Ausrotten Definition (1/2)
Jamie McCarthy
The following is a record of my discussion with Bjorn Conrad on the
germanica-l mailing list about the meaning of Himmler's Oct. 4th, 1943
speech at Posen, and in particular the meaning of the word
"ausrotten." This discussion picks up right after I'd posted the
English and German text of the critical part of the speech.
We open with Mr. Conrad excorciating my translating skills and
hinting, not very subtlely, that I was dishonest in my translation.
By the close of this discussion six days later, Mr. Conrad had nothing
to say except to ask me quite a few probing questions. After I
answered those questions, including going into more detail about my
sources than I had previously, Mr. Conrad had nothing more to say.
A month later, I emailed him to ask if he had any further response.
His answer exemplified Holocaust-denial: he added "Rejected email" to
the subject line and bounced my query back to me. So what you see
here is the complete record on this topic -- Mr. Conrad's promise
about just needing "a bit more time to put things together"
notwithstanding.
The only changes I have made have been to reformat into 70 columns
wherever possible. The text remains unchanged and complete.
Since Mr. Conrad raises many of the same points that I remember Mr.
Beaulieu raising back in January (?), I consider this a good starting
place for discussion. I tried to lay out my claims pretty clearly,
and I gave bibliographic citations for all the dictionaries I used and
what they said.
Subject: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Sent: 4/1/96 12:14 AM
Received: 4/1/96 12:28 PM
From: Bjorn Conrad, be...@erols.com
To: germa...@netcom.com
Jeremy submitted the following:
But first, one step at a time! .... From now on Jeremy, when you give
us your so-called "proof" of something, don't even bother to submit
the English translation only! This translation is so bad, incorrect,
and vicious, that it makes my point far more than it does yours. If
this is what you supply as proof, I wouldn't be a bit surprised that
your orig. German transcriptions are "accidentally-on-purpose" falsely
transcribed (quoted) or misrepresented as well. Your German is
obviously not good enough to see this. Mine is!!!! This is a
defamatory abomination!!! Propagandistic disinformation at its
worst...! The poor American public is of course are not in a position
to see through this Mist (manure).
And you wanted to take this discussion to a less educated and
thoughtful milieu. I for one know why now! Perhaps I'll go there TOO
now !!!!!!
No wonder the revisionist movement is picking up so much steam!
_R__E__A__D_ _T__H__I__S_ _E__V__E__R__Y__O__N__E_ !!!!!
>(2) Himmler's own words, recorded from a speech to SS officers on
>October 4th, 1943:
>
> I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the EXTERMINATION* of the
> Jewish PEOPLE*. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the
> Jewish PEOPLE* are being EXTERMINATED*," says every Party member,
> "quite true, it's part of our plans, the ELIMINATION* of the Jews,
> EXTERMINATION*, we're doing it."
>
> Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
> VOLKES*. Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - "Das
> juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
> "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
> AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir."
>
> (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145)
*These words were changed to all upper case lettering by me for
emphasis only.
As I've noted above this translation is an abomination! The
capitalized words are those that have clearly been intentionally
mistranslated or have had their intended meaning obscured in the
English translation.
Some additional comments are in order before I give you MY translation
of this paragraph. My intention here is to give you the best possible
reflection of the original underlying feeling that the speaker was
trying to convey. This is obviously never a perfect process --
however, I know that I can come pretty close.
Also, German and English as languages have both changed since these
words were spoken. It is therefore not really appropriate to use
modern German-English dictionaries without some significant
reservation. Indeed it has become obvious to me that the Second World
War actually resulted in certain changes to the way political language
was interpreted in the German speaking world. This served another
important propaganda function in the Allied deNazification campaign.
This shift is evident here too.
An interesting realization is that in the modern dictionaries the
translations used above are, for the most part, tagged on at the end
of the definitions as special interpretations of certain figurative
language. ...indeed very interesting!
I would challenge any of you to check up on what I'm saying.
Now, I was raised here in this country, but I learned German (my first
language) from the native German generations that grew up before and
to some extent during the Third Reich. So this type of translation
comes incredibly easy to me. It's the modern German "newspeak" that I
sometimes have some difficulty with.
Just to double check myself I am using my German language dictionary
"Das Deutsche Wort" by Richard Pekrun, Georg Dollheimer Verlag,
Leipzig, 1934 (writing project completed Jan 1, 1933 per the author) I
will primarily be drawing my multiple definitions from this source,
for obvious reasons. I will confess, that I used my Oxford
German-English Dictionary a bit as well.
Repeating what I _hope_ is an accurate German transcription from
Jeremy (again capitalization was my doing):
> Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
> VOLKES*. Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - "Das
> juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
> "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
> AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir."
I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the ROOTING OUT (1) of
the Jewish PEOPLE (2) as an ETHNIC NATION. This is one of those
things that is easily said: "the Jewish NATION is being ROOTED
OUT*," says every Party comrade, "it's quite clear (3), it's in our
program, SHUTTING the Jews DOWN and OUT (4), ROOTING them OUT,
that's what we're doing."
This is a far cry from THEIR translation don't you think? Consider
these definitions:
(1) ausrotten = ausreuten (mit der Wurzel, ganz tilgen oder
herausstechen), vertilgen (mit der Wurzel beseitigen,
wegschaffen oder vernichten) [chiefly agricultural and
figurative] (-ung = -tion)
(out-rooten) = root out, remove root and all, dig out, uproot and
discard, weed out, eliminate, exterminate
(2) Volk (n.) = Gesamtheit Stamm - und sprachverwandter Menschen
= people, nation, tribe, ethnic population (culturally
and or racially distinguishable population)
(3) ganz klar = quite clear; completely clear; understood, crystal
clear; of course. (expression)
(4) ausschalten = ausschliessen (durch schliessen loesen, befreien:
durch schliessen fernhalten), unterbrechen, abstellen
(out-switch) = cut off, shut out, switch off, turn out, shut down,
dispose of, lock out, throw out, correct, exclude,
interupt.
As you can see the definitions used in THEIR translation were neither
the most appropriate for the piece, nor did they reflect the most
comon interpretation of the day. They are clearly little more than the
most negative definitions imaginable. But, did anyone really ever
think that such a translation would be objective. Consider the source.
Now you might begin to understand why revisionists are having such a
field day with the so-called proof that the Holocaust promotion lobby
is providing for their spiel! They seem to be totally unable to shoot
straight. Now they couldn't be trying to hide something could they?
Jeremy, please let me know where I can get my hands on the ORIGINAL
version of this speech. Is it available online? But I guess, you're
probably not the person to ask. You most likely wouldn't tell me now
even if you knew ... I might then expose more of the disinformation
you rely on so much. That wouldn't be much fun would it?
If anyone else knows any sources for this or any other original Third
Reich speeches and historically relevant documents and or books, pleas
let me know. I'm interested in both the original German and the
English translations or so-called translations. ... for obvious
reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is
a fool; and he who dares not is a slave."
(Sir William Drummond, 1585-1649)
---------------------------------------------------------
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility
of servitude greater than the animating contest for
freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your
counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams
---------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Conrad
Subject: Re: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Sent: 4/1/96 3:02 PM
From: Jamie McCarthy, ja...@voyager.net
To: germa...@netcom.com
CC: be...@erols.com
Bjorn Conrad (be...@erols.com) writes:
>From now on Jeremy,
My name is Jamie, not Jeremy, as you know; why must you be childish?
>when you give us
>your so-called "proof" of something, don't even bother to submit the
>English translation only! This translation is so bad, incorrect, and
>vicious...
Why thanks! I translated it myself!
Seriously -- if any native speakers want to enter this discussion,
feel free. I am not a native speaker myself. But I have yet to find
a single native speaker who says that "ausrotten" (the main word in
question) means anything other than "extermination" or "killing" when
used in the context of living things. "Ausrotten," when it refers to
living things and not abstract concepts, means "killing."
I've shown my translation to a number of native and fluent German
speakers; I even put it together with their help. No native speaker
has objected to my translation to date. I welcome the opportunity for
the germanica-l list to confirm or critique it; if you are a native
speaker, I'd very much appreciate it if you would read through this
post and share your thoughts with me.
Bjorn, may I ask, are you a native speaker of the language?
Keep in mind that the context is important.. Since the subject of the
verb was das juedische Volk, the definitions that apply to plants etc.
are irrelevant. And the definitions that apply to abstract concepts
are irrelevant. Unless one considers Jews to be plants or abstract
concepts, which I would doubt.
>Just to double check myself I am using my German language dictionary "Das
>Deutsche Wort" by Richard Pekrun, Georg Dollheimer Verlag, Leipzig, 1934
>(writing project completed Jan 1, 1933 per the author) I will primarily be
>drawing my multiple definitions from this source, for obvious reasons.
I see. My list of dictionaries was rather long. I'll list about half
of them here:
Deutsches Woerterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm, Leipzig,
1854.
Deutsches Woerterbuch von Dr. Friedrich Ludwig Karl Weigand, Giessen,
1881.
Deutsches Woerterbuch von Hermann Paul, 1897.
Fluegel-Schmidt-Tanger, Woerterbuch der Englischen und Deutschen
Sprache fuer Hand- und Schulgebrauch, Brunswick, 1898.
Muret-Sanders enzyklopaedisches englisch-deutsches und
deutsch-englishes woerterbuch (Unabridged, Revised and Corrected
Edition), Berlin-Schoeneberg, 1906.
Heath's German and English Dictionary, Boston, 1906.
German Dictionary of Fr. L. K. Weigand, Giessen, 1909.
Deutsch-englisches Sasslexikon der allgemeinen und wirtschaftlichen
Sprache; Von Professor Dr. Heinrich Rabe, Stuttgart, 1927.
Der Sprach-Brockhaus; Deutsches Bildwoerterbuch fuer jedermann,
Leipzig, 1935.
Truebners Deutsches Woerterbuch, Berlin, 1939.
Der Grosse Duden: Woerterbuch und Leitfaden der deutschen
Rechtschreibung, Leipzig, 1959.
Der Neue Muret-Sanders Langenscheidts enzyklopaedisches Woerterbuch
der englischen und deutschen Sprache; Begruendet von Prof. Dr. E.
Muret und Prof. Dr. D. Sanders, Berlin-Schoeneberg, 1974.
Brockhaus Wahrig Deutsches Woerterbuch in sechs Baenden, Stuttgart,
1980.
Anyway, here's the German original, with the capitalized words that
Bjorn objects to:
> Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
> VOLKES*. Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - "Das
> juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
> "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
> AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir."
Here's my translation:
> I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the EXTERMINATION* of the
> Jewish PEOPLE*. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the
> Jewish PEOPLE* are being EXTERMINATED*," says every Party member,
> "quite true, it's part of our plans, the ELIMINATION* of the Jews,
> EXTERMINATION*, we're doing it."
And here's Bjorn's translation:
> I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the ROOTING OUT (1) of the
> Jewish PEOPLE (2) as an ETHNIC NATION. This is one of those things that
> is easily said: "the Jewish NATION is being ROOTED OUT*," says every
> Party comrade, "it's quite clear (3), it's in our program, SHUTTING the
> Jews DOWN and OUT (4), ROOTING them OUT, that's what we're doing."
It is one thing to apply the proper definition in the proper context.
It is something else entirely to apply definitions willy-nilly.
By applying inappropriate definitions, one can turn a sentence into
just about anything. Imagine if the sentence contained a word like
"Zug" for example! By not paying attention to context, one could make
the sentence talk about a train, an expedition, a flue, a pull, a
draft, a platoon -- anything is possible.
Bjorn goes on to say that the translations used did not "reflect the
most common interpretation of the day." The first definition given in
a dictionary is usually the most common; it is not, however, always
the most appropriate. Let's start taking a look at his dictionary's
definition of "ausrotten," the main word in question.
>(1) ausrotten = ausreuten
> (mit der Wurzel, ganz tilgen oder herausstechen),
> vertilgen (mit der Wurzel beseitigen, wegschaffen oder
> vernichten) [chiefly agricultural and figurative] ...
Here is Bjorn's translation of that section:
> (out-rooten) = root out, remove root and all, dig out, uproot and
> discard, weed out, eliminate, exterminate
Wait a minute! What about that bracketed comment there -- "chiefly
agricultural and figurative"? Is that Bjorn's comment or is it even
his dictionary's?
It's an accurate comment in either case. The definitions listed (root
out, uproot) are only applicable to agricultural uses. And do notice
that, even in the agricultural sense, the uprooting involves killing
the plants, so even in this sense, ausrotten refers to killing. The
confusion comes when we switch languages and subjects, from
"uprooting" plants (which kills them) to "uprooting" people (which
does not).
My claim is that ausrotten always means "extermination, killing" when
applied to living things in general.
Let's take a look at a very similar dictionary entry, from the
Muret-Sanders 1906 edition:
aus-rotten I v/a. (21) b. sep.
1. Unkraut &c. ~ (ausroden) to root out or up, to outroot,
to uproot ...;
Volksstaemme, Woelfe &c.: to exterminate. --
2. fig. Missbraeuche &c.: to extirpate, eradicate, deracinate,
auch: to weed out;
(zerstoeren, vernichten) to destroy, annihilate. --
Note that "weeds etc.," the "agricultural" meaning which Bjorn's
definition refers to, gives meaning very similar to Bjorn's
definition: root out, uproot. However, the Muret-Sanders goes on to
say specifically that, when used in the context of Volksstaemme
(races), or living animals such as wolves, it means extermination.
The question is, what follows that ellipsis in Bjorn's definition?
Why doesn't he go on to show us the rest of what his dictionary entry
says? Perhaps it too, if it's a good dictionary, goes on to show
definitions for meaning which are _not_ agricultural.
Here's another example. From the Englisch-deutsches
deutsch-englisches Woerterbuch in zwei Baenden, Wiesbaden,
Brandstetter Verlag, 1972:
aus rotten vt [h]
(Unkraut) to eradicate, unroot, uproot |
<fig> to eradicate, to outroot, to root out, to exterminate,
to extirpate;
to destroy;
(Rasse) to wipe out ||
mit Stumpf u Stiel ~ to destroy root and branch;
nicht auszurotten(d) not eradicable
Here we see that ausrotten, when the context is Unkraut (weeds), means
the familiar old "uproot." But when the context is a Rasse (race),
there is no more talk of rooting out -- it simply means "to wipe out."
Let's take a look at the six-volume Brockhaus Wahrig, 1980:
ausrotten 1 _Lebewesen_ ausrotten
voellig u. fuer immer vernichten, alle toeten
die Feinde ausrotten; im Krieg wurde das ganze
Volk ausgerottet; diese Tierrasse ist schon laengst
ausgerottet worden; Maeuse, Fliegen, Unkraut (mit
Stumpf u. Stiel), Ungeziefer ausrotten
2 _etwas_ ausrotten (fig.)
restlos beseitigen
den Aberglauben, die schlechte Gewohnheit, das
Verbrechertum, eine Unsitte, Laster, Vorurteile
ausrotten; etwas mit Stumpf un Stiel ausrotten;
das Uebel mit der Wurzel ausrotten (zu reuten,
roden)
When the context is Lebewesen, living things, the word means
"completely and permanently annihilate, kill everyone." Pretty
specific. The example given is even "im Kreig wurde das ganze Volk
ausgerottet." You can't get any more specific than that!
At this point "revisionists" start to mutter conspiratorial notions
about how the Jews control the dictionaries, and how the Zionists have
infiltrated German dictionary production facilities, and have forced
the definition of the word to change _after_ the war. Apparently this
infiltration effort was done specifically to make this one speech of
Himmler's sound more frightening. It's amazing how resourceful and
sneaky those Zionists are.
Allow me to pre-empt this ridiculous idea by presenting definitions as
they have changed over the years. First, a small dictionary. Here's
the Sprach-Brockhaus, in its 1935 Leipzig edition, and then its 1962
and 1972 Wiesbaden editions:
1935: die Aus rottung, -/-en, voellige Vernichtung.
1962: die Aus rottung, -/-en, voellige Vernichtung.
1972: die Ausrottung, -/-en, voellige Vernichtung.
("Voellige Vernichtung" means "complete annihilation.")
You can see the tremendous impact that the Zionist infiltration has
had.
Second, a larger dictionary, and this one German-to-English. Here's
the Muret-Sanders dictionary, in its 1906 Berlin-Schoeneberg edition,
its 1931 Leipzig (abridged for school and home) edition, and then its
1974 Berlin-Schoeneberg edition.
1906: aus-rotten 1. Unkraut zc. ~
(ausroden) to root out or up, to outroot, to uproot
Volksstaemme, Woelfe zc.:
to exterminate.
1931: ausrotten Unkraut, _fig._ ein Laster etc. :
to root out, extirpate, eradicate;
ein Uebel:
to stamp out, to put down;
Volksstaemme:
to exterminate, wipe out
1974: aus rot ten 1. (Unkraut etc.)
uproot, tear (od. pull) (s.th.) up by the roots,
root (something) up. --
2. (Volk, Rasse etc)
exterminate, wipe out, extirpate:
diese Krankheit rottete die ganze Bevoelkerung aus
this disease wiped out the entire population;
die Urbevoelkerung des Landes wurde ausgerottet
the native population of the country was
exterminated (od. killed off)
Again we see no real change. The word, when applied to a Volk or
Rasse or Volksstaemme, means "extermination, wipe out, extirpate, kill
off."
So if the Zionists or the Holocaust Lobby have been manipulating
words' meanings in order to falsely translate Himmler's speech --
well, they must have been psychic, because they've been adulterating
dictionaries since at least 1906! As we can see, the meaning of this
word has been unchanged for this century at least. (Actually, its
meaning has been roughly the same since Luther's time, but that's a
long story.)
>(2) Volk (n.) = Gesamtheit Stamm - und sprachverwandter Menschen
> = people, nation, tribe, ethnic population (culturally
> and or racially distinguishable population)
Correct. "Volk" has many connotations, and there is no equivalent
word in English. But if one had to pick a single word, then "people,"
as in "the Jewish people," is probably closest. Would you disagree?
>(3) ganz klar = quite clear; completely clear; understood, crystal clear;
> of course. (expression)
I submit that there are many ways to translate this idiom; yours is
just as good as mine.
>(4) ausschalten = ausschliessen (durch schliessen loesen, befreien: durch
> schliessen fernhalten), unterbrechen, abstellen
> (out-switch) = cut off, shut out, switch off, turn out, shut down,
> dispose of, lock out, throw out, correct, exclude,
> interupt.
Now this is really nonsense. Bjorn takes the above definitions and
translates "Ausschaltung der Juden" as "shutting the Jews down and
out." Now really!
It's my understanding that "ausschalten" means "shut down" in the
sense of shutting down machinery or turning off a light switch.
I haven't done research on this word, since it plays a secondary role
at best in the Himmler speech, but even my Langenscheidt Compact
Dictionary (1989) explains its definition:
ausschalten jeden od. etwas: eliminate;
[Elektrotechnik]: break, cut out;
Licht, Geraet: switch (od. turn) off;
I believe the best translation of "Ausschaltung der Juden" is
"elimination of the Jews," exactly as I had it. And I suspect Bjorn's
dictionary, if it is any good, will explain that its synonyms
"ausschliessen" and so on refer to manipulating tools and equipment --
not to "shutting the Jews down and out."
I welcome input from native speakers on these words, either in email
or on the list. (At this point I must suspect that Bjorn is not a
native speaker.) I don't have, and probably never will have, the
command over the language that someone who grew up with it has. So
I'm always looking for more data to make up my mind more accurately.
>As you can see the definitions used in THEIR translation were neither the
>most appropriate for the piece, nor did they reflect the most comon
>interpretation of the day. They are clearly little more than the most
>negative definitions imaginable.
This is false -- the definitions in _my_ translation have been
thoroughly cross-checked with over twenty dictionaries from the
mid-1800s to present. When context was given, in the larger
dictionaries, it never once conflicts with my use of the word.
And the "most common interpretation" is a fallacy. As I already
mentioned, the most common use is overridden by contextual
considerations.
>But, did anyone really ever think that such
>a translation would be objective. Consider the source.
Personal attack.
>Now you might begin to understand why revisionists are having such a field
>day with the so-called proof that the Holocaust promotion lobby is
>providing for their spiel!
Indeed -- "revisionists" are unconcerned about proper use of words.
When one has dishonest standards of proof, one can have a field day
with anything.
I'm not saying Bjorn is dishonest. I suspect, rather, that he is not
a native speaker, and that his dictionary is not that great or that he
read his dictionary only very quickly. While this indicates "seeing
what one wants to see," I don't think that is the equivalent of
out-and-out dishonesty. I would hope that he would benefit from a
more deliberate study of this matter.
Yes, I do realize that this conclusion is ironic given that he told
me:
>Your German is obviously not good enough to see this. Mine is!!!!
I don't claim that my German is better than _anyone's_ -- it's rather
bad in fact, not even conversational. However, in this case, the
dictionaries are the final arbiter.
Bjorn goes on to say:
>They [the Holocaust promotion lobby] seem to be totally unable to shoot
>straight. Now they couldn't be trying to hide something could they?
Innuendo.
>Jeremy,
Jamie.
>please let me know where I can get my hands on the ORIGINAL version
>of this speech. Is it available online?
Not online -- it's a three-hour speech, and while I wouldn't mind
having the entire thing online, I'm not going to volunteer to type it
in!
>But I guess, you're probably not the
>person to ask. You most likely wouldn't tell me now even if you knew ... I
>might then expose more of the disinformation you rely on so much. That
>wouldn't be much fun would it?
Innuendo _and_ personal attack.
The speech is available from the National Archives, I believe from the
Sound and Motion Picture division. I don't have the reference number
handy but I can get it for you if you like. The original recording of
Himmler's speech rests in their archives, along with Himmler's
handwritten notes for it. I myself have purchased from the National
Archives a cassette tape copy of the speech, and I'm looking at it
sitting on my shelf right now. If you like, I'd be happy to make a
copy of the section where Himmler says the paragraph which I've
translated above, and mail it to you. (I'll save you twelve dollars,
which I believe is the National Archive's price per tape.) Please
contact me privately for my address, and then send me a self-addressed
stamped mailer with a blank cassette.
Since you have accused me of outright fraud:
>If this is what you supply as
>proof, I wouldn't be a bit surprised that your orig. German transcriptions
>are "accidentally-on-purpose" falsely transcribed (quoted) or
>misrepresented as well.
I invite you to listen to the tapes yourself and tell me if I have
indeed falsely transcribed them.
I also have copies of a few other Himmler speeches, including the one
two days later where he clarified what he means by the word
"ausrotten". He said:
Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
auszurotten -- sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu
lassen --
That is:
I did not feel myself justified, to "ausrotten" the men --
in other words, to kill them or to have them killed --
Now perhaps, Bjorn, you'd like to explain to the readers of
germanica-l why "umbringen" does not really mean "kill." :-/
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
to be in the public domain. I speak only for myself.
Posted; emailed to Jean-Francois Beaulieu and Bjorn Conrad.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
to be in the public domain. I speak only for myself.
DvdThomas
Jamie McCarthy wrote:
>A month later, I emailed him to ask if he had any further response.
>His answer exemplified Holocaust-denial: he added "Rejected email" to
>the subject line and bounced my query back to me.
Doesn't that also exemplify having had a belly full of communicating with
someone?
>So what you see
>here is the complete record on this topic -- Mr. Conrad's promise
>about just needing "a bit more time to put things together"
>notwithstanding.
I've always treated email discussions as email, and respected the privacy
of same unless my correspondent granted permission to be quoted. Am I
missing something here?
Bottom line on this subject (ausrotten)--much ado about very little.
_________________________________________________________
"The kind of person who always insists
on his way of seeing things
can never learn anything from anyone." - Tao Te Ching, 24
DvdThomas
This may be a repeat, the first attempt appeared to get bounced back.
David Thomas wrote (of the previous post by Jamie McCarthy):
>I've always treated email discussions as email, and respected the privacy
>of same unless my correspondent granted permission to be quoted. Am I
>missing something here?
Jamie McCarthy has informed me that the newsgroup from which he is posting
emails is not a private and moderated group as had been my impression (I
am a participant in same. If he is correct, then I apologize for any
suggestion that he was violating
email privacy standards.
David Thomas
Jamie McCarthy
dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:
> Jamie McCarthy wrote:
>
> >A month later, I emailed him to ask if he had any further response.
> >His answer exemplified Holocaust-denial: he added "Rejected email" to
> >the subject line and bounced my query back to me.
>
> Doesn't that also exemplify having had a belly full of communicating
> with someone?
I didn't need him bouncing my email to figure that out. Conrad spent
about a week in mid-May sending all manner of personal attacks on me
to the germanica-l list. The general gist was that I was a Jew or a
tool of the Jews, hired to infiltrate and destroy the dignity and
culture of all germanic peoples with my evil dictionary definitions.
> Bottom line on this subject (ausrotten)--much ado about very little.
"I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the
extermination of the Jewish people."
"This is very obvious, it is part of our plans -- elimination
of the Jews, extermination, will do."
Posted/emailed.
Mike Curtis
dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:
>This may be a repeat, the first attempt appeared to get bounced back.
>David Thomas wrote (of the previous post by Jamie McCarthy):
>>I've always treated email discussions as email, and respected the privacy
>>of same unless my correspondent granted permission to be quoted. Am I
>>missing something here?
>Jamie McCarthy has informed me that the newsgroup from which he is posting
>emails is not a private and moderated group as had been my impression (I
>am a participant in same. If he is correct, then I apologize for any
>suggestion that he was violating
>email privacy standards.
I thought he made it very clear in his presentation that the material
was from another public newsgroup. I was very surprised at your
attack.