importance of
>>>remembering the lives that have gone on before us....but for gods sake,
>>>have some humility!! it is known that the polish air force was very good,
>>>but they were by no means the best in the air.
>>
>>The two exclusively Polish squadrons during the Battle of Britain (302 and
>>303 Sqns) had the highest loss-kill ratio of any fighter squadron during
>>that battle. I would say they're the best by that token.
>
>The guy thinks that I'm a jingoistic Pole who tries to overblown Polish
>contributions. He couldn't be more wrong, I'm Hungarian, have never in my
>life had anything to do with Poland or France, I'm only interested in the
>plain facts that tell it as it really was, and do not try to glorify
>things out of proportion.
>
J.H.Minkiewicz
E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message <35978122...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
[...]
>>>Correct. But how many of those countries were occupied by the Germans?
>>>It's a safe bet to say that of all the occupied nations, Poland had the
>>>biggest contingent in the Allied Forces.
>
>Larger than the Free French?
As far as I know, Poland had about 250.000 soldiers in the West,
comprising mainly of:
1st Armoured Division under General Maczek.
1st Independent Parachute Brigade under General Sosabowski.
2nd Corps of General Anders consisting of 2 Infantry Divisions and 1
Armoured Brigade.
15 Fighter and Bomber Squadrons with the RAF by the end of the war.
1 Cruiser, 6 Destroyers, 6 Submarines
+ smaller units
On top of that, there were 400.000 soldiers in the Polish Army in the East,
as part of the
Red Army.
The Free French (initially) were mostly Algerians and Moroccans, just like
the
British also had many Indian Divisions. Poland didn't have the luxury
of having colonies were it could draw on resources and men.
regards,
Patryk Minkiewicz
Piotr Trela
On 26 Jun 98 20:33:02 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
Thank your for you sophisticated humor, which nicely matches your historic
knowledge.
Yes, the cavalrymen fought the tanks, but from the ground, after
dismounting, and they did not use their sabres, but their anti-tank guns
(however scarce) and grenades. The horses were used primarily as
means of transportation in the heavily forrested, often muddy and
roadless, terrain.
Certainly, from the transportation point of view, the cavalry units were
much more versatile than bicycle units of the German army (will we hear
a funny joke about the Sauerkraut trading cards extolling the virtues of
Wehrmacht charging on their bicycles with their air-pumps lifted high in
the air? ...)
The cavalry occasionally charged, but those charges were designed to break
out from the encirclement and as such were aimed at the weakest points of
German infantry positions. If possible such charges were carried during
the night, to increase the effect of the surprise, minimise the exposure
to the gun fire and to increase the psychological effect on the enemy
infantry (and, from what I've read, the last was considerable).
In all, there is perhaps a handful of known cases of the Polish
cavalry charges (that's out of a campaign in which millions people
were engaged in and which lasted longer than a month). There was not a
single case of cavalry ordered to charge directly against the tanks. If
the attacked infantry positions were found to be supported by tanks and
armored vehicles, the cavalry withdrew.
The charge of cavalry against tanks in broad daylight, is a myth
created by a Nazi war newsreel, which pasted together the shot of German
tank attack, with a shot of the attack of the Polish cavalry, probably
filmed during some manouvers BEFORE the war. The myth was useful in
convincing France and England that their abandonment of Poland was a wise
decision, in the face of "obvious absurdity" of Polish war effort,
beautifully proven by the horse vs. tank image.
Nice to see, that the old Goebbels myth is still alive and kicking,
and gets a new life thanks to the Internet and people like "jester
(henry@iv)".
Piotr Trela
E. Barry Bruyea
On 30 Jun 1998 16:41:04 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>On 26 Jun 98 20:33:02 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
>
>>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
>
>Thank your for you sophisticated humor, which nicely matches your historic
>knowledge.
First, the accreditation is wrong, probably another one of those post
manipulators that work for Saddam: E. Barry Bruyea
(si...@sympatico.ca) penned the post in question. And it was meant in
jest,, assuming the individuals who read it had the intelligence and
wit to understand that. I was not attempting to give a history
lesson. Lighten up, friend, life is to short, and besides, I like
horses.
Barry Bruyea
jester
>
> Nice to see, that the old Goebbels myth is still alive and kicking,
> and gets a new life thanks to the Internet and people like "jester
> (henry@iv)".
>
> Piotr Trela
>
those werent my fuckn words dipshit. why dont you follow the proper
threads next time befroe assuming who wrote what. or better yet, learn how
to know what has previously been written when reading from newsgroups...
jester
E. Barry Bruyea
On 30 Jun 98 21:44:46 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nice to see, that the old Goebbels myth is still alive and kicking,
>> and gets a new life thanks to the Internet and people like "jester
>> (henry@iv)".
>>
>> Piotr Trela
The Great Post Manipulater has erroneously credited my post to jester.
I made it, and it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't
have the wit to realize that. Maybe he should lighten up.
Barry Bruyea
E. Barry Bruyea
On 30 Jun 98 21:44:46 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nice to see, that the old Goebbels myth is still alive and kicking,
>> and gets a new life thanks to the Internet and people like "jester
>> (henry@iv)".
>>
>> Piotr Trela
The Great Post Manipulator has somehow confused the issue by crediting
my post to jester. The post was made as a jest and was a rejoinder to
the idiotic statistic that the Poles got 80% of the kills in the BOB.
I thought that was funny, so I took a run at a little humour of my
own. Lighten up, Trela, you obviously didn't have the wit to see the
humour, anymore thant you had the wherewithall to check you stats
before you posted them, thus making yourself look like a clown.
jester
>
> The Great Post Manipulater has erroneously credited my post to jester.
> I made it, and it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't
> have the wit to realize that. Maybe he should lighten up.
>
thank-you for your honesty. rarely do people on the net hold it.
jester
"Deceive the rich and powerful if you will, but don't insult them."
-- Japanese Proverb
Piotr Trela
jester (henry@iv) wrote:
: >
: > The Great Post Manipulater has erroneously credited my post to jester.
: > I made it, and it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't
: > have the wit to realize that. Maybe he should lighten up.
: >
: thank-you for your honesty. rarely do people on the net hold it.
: jester
Dear jester (henry@iv), I would like to sincerely apologize for
my erroneous attribution of the authorship of the article
(repeating the old myths on Polish cavalry attacking German tanks)
to you, while in fact the author was E. Barry Bruyea.
I apologize for any distress it might have caused, particularly in the
light of the historical ignorance and the lameness of the attempts
at humour contained in the mentioned article. Once again: Sorry.
Piotr Trela
Piotr Trela
Since I mistakenly imputed the authorship of the lame attempts at humor
to Mr/Ms jester, instead of the true author, E. Barry Bruyea, following
my apology, I deleted my wrongly-attributing article and I am replacing
it now with the corrected version:
----------------------
E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
Thank your for you sophisticated humor, which nicely matches your historic
knowledge.
Yes, the cavalrymen fought the tanks, but from the ground, after
Nice to see, that the old Goebbels myth is still alive and kicking,
and gets a new life thanks to the Internet and people like Barry
Bruyea.
Piotr Trela
Piotr Trela
E. Barry Bruyea (sibe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: On 30 Jun 98 21:44:46 GMT, "jester" <henry@iv> wrote:
: >those werent my fuckn words dipshit. why dont you follow the proper
: >threads next time befroe assuming who wrote what. or better yet, learn how
: >to know what has previously been written when reading from newsgroups...
: >
: >jester
Dear jester (henry@iv), I would like to answer your letter apparently
addressed to me, even though I can see only the parts of the letter
as cited by E. Barry Bruyea (some of your articles do not make it to
my server).
I sincerely apologize for my erroneous attribution of the authorship of
the article (which repeats the old myth about Polish cavalry attacking
German tanks) to you, while in fact the author was E. Barry Bruyea. I
deleted my article and posted the corrected version.
I should have been more careful when tracing the authorship of the
text quoted in the followup postings (and yes, I tried to find and reply
to the original posting, but it was not to be found on my server).
I apologize for any distress it might have caused, both as a
result of the mistakenly directed charge of supporting a historical
lie and as a result of linking your name with the pathetic attempts
at humour contained in the Bruyea's text. Sorry.
Piotr Trela
Leszek Andrzej Kleczkowski
jester (henry@iv) wrote:
: > The Great Post Manipulater has erroneously credited my post to jester.
: > I made it, and it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't
: > have the wit to realize that. Maybe he should lighten up.
: thank-you for your honesty. rarely do people on the net hold it.
You can hold water (lots of it) but not honesty, Mr. jester. Damn the
grammar.
Leszek
jester
thank-you.
jester
E. Barry Bruyea
On 1 Jul 1998 07:12:56 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>E. Barry Bruyea (sibe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
Whether my humour is pathetic or not is obviously a subjective
opinion; but, at least it was intended as humour, whereas your
ridiculous quoting of fantastic stats was in itself pathetic and in
its own way, humourous.
Barry Bruyea
>
E. Barry Bruyea
On 1 Jul 1998 04:43:32 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>jester (henry@iv) wrote:
>
>: >
>: > The Great Post Manipulater has erroneously credited my post to jester.
>: > I made it, and it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't
>: > have the wit to realize that. Maybe he should lighten up.
>: >
>
>: thank-you for your honesty. rarely do people on the net hold it.
>
>: jester
>
>Dear jester (henry@iv), I would like to sincerely apologize for
>my erroneous attribution of the authorship of the article
>(repeating the old myths on Polish cavalry attacking German tanks)
>to you, while in fact the author was E. Barry Bruyea.
>
>I apologize for any distress it might have caused, particularly in the
>light of the historical ignorance and the lameness of the attempts
>at humour contained in the mentioned article. Once again: Sorry.
>
>Piotr Trela
Not quite as lame as your pathetic attempt to rewrite the history of
the Battle of Britain.
Barry Bruyea
E. Barry Bruyea
On 1 Jul 1998 05:25:15 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>Since I mistakenly imputed the authorship of the lame attempts at humor
>to Mr/Ms jester, instead of the true author, E. Barry Bruyea, following
>my apology, I deleted my wrongly-attributing article and I am replacing
>it now with the corrected version:
>
>----------------------
>
>E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
>>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
>
Was this truly a Goebbels myth? Why would he, who constantly
trumpeted the valour and ability of the German soldier create a myth
that indicated that virtually anyone in a tank could have defeated a
cavalry charge? It seems to me(although I am not in possesion of any
Nazi propaganda of the time) that Little Joe would have wanted to make
the Wehrmacht look heroic, fierce, dedicated to battle and victory,
rather than just having to roll over a bunch of troops riding horses
to their certain death. Think about it while you're looking around to
see if you can borrow a sense of humour from someone.
Barry Bruyea
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Piotr Trela
****************** BACKGROUND ************************
(for complete reference see this thread and two threads containing
"WWII Polish Air Force" in the title)
The whole thing started when I responded to a passage:
>>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
I erroneously attributed this passage, to "jester(henry@iv)", while in
fact the author is Mr/Mrs Bruyea. The error was of sloppiness, not of
malice (after all, I believe that deliberate misattributing quotes is
immoral (and counterproductive in the long run). I apologized
for the error and deleted the original letter containing this error.
********************CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS***********************
Mr/Mrs Barry Bruyea, sent 6 messages relating to my post. In only one
of them he/she attempts to discuss one of my arguments (and I leave it
for a separate answer). Since the remaining 5 posts (sent over the period
of less than 24 hrs) are rather repetitive (their texts are shown at the
end of this message) I will reply to all 5 of them at once.
There are 3 themes in Mr/Mrs Bruyea's letters:
********
1. In response to my (unintentional) misattribution of an article, Mr/Mrs
Bruyea calls me "The Great Post Manipulator" and "probably another one
of those post manipulators that work for Saddam".
No problem here. I've got worse.
**************
2. Mr/Mrs Bruyea blasts me for "pathetic attempt to rewrite the history
of the Battle of Britain" :
[Bruyea's] "post was made as a jest and was a rejoinder to the idiotic
statistic that the Poles got 80% of the kills in the BOB."
[addressed to me] " to check you stats before you posted them,
thus making yourself look like a clown."
[and]
" your ridiculous quoting of fantastic stats was in itself pathetic and in
its own way, humourous",
Well spoken for the person who just have blasted me for wrong attribution
of a post. Only one problem:
I DID NOT POSTED THE "80%" NUMBER!
I have NEVER EVEN QUOTED somebody else posting the "80%" number!
The author of the "80%" claim was Stephen Dancs and he was the only one
who tried to defend this error (until finally admitting the mistake).
Mr/Mrs Bruyea should know it - he responded to Dancs' own post containing
both the original claim and an attempt at defending it. Everybody else
can check it in the posting:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
::From: sibe...@bigfoot.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
::Subject: Re: WWII Polish Air Force (was: US-Canada interests in WWII)
::Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:39:27 GMT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, Barry Bruyea KNEW that Stephen Dancs is the author of
the "80%" number, yet two days later, he accuses me of posting and/or
quoting this obviously wrong number in order to ridicule me.
Talk about integrity...
***********
3. Finally, Mr/Mrs Bruyea questions my wit and intelligence, evidently
indispensable to appreciate his/her humour:
" it was meant in jest,, assuming the individuals who read it had the
intelligence and wit to understand that."
"it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't have the wit to
realize that."
"Lighten up, Trela, you obviously didn't have the wit to see the
humour,"
You've got me here. I am truly concerned about my lack of wit and
intelligence. Would you be so kind to point me, where should I have
laughed reading your joke in questions:
>>Their are "Battle Of Britain" trading cards in Polish Kielbasa(sp?)
>>that is exported all over the known universe extolling the virtues of
>>the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers and when the horses
>>died, they took to the air, taking the horseshit with them.
It wouldn't be at "the Polish Cavalry that fought the German Panzers",
would it? First, if you meant shooting anti-tank guns and throwing
grenades (while dismounted) I fail to see the humour. If you meant,
deliberate cavalry charge, sabres in hand, at the tanks - it never
happened.
Second, it wasn't too funny the first time around when doctored
by the Nazi propaganda machine.
If not this, then, perhaps, ... "the trading cards in Polish Kielbasa"
[as a vehicle to extol the virtues of the Polish Armed Forces].
Ha.... Ha
The only other witty passage I can detect is:
>>when the horses [of the cavalrymen] died, they took to the air, taking
>>the horseshit with them.
"horseshit", ha-ha-ha? And "they [took] the horseshit with them",
got it? ... ha-ha
Nah, you were right, Mr/Mrs Bruyea. I definitely lack the "intelligence
and wit" necessary to appreciate your sense of humor...
>Barry Bruyea
Piotr Trela
--------------
P.S. Given the Middle-East flavour of your description of me
("probably [... ] working for Saddam", "The Great Post Manipulator"),
and given your devastating sense of humor, may I repay you and
confer on you the title:
Barry Bruyea, the Mother of All Jokers
*****************************************************************************
FOR REFERENCE I include Mr/Mrs Bruyea's 5 posts (quotes of other posters
deleted for brevity):
--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 18:06:11 GMT
First, the accreditation is wrong, probably another one of those post
manipulators that work for Saddam: E.Barry Bruyea (si...@sympatico.ca)
penned the post in question. And it was meant in jest,, assuming the
individuals who read it had the intelligence and wit to understand that.
[...]
-------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:10:17 GMT
The Great Post Manipulater has erroneously credited my post to jester.
I made it, and it was meant as a jest, but it seems the Trela doesn't
have the wit to realize that. Maybe he should lighten up.
-----------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:13:36 GMT
The Great Post Manipulator has somehow confused the issue by crediting
my post to jester. The post was made as a jest and was a rejoinder to
the idiotic statistic that the Poles got 80% of the kills in the BOB.
I thought that was funny, so I took a run at a little humour of my
own. Lighten up, Trela, you obviously didn't have the wit to see the
humour, anymore thant you had the wherewithall to check you stats
before you posted them, thus making yourself look like a clown.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 16:20:09 GMT
Whether my humour is pathetic or not is obviously a subjective
opinion; but, at least it was intended as humour, whereas
your ridiculous quoting of fantastic stats was in itself pathetic and in
its own way, humourous.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 16:22:09 GMT
Not quite as lame as your pathetic attempt to rewrite the history of
the Battle of Britain.
Barry Bruyea
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada
In a previous article, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela) says:
>
>Well spoken for the person who just have blasted me for wrong attribution
>of a post. Only one problem:
>I DID NOT POSTED THE "80%" NUMBER!
>I have NEVER EVEN QUOTED somebody else posting the "80%" number!
>
>The author of the "80%" claim was Stephen Dancs and he was the only one
>who tried to defend this error (until finally admitting the mistake).
It's true that I was the one that claimed the 80% rate, but I have never
tried to "defend" my error, but admited fair and squarely when confronted
with the posibility that it's plauzible that I must have misheard 18 fot 80
in the CBC documentary, 'cause you know, erare humanum est, perseverare
diabolicum.
Piotr Trela
: >The charge of cavalry against tanks in broad daylight, is a myth
: >created by a Nazi war newsreel, which pasted together the shot of German
: >tank attack, with a shot of the attack of the Polish cavalry, probably
: >filmed during some manouvers BEFORE the war. The myth was useful in
: >convincing France and England that their abandonment of Poland was a wise
: >decision, in the face of "obvious absurdity" of Polish war effort,
: >beautifully proven by the horse vs. tank image.
: >
: >Nice to see, that the old Goebbels myth is still alive and kicking,
: >and gets a new life thanks to the Internet and people like Barry
: >Bruyea.
: >
: >Piotr Trela
: Was this truly a Goebbels myth?
The film which created the myth was German newsreel. Do you suspect
that German propaganda machine would not be involved in the production
of one of the first newsreels of the war, to be shown in all Germany and
large part of the world?
: Why would he, who constantly
: trumpeted the valour and ability of the German soldier create a myth
: that indicated that virtually anyone in a tank could have defeated a
: cavalry charge? It seems to me(although I am not in posession of any
: Nazi propaganda of the time) that Little Joe would have wanted to make
: the Wehrmacht look heroic, fierce, dedicated to battle and victory,
: rather than just having to roll over a bunch of troops riding horses
: to their certain death.
The first motive (suggested in my previous posting and obviously ignored
by you) could have been external: to strengthen the pacifist's influence
in the Western Europe. Pacifists, who, before September 1939, cried that
they "didn't want to die for Danzig", could feel venerated by seeing the
Poles as stupid (who in the right mind would charge with a sabre on a
tank) and reckless (for not allowing to go down without a fight despite
German military superiority). Why to risk life and comfort for the sake of
backward, far-away nation of morons?
Pacifist sentiments might also shore up more public support for the
decision of France and England governments to do nothing to help Poland
(other then formal declaration of war not followed by any action).
This image could be also useful to the German ally - the Soviet Union.
The SU attacked Poland on Sept. 17, 1939 from the Eastern side, making
any further Polish resistance a matter of honour, rather than any
realistic military strategy (before this attack, the Polish army planned
to retreat to Eastern Poland, where extensive muds and lack of road,
connected with expected autumn rains, would reduce the advantage of German
tanks, and allow to tie a large part of the German army, weakening the
resistance to the expected attack of French-English army on the Germany
Western front).
The Soviet propaganda could use some justification for this dramatic
trading sides and joining Hitler. Poland was an anachronic nation that
rejected progress in 1920 (i.e., stopped the victorious Red Army from
bringing communism to Poland and from supporting the German revolutioners,
and, therefore, dooming the hopes of a Europe-wide revolution).
What a better proof of anachronism than the cavalry charging the tanks?
Anachronistic forms are to die anyway, so the stabbing Poland in the back
can be portrayed as "progress".
The second motive might have been internal. In the justification of their
territorial claims, the German propaganda continuously named Poland as
"Versailles bastard" - an artificial creation of the un-just to Germans
treaty, which created a state unfit to exist on its own. The Poles were
also unreasonable when they rejected German territorial claims. What
better a proof of this unfitness to exist and the lack of reason than a
ridiculous army charging on horses at tanks?
Furthermore, this image of stupidity did a nice groundwork for the
Nazi designation of the Slavs as "Untermensch" and justified the future
treatment of the Poles.
Finally, with all this to gain, creating of this myth did not preclude the
possibility to portray the Wehrmacht as "heroic,fierce, dedicated to
battle and victory": the charge against tanks "proved" the Poles to be
not only stupid, but also fanatic. And if you have to fight fanatics,
regardless how poorly equipped, you'd better be "heroic, fierce and
dedicated to battle".
To conclude, the image of the Polish cavalry charging against the German
tanks was a fake, and was included in the German newsreel about the war
in Poland, and then shown in the rest of the world,
People, who use this image today, even as a starting point of a lame
joke, and then patronize others for pointing out the falsehood of this
image, for instance:
: Think about it while you're looking around to
: see if you can borrow a sense of humour from someone.
perpetuate a Nazi lie and perpetuate ethnic stereotypes (commonly
expressed in "Polish jokes"). And as for borrowing the sense of humour,
don't expect me knocking on your door any time soon, Mr/Mrs Bruyea.
: Barry Bruyea
Piotr Trela
Piotr Trela
Stephen Dancs,Toronto Canada (sda...@mail.freenet.hut.fi) wrote:
: In a previous article, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela) says:
: >
: >Well spoken for the person who just have blasted me for wrong attribution
: >of a post. Only one problem:
: >I DID NOT POSTED THE "80%" NUMBER!
: >I have NEVER EVEN QUOTED somebody else posting the "80%" number!
: >
: >The author of the "80%" claim was Stephen Dancs and he was the only one
: >who tried to defend this error (until finally admitting the mistake).
: It's true that I was the one that claimed the 80% rate, but I have never
: tried to "defend" my error, but admited fair and squarely when confronted
: with the posibility that it's plauzible that I must have misheard 18 fot 80
: in the CBC documentary, 'cause you know, erare humanum est, perseverare
: diabolicum.
Dear Stephen, by "defend" I meant that when confronted about the source
of the "80%", at first you said:
>The figure if I recall correctly was mentioned in a CBC documentary that
>tried to set straight Polish contributions to the war effort and was aired
>1-2 yeas ago. Also, the stats refer to the Battle of Britain, and not for
>the entire war.
You followed this with an impressive (no irony here) documentation about
the Polish air-forces (which, BTW, earned you label "jingoistic" from
Barry Bruyea, despite you not being Polish). However, the EXPLICIT
admission of possible error ("80%") came only in your next posting, so I
interpreted your earlier posting as a (half-hearted) defense of the 80%
argument. But then again, you said "If I recall correctly"...
All this is a minor point in my disagreement with Barry Bruyea -
all I wanted to underscore is that he knew perfectly well that you were
the author of "80%" and yet only two days later he ridiculed me for
... "posting" and/or "quoting" the "80%" number.
: Stephen Dancs
Regards,
Piotr Trela
E. Barry Bruyea
On 2 Jul 1998 15:23:19 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>****************** BACKGROUND ************************
What can I say after such a long winded, self serving, hyperbolic post
from an individual who has a problem with gender identification?
Goodness, gracious, I made an attribution mistake! He/She/It seems to
be really upset about that, and I'm really sorry to be the cause of so
much anger and frustration and I promise, never, never, never to do
it again to anyone if I can help it. There, little whatever, are you
happy now?
Your Friend and Detractor;
Barry Bruyea
E. Barry Bruyea
On 2 Jul 1998 17:20:30 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>E. Barry Bruyea (sibe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>Piotr Trela
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. The thought of hearing
a knock and then opening my front door to hysterically ranting
he/she/it is extremely disturbing.
Having said that, I must admit that your latest post is well written,
concise and could even be based on some fact; which makes me think
someone else wrote it. But then again, on reflection, you do ascribe
a great deal of intelligence and deep thinking to little Joe; more, I
think, than he was capable of. Are you an admirer?
Barry Bruyea (In the case of a problem on your part with gender
identification, you can call me "Mister" or "Sir" Your choice.
Piotr Trela
E. Barry Bruyea (sibe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: What can I say after such a long winded, self serving, hyperbolic post
: from an individual who has a problem with gender identification?
: Goodness, gracious, I made an attribution mistake! He/She/It seems to
: be really upset about that, and I'm really sorry to be the cause of so
: much anger and frustration and I promise, never, never, never to do
: it again to anyone if I can help it. There, little whatever, are you
: happy now?
That's it? I made an unintentional attribution error and you call me
"the Great Post Manipulator" and suggest I probably work for Saddam.
After all this, you deliberately (as my long winded article documents)
attribute an absurd statement to me to ridicule me time and time again
and all you can offer is an attempt at sarcasm:
" Goodness, gracious, I made an attribution mistake!"
Your integrity shows once again, for everybody to see.
: Your Friend and Detractor;
: Barry Bruyea
I don't count dishonest people as my friends.
--------------------
Piotr Trela
Piotr Trela
: wrote:
: Having said that, I must admit that your latest post is well written,
: concise and could even be based on some fact;
I don't care about complements from people I do not respect.
: which makes me think someone else wrote it.
whatever ...
: But then again, on reflection, you do ascribe
: a great deal of intelligence and deep thinking to little Joe; more, I
: think, than he was capable of. Are you an admirer?
: Barry Bruyea (In the case of a problem on your part with gender
: identification, you can call me "Mister" or "Sir" Your choice.
Nice touch - failing to make a decent argument - try to imply
admiration for Hitler/Goebbels/SS/gestapo etc...
Fits you well, Sir.
--------------------
Piotr Trela
E. Barry Bruyea
On 3 Jul 1998 12:33:27 GMT, ptr...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Piotr Trela)
wrote:
>E. Barry Bruyea (sibe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>
>: What can I say after such a long winded, self serving, hyperbolic post
>: from an individual who has a problem with gender identification?
>: Goodness, gracious, I made an attribution mistake! He/She/It seems to
>: be really upset about that, and I'm really sorry to be the cause of so
>: much anger and frustration and I promise, never, never, never to do
>: it again to anyone if I can help it. There, little whatever, are you
>: happy now?
>
>That's it? I made an unintentional attribution error and you call me
>"the Great Post Manipulator" and suggest I probably work for Saddam.
I wrongly attributed a post, but I said (read it again) "The" great
post manipulator: I didn't specify that it was you. You are either
paranoid or think everything on this group is about you.
>
>After all this, you deliberately (as my long winded article documents)
>attribute an absurd statement to me to ridicule me time and time again
>and all you can offer is an attempt at sarcasm:
>
>" Goodness, gracious, I made an attribution mistake!"
>
>Your integrity shows once again, for everybody to see.
>
>: Your Friend and Detractor;
>: Barry Bruyea
>
>I don't count dishonest people as my friends.
>
>--------------------
>Piotr Trela
In any case, I don't imagine you have to count much.