Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Leni Riefenstahl, Dies at 101

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Maohai Huang

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 11:50:01 AM9/9/03
to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46997-2003Sep9.html

Some of her works are among the best of climbing films, so I have heard.


Clyde

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 12:23:47 PM9/9/03
to
Maohai Huang <usen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46997-2003Sep9.html
>
> Some of her works are among the best of climbing films, so I have heard.

Yep, she was a stunning beauty in her day, starting as an actress and
became a very talented director. Stayed active right up till the
end...scuba diving in her 90's etc. Defintely worth checking her work
out if you get a chance. The "controversy" was never legit and should
not mar her reputation.

Adrian MacNair

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 12:46:22 PM9/9/03
to
"Maohai Huang" <usen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjksr8$k6ifn$3...@ID-193135.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46997-2003Sep9.html
>
> Some of her works are among the best of climbing films, so I have heard.

There was a great documentary on her recently. It was a good piece, but it
pried deeply into her reasons for making the Nazi movies. The documentary
hinted she was hiding something... a secret admiration of the power of the
Nazis. Anyway, the film footage of her climbing was great. Amazing
chimneying technique.


Brian in SLC

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 4:47:31 PM9/9/03
to
Maohai Huang <usen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bjksr8$k6ifn$3...@ID-193135.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46997-2003Sep9.html
>
> Some of her works are among the best of climbing films, so I have heard.

I have a copy of her 1933 book, "Kampf in Schnee und Eis". Good
pictures. Neat ol' book.

A book about her won the Boardman Tasker prize one year? Interesting
read.

Brian in SLC

Peter Haan

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 9:58:57 PM9/9/03
to
Hi Clyde,

I have to add a quote from the NYT just now tonight:

<<It was also around this time, a year before Hitler's rise to power,
that she <Leni> first heard the Nazi leader speak at a rally. "I
heard his voice: `Fellow Germans'," she recalled in her autobiography.
"That very same instant I had an almost apocalyptic vision that I was
never able to forget. It seemed as if the earth's surface were
spreading out before me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart
in the middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that
it touched the sky and shook the earth. I felt paralyzed." >>

As with many then, their involvements were not clearcut, but fuzzy,
and the enormous compulsions of the times beset them and took them
down, though it all seemed so clear after the defeat that they had
been suckered and fallen. Indeed, a fascinating powerful woman, Leni.
Even now, about sixty years later, I have sophisticated (older)
German acquaintances of the period, who, after you get a few drinks in
them and a big dinner, will admit to feeling even now that the whole
enterprise should have succeeded, that the world would have become a
hugely better place for a Nazi victory. Amazing isn 't it. For
crying out aloud!

best,
Undercling

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 11:15:45 PM9/9/03
to
under...@aol.com (Peter Haan) writes:

> I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances of the period,
> who, after you get a few drinks in them and a big dinner, will admit
> to feeling even now that the whole enterprise should have succeeded,
> that the world would have become a hugely better place for a Nazi
> victory. Amazing isn 't it. For crying out aloud!

Just over 10 years ago someone found a box of letters from a Nazi
"doctor" who did medical "experiments" on children. It turns out that
he kept records of everything he wrote, and after the war, these were
sorted into two piles---the ones useful for prosecuting him in one
pile and things like letters to his mother in the other. The second
pile was put in a box and lost, only to be found several decades
later.

Even at the end, he wrote how they had the noblest of intentions and
the highest ideals. He said some vile things about Jews as well,
which indicates that he really believed it. You couldn't tell for
sure from his official correspondence because he was a notorious
backstabber who would say anything to get ahead and could be expected
to parrot the party line to further his career whether he really
believed it or not. That wouldn't be necessary in letters to mom,
where he could simply ask about her health or engage in some other
innocuous conversation.

I didn't know that Leni Riefenstahl had done any climbing, though.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:09:20 AM9/10/03
to
In article <bjksr8$k6ifn$3...@ID-193135.news.uni-berlin.de>,

Maohai Huang <usen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some of her works are among the best of climbing films, so I have heard.

The Blue Light? Sure.
I had to see the Piz Palu (the peak not the film) while there.
I read her memoirs while riding around on trains in the Alps.
Do we also not damn Heckmair? Harrer? (she is a couple of chapters and photos
in Heckmair's book [she was a climbing/photo/cinematographer geek].)
She was a climber and explorer.

This is a woman who had a knock out body in her 70s and learned to SCUBA
dive in 1971 and did it for 30 years.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:24:01 AM9/10/03
to
In article <m3znhdw...@nospam.pacbell.net>,

Bill Z. <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>under...@aol.com (Peter Haan) writes:
>> I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances of the period,
>> who, after you get a few drinks in them and a big dinner, will admit
>> to feeling even now that the whole enterprise should have succeeded,
>> that the world would have become a hugely better place for a Nazi
>> victory. Amazing isn 't it. For crying out aloud!

I too have such friends. One's father won the Iron Cross for
destroying 40 Soviet tanks with his single tank in a 2 hour period.
Some in this country will not shake hands with this fellow decades
after wars end, and I know Germans who were leftists and had to live
under Nazi rule short of getting sent to camps.

>Just over 10 years ago someone found a box of letters from a Nazi
>"doctor" who did medical "experiments" on children. It turns out that
>he kept records of everything he wrote, and after the war, these were

Most of what is medically known about frostbite and hypothermia and their
treatment came from those experiments. We just don't acknowledge much
of it and go on. As Maohai started this thread, my distant ancestors
performed duplicating experiments on his ancestors dipping their hands
into LN2. Those experiments are almost impossible to replicate to this
day without being extremely invasive.

So avoiding these conditions at least remembers their loss.


>Even at the end, he wrote how they had the noblest of intentions and
>the highest ideals. He said some vile things about Jews as well,
>which indicates that he really believed it. You couldn't tell for
>sure from his official correspondence because he was a notorious
>backstabber who would say anything to get ahead and could be expected
>to parrot the party line to further his career whether he really
>believed it or not. That wouldn't be necessary in letters to mom,
>where he could simply ask about her health or engage in some other
>innocuous conversation.

Most people in the US lack the slightest idea how close the "West" came
to losing WWII. The Axis largely ran out of ammunition and oil.
The British, the Soviets, and even the Americans absorbed shrapnel until
the remaining survivors started to get smart. It can be seen in the
numbers of initial kill ratios. As a result of course my old man had
little compunction when it came to civilians as he slugged across Europe.
The numbers, locations, etc. are more telling than what are written into
history books. Even climbers got to be part of the stupidity and the "honor."
It was just easy to send in human waves.


>I didn't know that Leni Riefenstahl had done any climbing, though.

She was a superb climber.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 12:48:32 AM9/10/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:

> In article <m3znhdw...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> Bill Z. <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >under...@aol.com (Peter Haan) writes:
> >> I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances of the period,
> >> who, after you get a few drinks in them and a big dinner, will admit
> >> to feeling even now that the whole enterprise should have succeeded,
> >> that the world would have become a hugely better place for a Nazi
> >> victory. Amazing isn 't it. For crying out aloud!
>
> I too have such friends. One's father won the Iron Cross for
> destroying 40 Soviet tanks with his single tank in a 2 hour period.
> Some in this country will not shake hands with this fellow decades
> after wars end, and I know Germans who were leftists and had to live
> under Nazi rule short of getting sent to camps.

As an aside, I was once at a party with a bunch of climbers from
the Bay Area. Both Richard Hechtel and Chris Jones were there,
and this guy Jerry was kidding Richard and Chris about how Richard
used to drop bombs on Chris when Chris was a baby! At least everone
had a good sense of humor about it, Chris no doubt being too young
to really remember!

Another time, Jerry and a couple of others showed slides of a
climbing trip to India. For comic relief, they pretended that
Jerry was a colonel in the British army and had agreed to read
from his memoirs.

Lord Slime

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 9:58:22 AM9/10/03
to
"Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message

> Even at the end, he wrote how they had the noblest of intentions and
> the highest ideals. He said some vile things about Jews as well,
> which indicates that he really believed it. You couldn't tell for
> sure from his official correspondence because he was a notorious
> backstabber who would say anything to get ahead and could be expected
> to parrot the party line to further his career whether he really
> believed it or not. That wouldn't be necessary in letters to mom,
> where he could simply ask about her health or engage in some other
> innocuous conversation.
>
> I didn't know that Leni Riefenstahl had done any climbing, though.

Even at the end, Bill wrote how he had the noblest of intentions and
the highest ideals. He said some vile things about sport climbers as well,


which indicates that he really believed it. You couldn't tell for
sure from his official correspondence because he was a notorious

bolt-chopper who would say anything to get ahead and could be expected


to parrot the party line to further his career whether he really

believed it or not. That wouldn't be necessary in letters to rec.climbing,
where he could simply ask about a climb's location and rating in some other
innocuous conversation.

I didn't know that Bill Zaumoron had done any climbing, though.

- Lord Slime

David Kastrup

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 10:22:29 AM9/10/03
to
"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:

BORC2003 nomination.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 10:36:44 AM9/10/03
to
"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:

[idiocy clipped]

You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
in the 8th grade.

BTW, the box of letters I described were considered to be
important historically, as described in a highly respected
German newspaper named "die Zeit," with the article including
some excerpts from these letters.

I hadn't read previously that Leni was a climber, though,
although I did know about some of the films she made.

rick++

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 11:01:48 AM9/10/03
to
Throwing hundreds of Semites in jail without due process.
Island concentration camps.
Spying on local citizens media habits without a warrant.
Unconditional reverence for a military victor.
Proactive military aggressions, rather than defensive.

Thank god its not the 1930s. Modern developed countries are
too smart for this to happen again :-)

Leni did her greatest work early in the regime, where perhaps not
all the dirt was known. I could half believe this claim
based on current events.

MorComm

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 12:17:45 PM9/10/03
to
The "Nazis" in the 1930s are like the Americans in 2003: Everyone will say
they were the "bad guys" and it was all "their fault" when they finally lose
and go down. "Everyone loves a winner / when you lose you lose alone."
bdm
PS- Remember when the "nice" Americans killed 2 million rice farmers in
Vietnam to "save them" from Communism?

"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7422d8e.0309...@posting.google.com...

Clyde

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 12:37:13 PM9/10/03
to
Peter Haan <under...@aol.com> wrote:

> I have to add a quote from the NYT just now tonight:

I attended a coffee session with Audrey Salkeld at the recent Telluride
Mountainfilm and the topic was Leni. Audrey wrote a biography of her
(OOP) and did a lot of research on her involvement, rumored liasons,
etc. Her basic conclusion was that Leni had little choice in producing
the propoganda films (she'd never work again if she didn't) so she made
the best of a bad situation. Going to Hollywood wasn't an option for a
female film producer in the 30's and her accent wouldn't have allowed
her to act. She likely did use her beauty and brains to take advantage
of influential men but women have done that for ages. But Leni wasn't
the Nazi that some try to paint her.

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:02:48 PM9/10/03
to
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<m3y8wwk...@nospam.pacbell.net>...

> "Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:
>
> [idiocy clipped]
>
> You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
> for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
> resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
> in the 8th grade.

Childish? It looked to me like wonderfully creative name calling ...

br

David Kastrup

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:07:35 PM9/10/03
to
ne...@clydesoles.com (Clyde) writes:

And so on. It's mostly fucking irrelevant. They did what they did,
in the world they had, and I can form my personal impression of like
or dislike from them. I dislike a lot about those times, and there
have been those that have chosen to be the brushes painting it, and
those that were "just" the paint. The overall picture is ugly.

And there is no way that sorting brushes and paints back into their
drawers that will change it. And yet the color with which today's
societies are painted is frighteningly similar in its flexibility.

That's the world. Some people need to assign blame in order to feel
more comfortable about it. But you'll find frighteningly few people
who carry the weight of being creatively responsible for the
nightmares of our times. You can't paint a picture without paints.
If you just had the dry brushes, they would not leave an impression.

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:08:29 PM9/10/03
to
ne...@clydesoles.com (Clyde) wrote in message news:<1g10knr.1upioat1a6dqmaN%ne...@clydesoles.com>...

> Maohai Huang <usen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46997-2003Sep9.html
> >
> > Some of her works are among the best of climbing films, so I have heard.
>
> Yep, she was a stunning beauty in her day, starting as an actress and
> became a very talented director. Stayed active right up till the
> end...scuba diving in her 90's etc. Defintely worth checking her work
> out if you get a chance.

All true.

> The "controversy" was never legit and should not mar her reputation.

Isn't this a little reactionary, simplistic, and poorly thought out?
The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one. She was
friends with Hitler and clearly sympathetic with Germany's ruling
party. Even if one ignores the fact that in many interviews and
appearances later in life she appeared to be hiding things, she was at
best willfully blind to what was going on in Germany under the Nazi
regime.

Consider this excerpt from Roger Ebert's obit (he's much better
informed on the issue than I am, not to mention being a better
writer):

"After her public reappearance in the 1960s, Miss Riefenstahl often
defended herself against charges that she was a Nazi. She was an
artist, she said, interested in film, not politics. In the 1993
documentary, she is questioned strenuously about her association with
the party, and we see that she has rehearsed over the years an
elaborate explanation and justification for her behavior. There is no
anti-Semitism in her films, she points out. She did not know until
after the war about the Holocaust. She was naive, unsophisticated,
detached from Nazi party officials with the exception of Hitler, her
friend -- but not a close friend, she insists.

"But the very absence of anti-Semitism in "Triumph of the Will" looks
like a calculation; excluding a central motif of Hitler's speeches
must have been deliberate, to make the film go down more easily as
propaganda. Nor could a film professional working in Berlin have been
unaware of the disappearance of all of the Jews in the movie industry.

"In the 1993 film, Miss Riefenstahl is seen visiting the site of the
1936 Olympiad with the surviving members of her film crew. They talk
about some of their famous shots -- from aerial techniques to the idea
of digging a hole for the camera, so that athletes could loom over the
audience. We sense Miss Riefenstahl's true passion for filmmaking. But
there are candid moments, when she is not aware of the camera, when
she shares quiet little asides with her old comrades, which, while not
damning, subtly suggest a dimension she is not willing to have seen.

"The impression remains that if Hitler had won, Leni Riefenstahl would
not have been so quick to distance herself from him. Her postwar moral
defense is based on technicalities. Understandably, she was not eager
to face conviction or punishment as a war criminal. But ironically, if
she had confessed and renounced her earlier ideas, she might have had
a more active career. It was her unconvincing, elusive self-defense
that continued to damn her."


None of this takes away from her prowess as a filmmaker or a climber,
but it does her and the rest of us a disservice to ignore a
fundamental flaw in her as a human being.

br

Clyde

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:16:33 PM9/10/03
to
Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Isn't this a little reactionary, simplistic, and poorly thought out?

I'll trust Audrey's opinion over Ebert's. She wrote the book, he just
watched some films. See my other post. Mountainfilm is worth attending
btw.

Gnarling

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:17:04 PM9/10/03
to
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<

m3znhdw...@nospam.pacbell.net>...


> under...@aol.com (Peter Haan) writes:
>
> > I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances of the period,
> > who, after you get a few drinks in them and a big dinner, will admit
> > to feeling even now that the whole enterprise should have succeeded,
> > that the world would have become a hugely better place for a Nazi
> > victory. Amazing isn 't it. For crying out aloud!

I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances, or rather, close
family and friends, who will admit to quite a different set of
feelings. There is collective guilt, shame and great remorse as to
the eternal blemish the Nazis have put on Germany's history. I as a
postwar German had to grow up with that guilt and believe me, it has
been a source of great shame and sorrow. Even seeing a film like "The
Pianist" brings it back in full force.

My mother once saw Hitler in the flesh, surrounded by Goebbels and
Göhring. She was perhaps 16 or 17 and her impression was that Hitler
was a pale repulsive nerdy loudmouth, Goebbels a redfaced smallish
pedantic beaurocrat and Göhring a bloated vain militarist. My father
managed to avoid military service until the very end when he was
drafted in 1944, served in Russia and was lost in some prisoner of war
camp until 1948 when he escaped. I first met my own father at the age
of three. My family were artists on one side and blue collar workers
on the other. The blue collar side was in the communist party and the
artist's side had to worry about my aunt Marie, who was schizophrenic,
being put into a concentration camp. Nobody in my family thought
Hitler was awesome, they all hated the regime and managed to get
through their lives and careers without being members of the Nazi
party.

Bill Zaumen muses...



> Just over 10 years ago someone found a box of letters from a Nazi
> "doctor" who did medical "experiments" on children. It turns out that
> he kept records of everything he wrote,

Bill, there are thousands of such cases recorded. In your cited case
I would for a change expect names. Are you talking about Mengele?
Your vague references are so very annoying. If you are talking about
Mengele, you should read Peter Schneider's book "Vati." Sure, killers
can love their children and their dogs. What is so weird about that?


> I didn't know that Leni Riefenstahl had done any climbing, though.

Leni Riefenstahl was a brilliant film maker. Her documentary "Triumph
and Glory" is incredible, so his her "Olympiad" series. She was an
opportunist and was able to work because the Nazis funded her
propaganda films. She was later accused of procuring Gypsy prisoners
from a concentration camp as extras in her films. Due to her Nazi
affiliation she was pretty much finished after the war. She reminds
me of Speer, actually. Bright, artistic, opportunistic, selling their
soul for success.

People like Marlene Dietrich left the country....

The early climbing flicks, especially "Das blaue Licht," and her ski
films were great.

Surely, she was a demented individual, perhaps due to the self
betrayal of honor and integrity by selling out to the Nazis in the
pursuit of her artistry.

Inez

David Kastrup

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:21:58 PM9/10/03
to
fredal...@hotmail.com (Brian Reynolds) writes:

> "The impression remains that if Hitler had won, Leni Riefenstahl
> would not have been so quick to distance herself from him. Her
> postwar moral defense is based on technicalities. Understandably,
> she was not eager to face conviction or punishment as a war
> criminal. But ironically, if she had confessed and renounced her
> earlier ideas, she might have had a more active career. It was her
> unconvincing, elusive self-defense that continued to damn her."
>
>
> None of this takes away from her prowess as a filmmaker or a
> climber, but it does her and the rest of us a disservice to ignore a
> fundamental flaw in her as a human being.

A fundamental flaw that made her look mottled when cast into the acid
of her times.

It is easy for people that have never been subjected to those
conditions to go fingerpointing at those that have not made a point
of running against the times.

Let those cast the stones that were there at the time, and behaved
differently, in part suffering the consequences from it. They will
know better what targets are worthy.

As to the others: collect the facts as carefully as you may, but
leave the damning to those that have a reason to do so and know what
they do it for.

Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 2:16:41 PM9/10/03
to
Gnarling wrote:
>
> My mother once saw Hitler in the flesh, surrounded by Goebbels and
> Göhring. She was perhaps 16 or 17

My grandfather built B-17s intended to drop bombs on your
family. One of my (now retired) co-workers flew ME-109s
trying to shoot down those B-17s. All the people of Japanese
ancestry in my home town were packed up and sent to
concentration camps, even those who were US citizens. The
factory I work at probably built the B-29s that dropped
firebombs and then atomic bombs on Japan.

Wars are morally complicated. People do things that they
later regret. Or even, they do things that they are later
quite proud of, even though it caused someone else quite a
bit of pain. Building all those B-17s and B-29s is a matter
of civic, corporate, and personal pride to many people in
the Seattle area. Including me.

I've worked on military airplanes, some of which were
offensive weapon systems. These planes have been used to
kill people. I've also worked on civilian 767s and 757s. A
few of those planes have been used to kill people as well.

None of this ambiguity excuses evil. Doesn't really even
explain it. But it does illustrate that things aren't always
as clear as we might wish they would be.

-Mike

Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 2:21:23 PM9/10/03
to
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> As to the others: collect the facts as carefully as you may, but
> leave the damning to those that have a reason to do so and know what
> they do it for.

And yet, if we never judge, then what?

-Mike

David Kastrup

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 3:00:16 PM9/10/03
to
Mike Garrison <mike.g...@boeing.com> writes:

Then you might not stamp the other to be of an inferior substance to
yourself, not see how you can separate yourself from the other's deeds
and may be afraid that they are yours to repeat.

Those that are easy to judge fear less to do wrong.

You know the "Here but for the grace of God am I" stance?

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 2:44:45 PM9/10/03
to
Gnarling says...

>I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances, or rather, close
>family and friends, who will admit to quite a different set of
>feelings. There is collective guilt, shame and great remorse as to
>the eternal blemish the Nazis have put on Germany's history. I as a
>postwar German had to grow up with that guilt and believe me, it has
>been a source of great shame and sorrow. Even seeing a film like "The
>Pianist" brings it back in full force.

(Much snipped)

Incredible post, Inez.

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 2:52:06 PM9/10/03
to
Bill Z. says...

>You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
>for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
>resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
>in the 8th grade.

You're like a little kid that fell on his bicycle - you keep picking at the
scabs, apparently looking for more blood.

Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 3:40:46 PM9/10/03
to
> Mike Garrison <mike.g...@boeing.com> writes:
> > And yet, if we never judge, then what?
>
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Then you might not stamp the other to be of an inferior substance to
> yourself, not see how you can separate yourself from the other's deeds
> and may be afraid that they are yours to repeat.
>
> Those that are easy to judge fear less to do wrong.
>
> You know the "Here but for the grace of God am I" stance?

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in "the grace of God".

People *are* responsible for their actions. Other people
*will* judge their actions. People may have a reason for
their choices, and it could be that if I had that same
reason I would make the same choices. But that does not, and
never will, eliminate the responsibility that those choices
entail.

-Mike

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 5:45:53 PM9/10/03
to
In article <m38yox9...@nospam.pacbell.net>,

Bill Z. <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >under...@aol.com (Peter Haan) writes:
>> >> I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances of the period,
>
>As an aside, I was once at a party with a bunch of climbers from
>the Bay Area. Both Richard Hechtel and Chris Jones were there,

I just inherited Richard's cleaning pin (another long dong).

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 5:27:25 PM9/10/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:

You are as contemptable as this Lord Slime character, and every
bit as childish.

BTW, in case Brian doesn't know, both of these people have been
continually abusive for years. Suggesting that their behavior
is contemptable is pretty mild compared to what they say on a
regular basis. This would be a nicer newsgroup for everyone
if these two went somewhere else.

David Henderson

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 5:38:31 PM9/10/03
to
> The documentary
> hinted she was hiding something... a secret admiration of the power of the
> Nazis.

I saw the documentary about ten years ago ("The Wonderful, Horrible
Life of Leni Riefenstahl") and I don't think her admiration of power
was so secret. She may not have overtly articulated it as such but it
was obvious in everything she did, just as it was obvious she was an
amoral careerist.

I didn't get the impression she really cared about conventional
politics in the least. She cultivated Hitler because he was the man of
the hour; had it been Stalin she would have switched her allegiance in
a blink. She did whatever she regarded as helpful to her career and
later brooked no questioning of it ("Winning isn't everything, it's
the only thing").

Rahel Maria Liu

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 5:51:25 PM9/10/03
to
Hi Mike,

Mike Garrison wrote:

> My grandfather built B-17s intended to drop bombs on your
> family. One of my (now retired) co-workers flew ME-109s
> trying to shoot down those B-17s.

Maybe they hit the many houses of my german grandparents, which they
lost all. If this had not happened, I would live well now ... ;-)
(And if the chinese communists had not been as silly as the Nazis and
had not killed my chinese grandparents, because they had been big
landowners, and had not taken away their land, I would also live well
now ... ;-) ).
-> It's very complicate to decide, which people of a nation, which is
just making BS, are responsible for that BS or which persons are
victims of that BS by themselves.

> Wars are morally complicated.

Full ACK! And it is also very complicate to deal with this past
complicate situation one or two or more generations later. IMO it is
not the responsibility of the individual persons of theses
generations, to feel any personal "guilt" or anything like that, since
they do not have any personal responsibility for the past actions.
But it's the responsibility of the state, companies (who earned a lot
of "dirty" money) et al. to look for real and symbolic expressions in
order to show their guilt and to compensate as much as possible.

And concerning the people of the war-generation, it's a similar
complicate situation - morally seen. Many of them lost a lot or all
which they had (like my german grandparents). So they were punished in
a double way after the war: As citizens, they were somehow blamed,
although they were victims by themselves. This ambigous situation fits
to further generations as well. Individual citizens cannot easily be
taken "pars pro toto" for the state and its BS, if they were mainly
victims by themselves.

> None of this ambiguity excuses evil.

The main problems arise much earlier than in actual pre-war times. The
main problem is the deeply rooted consciousness, the life-style, the
moral convictions, which grow over many many decades. Anti-Semitism,
for example, can be followed back to the 19th century, when it was
alreay quite popular. The best, most effective and morally most useful
activities of a state or nation or whatever, which has some "historic"
guilt, are those IMO, which try to deal with new, but similar problems
on this level of consciousness, life-style etc. in order to avoid
worse consequences. In a pre-war-situation, it's too late.

Cheers

Rahel
--
* Rahel Maria Liu * www.SophiasWelt.net * www.MountainArea.com
NEW PHOTOS! MATTERHORN: http://mountainarea.com/matterhorn/photos.html
ZINALROTHORN: http://mountainarea.com/zinalrothorn/photos.html
WEISSHORN: http://mountainarea.com/weisshorn/photos.html

Nate B

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 5:57:13 PM9/10/03
to

"Bill Z."

> This would be a nicer newsgroup for everyone
> if these two went somewhere else.

Bill,

I asked this of you once before, but never heard back.

Could you please name 1 regular poster here who hasn't either flamed you
and/or referred to you as "Zaumoron".

Google - let me know what you find out.

- Nate

Lord Slime

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:06:30 PM9/10/03
to
"Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> Mad Dog Sez..

> > Bill Z. says...
> >
> > >You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
> > >for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
> > >resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
> > >in the 8th grade.
> >
> > You're like a little kid that fell on his bicycle - you keep picking at the
> > scabs, apparently looking for more blood.
>
> You are as contemptable as this Lord Slime character, and every
> bit as childish.

Hey Billy! Fuck you! Ha ha ha. Go tell the teacher, I don't care.
I'm going climbing.

- Lord Slime


Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:25:13 PM9/10/03
to
"Nate B" <m...@privacy.net> writes:

> "Bill Z."
>
> > This would be a nicer newsgroup for everyone
> > if these two went somewhere else.
>
> Bill,
>
> I asked this of you once before, but never heard back.
>
> Could you please name 1 regular poster here who hasn't either flamed you
> and/or referred to you as "Zaumoron".

The "regular posters" you refering to are simply a bunch of people
with grudges, and you may suffer from that problem to some extent
as well. Others don't behave that way.

> Google - let me know what you find out.

You won't find out anything from Google beyond the fact that this
newsgroup has some childish people on it, and that most people
who reply to a post simply include what was in the original as
quoted text.

Bill

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:26:03 PM9/10/03
to
David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message news:<x5r82om...@lola.goethe.zz>...

If, by my post, I'm judging anyone, its those of you here who are so
willing to revel in Riefenstahl's achievements as an athlete and a
filmmaker, yet also so eager forgive and forget the crimes (legal,
moral, or otherwise) that she committed (or "may have committed" --
I'll throw y'all a bone) in order to accomplish them.

There are lots of sides to every story, and Riefenstahl lived in some
pretty difficult times. I won't argue with that. But anyone who
insists that any "controversy" surrounding her "was never legit," as
one of the earlier posts did, is being far too eager to make a strong
point, and isn't thinking about things hard enough. I'm glad that
Clyde saw Audrey Salkeld give a talk in a coffee house and accepted
her conclusions as gospel, and that David has jumped on the bandwagon.

But spare us the "holier than thou" routine. If I want mindless
platitudes I'll go to a Hallmark store. Read Inez's post; it's
heartwrenching and it gets right to the point I'm trying to make. Or
watch "The Pianist" or an even better 1981 film by Istvan Szabo called
"Mephisto": Leni Riefenstahl had choices, and she made them. Her
reputation today is what it is as a result of those choices. The fact
that you or I might have done the same thing in her situation doesn't
excuse her -- it simply illustrates that you and I aren't perfect
either.

br

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:28:41 PM9/10/03
to
"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > Mad Dog Sez..
> > > Bill Z. says...

> Hey Billy! Fuck you! Ha ha ha. Go tell the teacher, I don't care.


> I'm going climbing.
>
> - Lord Slime

At least "Lord Slime" has aptly named himself, but that won't change
either of these guy's infantile behavior, and the more of this stuff
they post, the worse they will look.

Nate B

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:29:36 PM9/10/03
to

"Bill Z."

> You won't find out anything from Google beyond the fact that this
> newsgroup has some childish people on it, and that most people
> who reply to a post simply include what was in the original as
> quoted text.

Not talking about quoted text, Bildo.

Just 1 name - and so many to choose from...


- Nate

Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:38:18 PM9/10/03
to
Rahel Maria Liu wrote:
>
[A very interesting answer.]

I will toss out one more thing to think about: the South
African Truth And Reconciliation Commission. This may be the
most brave experiment in modern history. Only time will tell
if it helps heal things better than the many war crimes
tribunals or US Civil Rights trials.

-Mike

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 6:51:01 PM9/10/03
to
fredal...@hotmail.com (Brian Reynolds) writes:

> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message
> news:<x5r82om...@lola.goethe.zz>...

> > You know the "Here but for the grace of God am I" stance?


>
> If, by my post, I'm judging anyone, its those of you here who are so
> willing to revel in Riefenstahl's achievements as an athlete and a
> filmmaker, yet also so eager forgive and forget the crimes (legal,
> moral, or otherwise) that she committed (or "may have committed" --
> I'll throw y'all a bone) in order to accomplish them.

It is widely considered inappropriate to dump on the recently
departed, and in Leni Riefenstahl's case, it appears she was never
charged with anything, in spite of an investigation. Under the
traditional "innocent until proven guilty" criteria, we should give
her the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, in the early 1930s it was not obvious as to how badly the Nazis
would behave. About 10 years ago, I read an article in a German
newspaper quoting a well-known German politician as saying that his
father, who would be considered to be Jewish under the Nazi's rather
broad definition, thought the worse that would happen is that he might
lose his job as a teacher. They managed to destroy any records that
would get him into trouble, merely to save his job, so he lucked out
and survived. Some of those with the most to lose didn't have a clue
as to what was going on, so why would a film maker and climber who was
not an expert in politics have any additional insight?

Bill

David Kastrup

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 7:07:05 PM9/10/03
to
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:

> fredal...@hotmail.com (Brian Reynolds) writes:
>
> > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message
> > news:<x5r82om...@lola.goethe.zz>...
>
> > > You know the "Here but for the grace of God am I" stance?
> >
> > If, by my post, I'm judging anyone, its those of you here who are
> > so willing to revel in Riefenstahl's achievements as an athlete
> > and a filmmaker, yet also so eager forgive and forget the crimes
> > (legal, moral, or otherwise) that she committed (or "may have
> > committed" -- I'll throw y'all a bone) in order to accomplish
> > them.
>
> It is widely considered inappropriate to dump on the recently
> departed, and in Leni Riefenstahl's case, it appears she was never
> charged with anything, in spite of an investigation. Under the
> traditional "innocent until proven guilty" criteria, we should give
> her the benefit of the doubt.

Both of you fail to get my point. She has a history, and it is a
history of the times also, and the times are guilty times. I find it
inappropriate to assign a label to someone's conduct in many cases:
it is pointless to sort people into either the "innocent" or "guilty"
category. That is making things easier than they are. There is no
point into trying to figure out whether every single act of someone
could in some manner be construed as innocent, or as guilty.

Most people will never fit one drawer completely. So don't try
reducing them to a single line of judgment: try recording all that
they did, and view that. Get the whole picture. And get nervous by
seeing what can, on the same canvas, be present and compatible.

> BTW, in the early 1930s it was not obvious as to how badly the Nazis
> would behave. About 10 years ago, I read an article in a German
> newspaper quoting a well-known German politician as saying that his
> father, who would be considered to be Jewish under the Nazi's rather
> broad definition, thought the worse that would happen is that he
> might lose his job as a teacher. They managed to destroy any
> records that would get him into trouble, merely to save his job, so
> he lucked out and survived. Some of those with the most to lose
> didn't have a clue as to what was going on, so why would a film
> maker and climber who was not an expert in politics have any
> additional insight?

Sometimes a lack of complete foresight does not excuse one from the
consequences. At one point of time, one has to face them, whether
one has known them or not. It is nice to be able to sort the world
into good and bad, guilty and innocent. But it does not work in a
lot of cases. Humanity is sadder than that.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 9:22:06 PM9/10/03
to
In article <f7422d8e.0309...@posting.google.com>,
rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Throwing hundreds of Semites in jail without due process.
>Island concentration camps.

What's so unique about Semites?
You guys got Earl Warren to throw my mom, my aunt, and their families
into camps in California. You didn't gas them admittedly, but I suspect
that there were claimed Patriots who would think of that.
She has her stories of living in horse stables at Santa Anita (shown
in Seabiscuit and the Black Stallion).

>Spying on local citizens media habits without a warrant.
>Unconditional reverence for a military victor.
>Proactive military aggressions, rather than defensive.

Don't we now have the doctrine of Pre-emption: I'm a little unclear
about that right now mein herr.

>Thank god its not the 1930s. Modern developed countries are
>too smart for this to happen again :-)

Naw people never change.


>Leni did her greatest work early in the regime, where perhaps not
>all the dirt was known. I could half believe this claim
>based on current events.

She did her best work before and 3 years before the invasion of Poland
(if you consider Olympia her finest work).

Rahel Maria Liu

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 8:22:33 PM9/10/03
to
Hi David,

David Kastrup wrote:

> Both of you fail to get my point. She has a history, and it is a
> history of the times also, and the times are guilty times.

[...]

> It is nice to be able to sort the world
> into good and bad, guilty and innocent. But it does not work in a
> lot of cases.

This is mostly true. Most humans are neither the devil itself nor an
angel. Morally seen, most humans are situated somewhere in the grey
zone in between. But this does not mean, that there isn't any grading
or rather differences (since it's senseless to try to make kind of
hierarchy) in this grey zone. If you mean this (I don't think so, that
you do this), than it would also be an extreme point of view. But if
you want to focus on those differences, then you have to watch at the
concrete and complex individuum - in relation to its time and society
etc. Against this background, I think it's more than o.k. to point to
"opportunistic behaviour" of a person. At the universities, it was the
same problem (or rather our problem today with those scientists, who
closed their mouthes and their eyes in order to keep their jobs as
professor).

You simply have to keep in mind, that there _were_ other persons who
did _not_ get benefit from that system - by intention. They put up
resistance to that system - by intention and with the knowledge of the
risk. And I confess, that I personally have more respect for such
persons, who had the courage to do this.

I personally rather focus on the question of "special respect for
s.o." than of "condemnation of s.o.", since IMHO I am not really
entitled to do the last thing with respect to such extreme situations
like that of war or pre-war or anything similar ... (compare above
"grey zone", which fits to most humans).

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 9:36:59 PM9/10/03
to
In article <m3ad9ct...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Bill Z. <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

>Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:
>> You're like a little kid that fell on his bicycle - you keep picking at the
>> scabs, apparently looking for more blood.
>
>You are as contemptable as this Lord Slime character, and every
>bit as childish.
>
>BTW, in case Brian doesn't know, both of these people have been
>continually abusive for years. Suggesting that their behavior
>is contemptable is pretty mild compared to what they say on a
>regular basis.

Hmmmm.

>This would be a nicer newsgroup for everyone
>if these two went somewhere else.

Gravity would be softer were it's acceleration not as fast.

Slime and Mad Dog are the appropriate wild net.animals they are.

The group is unmoderated.
If you want a moderated group (I moderate one),
study the process and get a moderator (be prepared to pay).

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 10:08:54 PM9/10/03
to
Bill Z. says...

>At least "Lord Slime" has aptly named himself, but that won't change
>either of these guy's infantile behavior, and the more of this stuff
>they post, the worse they will look.

If you had even a tiny bit of comprehension and retention, you'd know that
Eugene gave John his handle. Just like I bestowed yours upon you.

But your comment above demonstrates another of your "attributes" that you've
exposed on this thread. I was sitting back, leaving this thread alone, watching
you dig yet another grave for your sorry self as you insulted people with your
know-it-all attitude. Then you chose to drag me into it. Sure, you didn't do it
by name. In response to John's reply, you posted:

>>You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
>>for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
>>resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
>>in the 8th grade.

Now, you can try to lie and act like you weren't talking about me, like in the
Bush/monkey thread (that you started), but all of us will know you're lying.
You jump in my shit for calling you names, but you can't keep from dredging up
another old grudge of yours. Your actions are pathetic and boring. A friend of
mine told me it's time to look you up and kick your ass but it's not worth the
tiny effort it would take. Besides, you're doing a fine job of making a
spectacle of yourself, so keep up the good work. You may be boring, but at
least a small part of your schtick is weird enough to provoke the occasional
laugh. Sure, it's a laugh of pity, but, still, it's a laugh. Carry on.

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 10:47:09 PM9/10/03
to
Eugene Miya says...

>Hmmmm.

I mean, REALLY... Just think back - someone dies and it gets posted here and
the next thing you know, it's a flame war. Any psychologists around here
willing to hypothesize?

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 2:57:58 AM9/11/03
to
David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:

> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > fredal...@hotmail.com (Brian Reynolds) writes:
> >
> > > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message
> > > news:<x5r82om...@lola.goethe.zz>...
> >
> > > > You know the "Here but for the grace of God am I" stance?
> > >
> > > If, by my post, I'm judging anyone, its those of you here who are
> > > so willing to revel in Riefenstahl's achievements as an athlete
> > > and a filmmaker, yet also so eager forgive and forget the crimes
> > > (legal, moral, or otherwise) that she committed (or "may have
> > > committed" -- I'll throw y'all a bone) in order to accomplish
> > > them.
> >
> > It is widely considered inappropriate to dump on the recently
> > departed, and in Leni Riefenstahl's case, it appears she was never
> > charged with anything, in spite of an investigation. Under the
> > traditional "innocent until proven guilty" criteria, we should give
> > her the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Both of you fail to get my point. She has a history, and it is a
> history of the times also, and the times are guilty times.

My point was that the "innocent until proven guilty" criteria plus
lack of prosecution in spite of an investigation, plus the fact that
she recently died, are good grounds to not bad mouth her, barring
undiscovered documentation about her.

> > BTW, in the early 1930s it was not obvious as to how badly the Nazis

> > would behave. .... Some of those with the most to lose


> > didn't have a clue as to what was going on, so why would a film
> > maker and climber who was not an expert in politics have any
> > additional insight?
>
> Sometimes a lack of complete foresight does not excuse one from the
> consequences. At one point of time, one has to face them, whether
> one has known them or not. It is nice to be able to sort the world
> into good and bad, guilty and innocent. But it does not work in a
> lot of cases. Humanity is sadder than that.

I think people whose only shortcoming was not to show far better
foresight than the average person suffered enough. As to whether
Leni's documentaries and personal association with Hilter deserves
some special consequence, I'm willing to defer to the people
who prosecuted war criminals.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 3:02:12 AM9/11/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:

> Bill Z. says...
>
> >At least "Lord Slime" has aptly named himself, but that won't change
> >either of these guy's infantile behavior, and the more of this stuff
> >they post, the worse they will look.
>
> If you had even a tiny bit of comprehension and retention, you'd know that
> Eugene gave John his handle. Just like I bestowed yours upon you.

In other words, you admit are the sort who goes around slandering
people. That makes you pretty much a low lif. BTW, all the messages
from John I've ever seen were signed "Lord Slime."

> Then you chose to drag me into it. Sure, you didn't do it
> by name. In response to John's reply, you posted:
>
> >>You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
> >>for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
> >>resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
> >>in the 8th grade.

You must have a really,really guilty conscience if you think refering
to some unnamed individuals disparages you personally.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 3:03:41 AM9/11/03
to
"Nate B" <m...@privacy.net> writes:

The fact that there are a few people with the mentalities of 8 year
old on this newsgroup would surprise nobody.

Nothing will change the fact that some of you people really do act
like 13 year olds on a regular basis.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 3:10:00 AM9/11/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:

> In article <f7422d8e.0309...@posting.google.com>,
> rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Throwing hundreds of Semites in jail without due process.
> >Island concentration camps.
>
> What's so unique about Semites? You guys got Earl Warren to throw
> my mom, my aunt, and their families into camps in California

I wasn't alive at the time, and have been pretty vocal criticizing
King George for the treatment of Muslims under his regime regarding
the current abuses. I didn't vote for him either.

So, please blame the others :-). BTW, I think the $20,000 they
offered people to settle for this abuse was way too low and way too
late, and that the people responsible for sending members of your
family to those camps should have been jailed for doing that.

Bill

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 4:39:46 AM9/11/03
to
In article <bjolf...@drn.newsguy.com>, Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote:
>Bill Z. says...
>>At least "Lord Slime" has aptly named himself, but that won't change
>>either of these guy's infantile behavior, and the more of this stuff
>>they post, the worse they will look.
>
>If you had even a tiny bit of comprehension and retention, you'd know that
>Eugene gave John his handle. Just like I bestowed yours upon you.

Byrnes chose Sir Slime.
I just made him one of my Lords.

I don't know Z. well enough to say positive or negative about him.
He might be a net.newbie, but I lack enough information about him to
make an case for or against.

Carry on.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 4:47:52 AM9/11/03
to

I would not say every.

When Griersen died, we all said a few good words about him (some of the
old timers skied, climbed, and shared bread with him), and we panel
16'ed him (and others like Chuck Dafinger). Postings are quite the
same as real funerals of which I have attended quite a few.
Various other figures died and excepting the morbid humor
(once a Mountain article topic) which evoked comments of propriety for
the dead largely don't have flame wars.

Riefenstahl (and Harrer who is still alive and when
Seven Years in Tibet came out as a movie) are controversial figures.
Both have been flame war topics in the past.

Now getting emotional rises out of people for the purposes of trolling
is sometimes an effective information gathering technique.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 4:55:29 AM9/11/03
to
In article <m3isnzk...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Bill Z. <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

>David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>> Both of you fail to get my point. She has a history, and it is a
>> history of the times also, and the times are guilty times.
>
>My point was that the "innocent until proven guilty" criteria plus
>lack of prosecution in spite of an investigation, plus the fact that
>she recently died, are good grounds to not bad mouth her, barring
>undiscovered documentation about her.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a distinctly US American concept.
Napoleonic justice holds in Mexico, immediately to the South, as does France
(one of the 3 Western Allies): you may recall the death of Princess Di
that this was covered a little in the US press. Every one is guilty,
round up the usual suspects. Sort it out later.

LR was detained and questioned numerous times by each of the 4 Allies
in large part becauuse of their inconsistent justice systems.
She also lost numerous pieces of film as evidence which were never returned
and appeared in various media of those 4 countries.


>I think people whose only shortcoming was not to show far better
>foresight than the average person suffered enough. As to whether
>Leni's documentaries and personal association with Hilter deserves
>some special consequence, I'm willing to defer to the people
>who prosecuted war criminals.

Dad was a guard at Nurmberg.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 4:59:32 AM9/11/03
to
In article <bjo6n5$lkb46$1...@ID-82914.news.uni-berlin.de>,

Nate B <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>"Bill Z."
>> This would be a nicer newsgroup for everyone
>> if these two went somewhere else.
>
>Bill,
>
>I asked this of you once before, but never heard back.
>
>Could you please name 1 regular poster here who hasn't either flamed you

I have not seen any need yet to flame him.

>and/or referred to you as "Zaumoron".
>
>Google - let me know what you find out.

One of my contracts.
Just down the street.
Good guys.

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 7:07:58 AM9/11/03
to
Bill Z. says...

>In other words, you admit are the sort who goes around slandering
>people.

Do you claim to be innocent in this regard? That's a laugher.

>That makes you pretty much a low lif.

There's more proof, as if it is required. You, who in this thread have cast
stones for name-calling, have once again thrown the first stone. Your glass
house is shattered by way of your own projectile.

(She-doobie, shattered, shattered)



>> >>You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
>> >>for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
>> >>resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
>> >>in the 8th grade.

>You must have a really,really guilty conscience if you think refering
>to some unnamed individuals disparages you personally.

Not guilty at all. As many have noted over the last few years, I pegged you to
perfection. Now, come on Bill, are you actually trying to weasel out again?
Answer this question directly: Was your comment above referring to me or not?
Hint: When you once again lie, it will once again be obvious to all.

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 11:09:01 AM9/11/03
to

"Bill Z."

> The fact that there are a few people with the mentalities of 8 year
> old on this newsgroup would surprise nobody.

For a supposed physiscist, you certainly seem to have some serious problems
following a very simple conversation.

No Bill, according to your own arguement and reasoning, EVERYONE on this
group is an 8 year old and you're the only mature one.

Your patentable way of missing the point really has a way of pissing people
off, myself included.

But I won't go there - it clearly gets messy every time.

Like us 8 year olds say - I'd hit you, but shit splatters.


- Nate


Adrian MacNair

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 12:18:37 PM9/11/03
to
"Gnarling" <idrix...@ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:2a3bd3cd.03091...@posting.google.com...
> I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances, or rather, close
> family and friends, who will admit to quite a different set of
> feelings. There is collective guilt, shame and great remorse as to
> the eternal blemish the Nazis have put on Germany's history. I as a
> postwar German had to grow up with that guilt and believe me, it has
> been a source of great shame and sorrow. Even seeing a film like "The
> Pianist" brings it back in full force.

I find that my mother has similar feelings as you do on the subject. She was
born in 1944 in Southern Germany to an Austrian soldier (some of you may
recall the picture of him on the mountain top I posted) and a Bavarian
mother. Her father, at the time serving in the war, of course, did not
accept my mother and refused to marry my grandmother. A few years ago I was
rummaging through my mothers old photographs and was shocked to find some
black and white photographs of him and my mother from 1944. She, a newborn,
and my grandfather holding her lovingly, dressed entirely in the full
uniform of the German officer: The button-shirt with the swastika on the
left breast, and the hat with the eagle and swastika. I had found out a
piece of history my mother had never told me.

She came to Canada in 1967 after meeting my father in Greece (my father is a
Canadian who was on travels), and they made a home here. She was always
reluctant to discuss her family and her past. It was obvious she was ashamed
of them, and did not like to think about it. But it wasn't merely the
subject of the war, but the continued hatred and xenophobic attitudes of
Bavarians after the war, and which prevail to this day. Many of her family
and townspeople continued to display dislike for foreigners and immigrants,
even for East Germans, whom they would later curse for falling to Russia.

Like any idiot youth I often made fun of my mother and teased her about the
Nazis playfully. She would take it all in stride, as any patient mother
does, but I know it bothered her now. Her childhood was not an easy one.
After her father rejected her, her mother married a local Bavarian, and she
lived in a household as the eldest of four step-sisters. Being the eldest,
but also rejected by her step-father, she toiled as a step-mother to her
sisters, often feeling a second-class citizen of her own home. When she left
home for England at the age of 20, she vowed never to look back.

There were times when I would ask her why she wasn't more proud of her
German heritage, and she would sigh and say something about how boorish and
mean-spirited her family was. Growing up post-war Germany she had been
deprived of many luxuries, and so her parents grew up with the same
privations. As with many people who learn to "make-do", they were ever
cautious about taking steps toward success. My grandparents rejected her
every move. They felt England was a fruitless journey destined for poverty;
they thought raising her children in Canada would spoil my brother and I;
they thought that University was a waste of time and money; my mother often
said that no matter what idea she had, her parents would be pessimistic and
try and talk her out of it, to the point of being mean-spirited about it:
"School? What would you want with school? You're a mother now, with
children, you can't go to school!"

On the subject of the Nazis, my mother was especially sensitive. Perhaps we
here in North America have become used to the idea of the genocides that
occurred so long ago, sometimes reminded by a Hollywood movie or two... but
my mother seemed genuinely affected by it, as though her very soul felt
stained by the association of her citizenship. I was once making light of
the holocaust and she interrupted me and made a very strong statement I will
never forget.

"The Nazis were bastards! They rounded millions of people, and killed them
indiscriminately. They killed mothers. They killed children. They killed
children for God's sake! These people didn't know what was going on. Can you
imagine? They were just like you and me. All they wanted was to live in this
world, and they were taken and murdered. I can never stop thinking about
those people, believing the Nazis would one day let them free across some
border... hoping until the very end that it was all a bad dream, or that
someone might take pity of them and spare them. It's dreadful."

She would weep when she thought of this, and I stop teasing and realize that
I was hurting her. My mother says she has no intention of revisiting the
"old world". She barely talks with her sisters, and her parents are in the
cold earth. When my mother passes on, my link to Germany will likely be
broken. But it seems that link was broken long ago... there is something
inside her that pains her beyond that which she has experienced. It is, as
Inez says, an inner shame for something she had no part of.


Jochen Klinke

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 12:46:34 PM9/11/03
to

"Gnarling" <idrix...@ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:2a3bd3cd.03091...@posting.google.com...

> I have sophisticated (older) German acquaintances, or rather, close
> family and friends, who will admit to quite a different set of
> feelings. There is collective guilt, shame and great remorse as to
> the eternal blemish the Nazis have put on Germany's history. I as a
> postwar German had to grow up with that guilt and believe me, it has
> been a source of great shame and sorrow. Even seeing a film like "The
> Pianist" brings it back in full force.
>

...
> Inez

This is my predominant experience too. Thank you Inez for bringing it to the
point. Have you ever read 'The Reader' by Schlink?

Jochen


Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 1:16:56 PM9/11/03
to
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<m3ad9ct...@nospam.pacbell.net>...

> BTW, in case Brian doesn't know, both of these people have been
> continually abusive for years. Suggesting that their behavior
> is contemptable is pretty mild compared to what they say on a
> regular basis. This would be a nicer newsgroup for everyone

> if these two went somewhere else.

BTW, in case Bill doesn't know, I've been here for years. I usually
stay quiet. I'm quite familiar with the types of posts that Bill,
Slime, and Mad Dog have written.

br

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 1:29:18 PM9/11/03
to
David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message news:<x5u17kk...@lola.goethe.zz>...

> Both of you fail to get my point. She has a history, and it is a
> history of the times also, and the times are guilty times. I find it
> inappropriate to assign a label to someone's conduct in many cases:
> it is pointless to sort people into either the "innocent" or "guilty"
> category. That is making things easier than they are. There is no
> point into trying to figure out whether every single act of someone
> could in some manner be construed as innocent, or as guilty.
>
> Most people will never fit one drawer completely. So don't try
> reducing them to a single line of judgment: try recording all that
> they did, and view that. Get the whole picture. And get nervous by
> seeing what can, on the same canvas, be present and compatible.

Jesus Christ, David. Do you even read posts before purporting to
respond to them?

Every one of my posts has been, directly or indirectly, a response to
Clyde, who wrote, early in this thread, that the "controversy"
surrounding Leni Riefenstahl "was never legit." I'm putting quotation
marks around those words now, just like I did before, so you'll know
exactly what I'm talking about. You chose to jump on that bandwagon,
so I included you in my responses. I'll tell you what -- why don't
you go back and actually read the thread (yes, every single word), and
tell me who's being one-sided.

I'm not entirely sure what the fuck Zaumen is trying to say, so I
haven't responded to him yet, although I will say that his statement
that "[i]t is widely considered inappropriate to dump on the recently
departed" moves me about as much as the crap I'm about to go take.
Maybe not even that much. When I die, I hope that people have enough
respect to try to speak honestly about my entire life, rather than
whitewashing the bad parts because they think honesty is
inappropriate. What do you think, that you're going to fucking offend
her? She's dead -- she's a bit beyond caring what you or anyone else
has to say about her.

br

Clyde

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 2:10:13 PM9/11/03
to
Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Every one of my posts has been, directly or indirectly, a response to
> Clyde, who wrote, early in this thread, that the "controversy"
> surrounding Leni Riefenstahl "was never legit."

Not a whitewash but I do respect the opinion of a highly regarded,
world-reknowned mountaineering historian who spent years researching the
matter over a film critic or you who have offered nothing but hearsay.
Apparently you've made up your mind based on a newspaper account and
found her guilty. Trying reading the biography to at least get a broader
perspective before you judge.

Gnarling

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 2:21:24 PM9/11/03
to
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<> > filmmaker, yet also so

> BTW, in the early 1930s it was not obvious as to how badly the Nazis
> would behave.

What a ridiculous statement. I have never done this before, but now I
too have to call you a moron. Read your history. The SA,
precursers of the SS, were beating up people in the streets, they were
bullies and criminals who wore Hitlers uniform and gave everybody a
taste of things to come.

About 10 years ago, I read an article in a German
> newspaper quoting a well-known German politician

Once again a vague reference. Damnit, Bill, get your references
straight, name names. Do your homework before you spew. And,
frankly, I doubt very much that you are capable of reading a German
newspaper. They are difficult reading. Unless, of course you read
"Bild" or "AZ" or better yet "Der Stern." Du bist ein eingebildeter
und ungebildeter Fachidiot!

as saying that his
> father, who would be considered to be Jewish under the Nazi's rather
> broad definition, thought the worse that would happen is that he might
> lose his job as a teacher.

What the hell does considered (!) to be Jewish mean? Loose his job is
the worst that could happen? You are so clueless. Jews weren't
allowed to sit on park benches, do you think any of them could get by
nicely with just loosing their jobs? Next thing you'll convince us
that is wasn't 12 million people who were destroyed but only 6
million?


> as to what was going on, so why would a film maker and climber who was
> not an expert in politics have any additional insight?

Are you kidding? Do you for one instant assume that Riefenstahl
didn't know what was going on or had no insight? Of course she did,
that is why she was right there holding up the banner. She profited
from the Nazis, all caught up in the ideology that victory and world
domination would be the future of the Arian Race. Besides, Goebbels
was a huge movie fan. He was called "der Bock von Babelsberg" (the
he-goat of Germany's Hollywood). If you were friends with him you
made movies. Period. Sure she knew. She was just another Nazi
riding the high waves of easy success and afterwards denying her
benefactors.

I could go on and on forever here but I am at the MadDog junction.
You can't be argued with, so I'll check out.

Inez

Sue

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 3:02:08 PM9/11/03
to
In article <m3ad9bk...@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z.
<nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

> The fact that there are a few people with the mentalities of 8 year
> old on this newsgroup would surprise nobody.
>
> Nothing will change the fact that some of you people really do act
> like 13 year olds on a regular basis.

Bill.
I'm not harrassing you, really I'm not. But if this is truely how you
feel why are you here?

for the rest of you, Inez, David, Rahel, Eugene thanks for an
interesting discussion.

Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 2:50:22 PM9/11/03
to
Clyde wrote:
>
> Not a whitewash but I do respect the opinion of a highly regarded,
> world-reknowned mountaineering historian who spent years researching the
> matter over a film critic

Yeah, I suppose a professional film critic would have never
studied any history about one of the more controversial
filmmakers of the last century. Guess you must be right,
Clyde.

-Mike

Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 3:00:29 PM9/11/03
to
"Bill Z." wrote:
>
> as to what was going on, so why would a film maker and climber who was
> not an expert in politics have any additional insight?

You are right, Bill. No one associated with film would ever
get involved with politics. There couldn't possibly be any
connection there. Certainly it has never happened in this
country, now has it? DW Griffith? Frank Capra? Ronald
Reagan? Arnold? Tim Robbins?

-Mike

A. Cairns

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 3:54:40 PM9/11/03
to

R.I.P., LR.

I only know about her from an article in one of the much-maligned climbing
mags, but it had an arresting B&W photo of her in the Alps, or maybe
Dolomites.

Eugene Miya wrote:

> She did her best work before and 3 years before the invasion of Poland
> (if you consider Olympia her finest work).

Speaking of foresight and difficult decisions, how about that great book on
the Polish mathematicians who worked on Enigma before WWII? The threat from
Germany wasn't that fuzzy to some.

So many things have been called critical to the Allies' victory it begins
to remind me of the Anthropomorphic Principle.

<quote>
Studying the pin, Paul went on. "I have for several days now inspected it,
and for no logical reason I feel a certain emotional fondness. It does not
have wabi, nor could it ever. But - " He touched the pin with his nail.
"Robert, this object has wu."
<end quote>

Andy Cairns


Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 7:55:18 PM9/11/03
to
ne...@clydesoles.com (Clyde) wrote in message news:<1g14dc7.16vmuei1azsi2oN%ne...@clydesoles.com>...

Who's judging? Or can't you read either? Try reading my first post
again:

"The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one. She
was
friends with Hitler and clearly sympathetic with Germany's ruling
party." (Not a judgment -- a statement of fact).

Now let's go back to your first post:

"The 'controversy' was never legit and should not mar her reputation."
(A judgment -- and a highly controversial one at that).

In a later post, I wrote:

"There are lots of sides to every story, and Riefenstahl lived in some
pretty difficult times. I won't argue with that. But anyone who
insists that any "controversy" surrounding her "was never legit," as
one of the earlier posts did, is being far too eager to make a strong
point, and isn't thinking about things hard enough."

I haven't read her biography, but I have seen both of the
documentaries ("Olympia" and "Triumph of the Will") that are
considered her most important contributions to film -- several times
each. I've also watched "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni
Riefenstahl," a 3-hour long, award-winning 1993 documentary, twice.
Have you?

One of us is taking some rather extreme, judgmental stances, and one
of us is encouraging people to try to be balanced and neutral. Can
you tell me which is which?

br

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 8:18:10 PM9/11/03
to
Oh, yeah. One more thing:

Hearsay?

What do you do for a living, Clyde? I'm an attorney -- let me define
hearsay for you:

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) defines "Hearsay" as "a statement,
other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted."

Federal Rule of Evidence 802 states that "Hearsay is not admissible
except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the
Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress."

There are a number of other hearsay rules -- some statements that
would otherwise qualify as hearsay are excluded from the definition by
Rule 801(d) for reasons of public policy. Other statements fall into
hearsay "exceptions," which means that although they are hearsay, they
will nonetheless be admissible in certain circumstances because they
are deemed sufficiently reliable.

People spend their entire lives studying the law of evidence, and
hearsay is one of the most complicated sub-fields within evidence.
Most law students are required to complete a semester's study before
they graduate, and evidence (including hearsay) is tested extensively
on the bar exam.

None of that is particularly relevant to the debate at hand, except in
one respect -- I am highly qualified to call bullshit on that portion
of your last post.

Let's think about hearsay. Actually, there's not much though
required. Everything you or I said is hearsay. Your description of
what you read in Audrey Salkeld's book or heard her say in a coffee
shop is no less hearsay than what Roger Ebert or I saw in Mark
Fuller's documentary. Virtually anyone capable of offering a
non-hearsay statement about what Leni Riefenstahl was doing in 1936 or
1939 or 1943 is dead. Leni Riefenstahl won't be testifying before
rec.climbing (even if she did, she would undoubtedly be a highly
impeachable witness, but that's a separate debate), and neither will
any of her old German buddies.

Your hearsay argument is meaningless and self-defeating.

In light of the fact that there is no truly reliable evidence of Leni
Riefenstahl's true involvement with, actions with regard to, or state
of mind towards the German Nazi Party, I would urge to reconsider your
statement that the "controversy" surrounding her "was never legit,"
and instead admit that you, like the rest of us, have no idea
whatsoever whether the controversy was legit or not.

In the meantime, if you're going to be a partisan idiot, please at
least be precise.

br

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 10:22:46 PM9/11/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:

> In article <m3isnzk...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> Bill Z. <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> >> Both of you fail to get my point. She has a history, and it is a
> >> history of the times also, and the times are guilty times.
> >
> >My point was that the "innocent until proven guilty" criteria plus
> >lack of prosecution in spite of an investigation, plus the fact that
> >she recently died, are good grounds to not bad mouth her, barring
> >undiscovered documentation about her.
>
> "Innocent until proven guilty" is a distinctly US American concept.
> Napoleonic justice holds in Mexico, immediately to the South, as does France
> (one of the 3 Western Allies): you may recall the death of Princess Di
> that this was covered a little in the US press. Every one is guilty,
> round up the usual suspects. Sort it out later.

Everyone is free to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" criteria
for personal judgements, and even under Napoleonic justice, they
would not jail a corpse.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 10:24:31 PM9/11/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:

> Bill Z. says...
>
> >In other words, you admit are the sort who goes around slandering
> >people.
>
> Do you claim to be innocent in this regard? That's a laugher.
>
> >That makes you pretty much a low lif.

There's a difference between responding to personal attacks and
launching unproved ones that you are pretending to not understand.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 10:25:49 PM9/11/03
to
Sue <shopkin...@ucsd.edu> writes:

> In article <m3ad9bk...@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z.
> <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > The fact that there are a few people with the mentalities of 8 year
> > old on this newsgroup would surprise nobody.
> >
> > Nothing will change the fact that some of you people really do act
> > like 13 year olds on a regular basis.
>
> Bill.
> I'm not harrassing you, really I'm not. But if this is truely how you
> feel why are you here?

Can you understand that "some" is not "all?"

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 10:27:35 PM9/11/03
to

"Bill Z."

> Can you understand that "some" is not "all?"

No, we can't. Dispute it, asshole.

- Nate

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 10:28:41 PM9/11/03
to
"Nate B" <m...@privacy.net> writes:

> "Bill Z."
>
> > The fact that there are a few people with the mentalities of 8 year
> > old on this newsgroup would surprise nobody.
>
> For a supposed physiscist, you certainly seem to have some serious problems
> following a very simple conversation.

Are you so embarassed that you won't admit the facts about how these
people act, or is it that you are feeling a built guilty yourself?

> No Bill, according to your own arguement and reasoning, EVERYONE on this
> group is an 8 year old and you're the only mature one.

Now you are simply lying. A "few people" is obviously not intended to
mean what you call "EVERYONE."

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 10:55:16 PM9/11/03
to

"Bill Z."

> Are you so embarassed that you won't admit the facts about how these
> people act, or is it that you are feeling a built guilty yourself?

God damn it - you are so fucking oblivious. I'm another victim of the
Zaumoron - with the trademark headache.

> Now you are simply lying. A "few people" is obviously not intended to
> mean what you call "EVERYONE."

Google away, fuckhead. People responding to your posts tend to be pissed
off. You don't seem to absorb that very well, and persist as such. Google.
Data. It's all there, along with your asinine and horrendously dull
denials. "Some" - what a joke.

I will not waste any more of my fucking time with your psychotic, deluded,
babbling nonsense.

U-turn - back to MadDog junction - follow Inez - happy thoughts - never
break the Zaumoron rule again - happy thoughts - climbing with women and
babbling about it - happy places.....

- Nate

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 11:25:44 PM9/11/03
to
"Nate B" <m...@privacy.net> writes:

> "Bill Z."
>

> > Now you are simply lying. A "few people" is obviously not intended to


> > mean what you call "EVERYONE."
>
> Google away, fuckhead. People responding to your posts tend to be pissed
> off.

Lots of people responding to posts tend to be annoyed. Perhaps a
number of you need an "anger management" class. Since you seem to
be angry in general given your use of a vulgarity, we can assume
that your statements should not be believed as you obviously have
a personal grudge of some sort.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 3:19:12 AM9/12/03
to
In article <3F60D2FC...@intergate.ca>,

A. Cairns <lek...@intergate.ca> wrote:
>R.I.P., LR.
>
>I only know about her from an article in one of the much-maligned climbing
>mags, but it had an arresting B&W photo of her in the Alps, or maybe
>Dolomites.

Get her autobio memoirs, some 600+ pages or so.

In Heckmair's book (Alpinist), there is a photo of her on her hands and knees
at work on sound and power cables to camera filming Triumpth of the Will
(he was apparently there) in her women's business suit not pants.
The photo tells me that she is far more a cinemagraphic geek than a politico.


>Eugene Miya wrote:
>> She did her best work before and 3 years before the invasion of Poland
>> (if you consider Olympia her finest work).
>
>Speaking of foresight and difficult decisions, how about that great book on
>the Polish mathematicians who worked on Enigma before WWII? The threat from
>Germany wasn't that fuzzy to some.

Rejewski, Zagalski, and one other.
Which book? Do you mean Kahn's Codebreakers (1968)?
Visited and work with the folk at Bletchley Park (it's a museum now
and they have one complete small building to the Poles).

It is very difficult to get a proper sense of the achievement of the Poles.
The Brits and the French could have obtained a commercial Enigma from
the US Army for $250 in 1928 when it evaluated them and rejected them.

Teller died. He was a climber before he lost his left foot.
Very smart. But he was somewhat insecure about credit.
Ulam, Bethe and others also deserve credit.


>So many things have been called critical to the Allies' victory it begins
>to remind me of the Anthropomorphic Principle.
>
><quote>
>Studying the pin, Paul went on. "I have for several days now inspected it,
>and for no logical reason I feel a certain emotional fondness. It does not
>have wabi, nor could it ever. But - " He touched the pin with his nail.
>"Robert, this object has wu."
><end quote>

You mean my friend Neal's book The Cryptonomicom?

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 3:35:41 AM9/12/03
to
In article <766eb38c.03091...@posting.google.com>,

Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Try reading my first post
>"The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one.

What rank did she hold?

I just want to know.

Whereas I didn't quite agree with Clyde's first wording, and
after reading Terray, I have a little skepticism of the quality of
English translation/interpretation historians, a rank is a fairly
concrete thing.


>She was friends with Hitler and clearly sympathetic with Germany's ruling
>party." (Not a judgment -- a statement of fact).

I am unclear that this is an accurate statement.
She was a contractor. I think the number of times she met Hitler was in
the single digits, and I am not clear that "sympathetic" is the right word.
There is no evidence of romance.


>Now let's go back to your [Clyde's] first post:


>"The 'controversy' was never legit and should not mar her reputation."

"legit" isn't the right word.


>I haven't read her biography, but I have seen both of the
>documentaries ("Olympia" and "Triumph of the Will") that are
>considered her most important contributions to film -- several times
>each. I've also watched "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni
>Riefenstahl," a 3-hour long, award-winning 1993 documentary, twice.
>Have you?

Then you are also aware that Hitler wanted the parts of Owens in Olympia
removed.


>One of us is taking some rather extreme, judgmental stances, and one
>of us is encouraging people to try to be balanced and neutral. Can
>you tell me which is which?

You both appear to have colored views.
Now about that rank?

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 3:49:25 AM9/12/03
to
In article <110920031201401927%shopkin...@ucsd.edu>,

Sue <shopkin...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>In article <m3ad9bk...@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z.
><nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> The fact that there are a few people with the mentalities of 8 year
>> old on this newsgroup would surprise nobody.
>> Nothing will change the fact that some of you people really do act
>> like 13 year olds on a regular basis.

Frankly, I liken posters and lurkers to various net.species more than
a uniform view of people.

>Bill.
>I'm not harrassing you, really I'm not. But if this is truely how you
>feel why are you here?
>
>for the rest of you, Inez, David, Rahel, Eugene thanks for an
>interesting discussion.

I'm not certain 8^) what you found interesting.

These are controversial subjects and the peripheral aspects which relate
to climbing and war time. There is little more than the simple logic of
survival in war time (or practically no logic if you invert that).
Be it the less than glamourous arrangement of prisoner execution
by the distinguished 10th Mtn. Division documented by Dave Brower
[march them to a cliff and then shoot them for insubordination for not
walking off] or camps and gas chambers, war is an ugly sight which
seems to need to get reinforced into people again and again.


There is a passage in the book on the Hubble Space telescope
about the science and engineering team needing a child psychologist.


The reality is the world is more like the film The King of Hearts than
we are willing to admit. Just get me the ballerina in yellow (J.B.).
No, wait a minute; my last girl friend was a ballerina. Skip that.

tom donnelly

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 3:25:36 AM9/12/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in message news:<3f5fc02e$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...
> In article <f7422d8e.0309...@posting.google.com>,
> rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Throwing hundreds of Semites in jail without due process.
> >Island concentration camps.
>
> What's so unique about Semites?
> You guys got Earl Warren to throw my mom, my aunt, and their families
> into camps in California. You didn't gas them admittedly, but I suspect
> that there were claimed Patriots who would think of that.
>
> >Spying on local citizens media habits without a warrant.
> >Unconditional reverence for a military victor.
> >Proactive military aggressions, rather than defensive.
>
> Don't we now have the doctrine of Pre-emption: I'm a little unclear
> about that right now mein herr.
>
> >Thank god its not the 1930s. Modern developed countries are
> >too smart for this to happen again :-)
>
> Naw people never change.

Eugene, that it exactly what Rick was saying.
He is pointing out that America today shares some parallels with
Germany in the 1930's. Manifest destiny lives on. Except we do need
to change the oath of swearing in to say, "Do you swear on this stack
of Almighty dollars?"

> >Leni did her greatest work early in the regime, where perhaps not
> >all the dirt was known. I could half believe this claim
> >based on current events.

Even without coercion, and with the dirty facts right in front of
them, many Americans have willingly given up their right to free
speech, to vote, and to think. Too busy selling out, enjoying their
riches, pursuing the American dream, & going to church on Sundays.
Compare the fuss being made over Tony Blair in England to the distinct
sound of silence here.

Morcomm wrote:
> Remember when the "nice" Americans killed 2 million rice farmers
> in Vietnam to "save them" from Communism?

Maybe Uncurious George would remember it better if he had been there,
instead of draft-dodging and going AWOL from his cushy post in the
National Guard. But then again, why would he need to? He has many of
us begging to lick his aristocratic shoes.
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/the-clash/know-your-rights.html

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 4:44:40 AM9/12/03
to
>> >Thank god its not the 1930s. Modern developed countries are
>> >too smart for this to happen again :-)

>> Naw people never change.

In article <36a73a7d.03091...@posting.google.com>,


tom donnelly <t92...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Eugene, that it exactly what Rick was saying.

I know that, but I also had this question:

What's so unique about Semites?

>He is pointing out that America today shares some parallels with


>Germany in the 1930's. Manifest destiny lives on. Except we do need
>to change the oath of swearing in to say, "Do you swear on this stack
>of Almighty dollars?"

Some people use barrels of oil, but we take dollars.

I am also still unclear what the preemption doctrine is going to be.


>> >Leni did her greatest work early in the regime, where perhaps not
>> >all the dirt was known. I could half believe this claim
>> >based on current events.
>
>Even without coercion, and with the dirty facts right in front of
>them, many Americans have willingly given up their right to free
>speech, to vote, and to think. Too busy selling out, enjoying their
>riches, pursuing the American dream, & going to church on Sundays.
>Compare the fuss being made over Tony Blair in England to the distinct
>sound of silence here.

We comforted ourselves with words like "due process."
I am told that we don't have a Constitutional crisis, could have fooled
me during this Crusade. There is a lot about Blair that we have not
heard in the US (don't forget the old world drew those boundary lines)
I also wish the Aussie and French roles in 9/11 were better known.

>Morcomm wrote:
>> Remember when the "nice" Americans killed 2 million rice farmers
>> in Vietnam to "save them" from Communism?
>
>Maybe Uncurious George would remember it better if he had been there,
>instead of draft-dodging and going AWOL from his cushy post in the
>National Guard. But then again, why would he need to? He has many of
>us begging to lick his aristocratic shoes.

Like it or not, he's now the Commander and Chief, and next year is an
election year. The popular vote isn't enough. That's why there's this
thing called the Electoral College and why we have Senates.

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 8:24:47 AM9/12/03
to
Bill Z. says...

>> Bill Z. says...

>>>That makes you pretty much a low lif.

>There's a difference between responding to personal attacks and
>launching unproved ones that you are pretending to not understand.

The fact of the matter, Bill, is that in THIS thread, you have done the name
calling on me (the apparently mis-spelled "low lif" above). I have yet to do
any of the TERRIBLE, DREADED, HORRIBLE name calling that supposedly gets you so
upset. You, on the other hand, have. Sad, truly sad, your behavior is.

But, you're shirking away. You didn't answer my question. I'll paste in that
section again, so you can take another shot at it. Whatsamatta, are you scared
to tell another lie? Answer the question, Bill!

-----------------------------

>> >>You know, I have about as much contempt for you as I have
>> >>for a few on this newsgroup who also can't say anything without
>> >>resorting to childish name callilng that should have gone out
>> >>in the 8th grade.

>You must have a really,really guilty conscience if you think refering
>to some unnamed individuals disparages you personally.

Not guilty at all. As many have noted over the last few years, I pegged you to
perfection. Now, come on Bill, are you actually trying to weasel out again?
Answer this question directly: Was your comment above referring to me or not?
Hint: When you once again lie, it will once again be obvious to all.

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 10:29:30 AM9/12/03
to
Bill Z. says...

>Nate sez...

>Lots of people responding to posts tend to be annoyed.

It seems obvious that you feel the need to have the last word. Remember, you
were above replying to Nate's post where he had already signed off:

>>I will not waste any more of my fucking time with your psychotic,
>>deluded, babbling nonsense.

Maybe we should appoint Bill as rec.climbing's Last Word Guy. "The governing
council hereby decrees that NO THREAD shall end until Bill has had the last
word. All the rest of you losers shall shut the fuck up and take the next anger
management class. You're not learning, people!"

>Perhaps a number of you need an "anger management" class.

Why not name the names, Bill? Who are all of the lost souls that you would
choose to enroll into this class? And what is your background that would allow
you to make these deductions? I thought you were a physicist? Did you minor in
anger management? Don't try to tell me you minored in law, since you don't know
the difference between slander and libel.

>>U-turn - back to MadDog junction - follow Inez - happy thoughts - never
>>break the Zaumoron rule again - happy thoughts - climbing with women and
>>babbling about it - happy places.....

Good work, Nate. Remember to breathe. Smile at yourself too.

>Since you seem to be angry in general given your use of a vulgarity, we
>can assume that your statements should not be believed as you obviously
>have a personal grudge of some sort.

So, it seems you are concluding that people that use vulgar language are angry
liars? That's quite a nice little paper mache bridge you've built. I look
forward to seeing you try to cross it in a rainstorm.

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 11:34:09 AM9/12/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:

> Bill Z. says...
>
> >> Bill Z. says...
>
> >>>That makes you pretty much a low lif.
>
> >There's a difference between responding to personal attacks and
> >launching unproved ones that you are pretending to not understand.
>
> The fact of the matter, Bill, is that in THIS thread, you have done
> the name calling on me (the apparently mis-spelled "low lif" above).
> I have yet to do any of the TERRIBLE, DREADED, HORRIBLE name calling
> that supposedly gets you s

I was responding to a rant of yours were you admitted to willfully
engaging in behavior that in fact really is pretty low. Perhaps you
should edit your posts more carefully if you don't want people to
know.

The "apparently mis-spelled" word (you don't know?) was due to not
hitting a key hard enough. Proofreading replies to you hardly seems
to be worth the effort. Meanwhile *you've* been calling me childish
names on this thread and many others repeatedly. What you are really
saying is that you think you have the right to post insult after
insult and that no one has the right to respond to you.

From a another of Mad Dog's missives:

>>Perhaps a number of you need an "anger management" class.

>Why not name the names, Bill? Who are all of the lost souls that you would
>choose to enroll into this class?

Why don't you do a google search for replies to me with various
vulgarities in it? There aren't that many four-letter words to choose
from. I presume, of course, that you are merely embarassed by your
own behavior. If so, why don't you just clean up your act?

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 1:36:57 PM9/12/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in message news:<3f61693d$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...

> In article <766eb38c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Try reading my first post
> >"The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one.
>
> What rank did she hold?
>
> I just want to know.
>
> Whereas I didn't quite agree with Clyde's first wording, and
> after reading Terray, I have a little skepticism of the quality of
> English translation/interpretation historians, a rank is a fairly
> concrete thing.

You're right -- I'm guilty of a bit of imprecision there. By "high
ranking," all I meant to suggest was that she had friends in high
places. Not that she held any official rank within the party.

br

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 3:04:10 PM9/12/03
to
In article <766eb38c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one.

eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in message news:<3f61693d$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...


>> What rank did she hold?

>You're right -- I'm guilty of a bit of imprecision there. By "high


>ranking," all I meant to suggest was that she had friends in high
>places. Not that she held any official rank within the party.

I have seen no indication that she was even ever a Party member.
My reading and viewing is that she was a contractor.
She was hired to make films by one of the heads of the Party
given to his prop. Minister to do work, and occasionally invited to
attend a couple of social functions, shoot I attend diplomatic functions
occasionally, I eat pizza with a former President of Switzerland (comes
with the job (he taught at Berkeley a while, drives a Toyota)).
But she wasn't a Doernitz either.

Can you even show that she was a Party member?

Not all Germans were Nazis. I know former (pre-WWII) German left-wingers
(no more) they had their own persecusion (sp).

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 2:25:42 PM9/12/03
to
Bill Z. says...

>I was responding to a rant of yours were you admitted to willfully
>engaging in behavior that in fact really is pretty low.

Show exactly where in this thread that I admitted to behavior that is low. And,
just to clue you in: if anyone's been ranting on this thread, it's you.

>The "apparently mis-spelled" word (you don't know?)

Apparently, YOU missed it. I *SUSPECTED* that you intended to type "life", but
because of your often bizarre behavior, I chose to not *ASSUME* what the word
was. You should think this over, because one of your key problems in
communication is your apparent belief that you are clairvoyant and capable of
assuming that you know what people think, when in fact you don't.

>Proofreading replies to you hardly seems to be worth the effort.

An unbiased review of your posts here would no doubt conclude that the quality
criteria you apply are consistent, regardless of whom you reply to.

>Meanwhile *you've* been calling me childish names on this thread and
>many others repeatedly.

On *THIS* thread? Really? I'd like to see you prove that. To assist you in
your quest, I've pasted every comment I've made in this thread in an appendix
below. Dude, there's no name calling there. Your behavior in this regard tends
towards the delusional. Do you hear voices, Bill? Are they mean?

>What you are really saying is that you think you have the right to post
>insult after insult and that no one has the right to respond to you.

Au contraire. You are the one dishing out the insults and doing the dreaded
name-calling, for example:

>That makes you pretty much a low lif.

---------------

>>>Perhaps a number of you need an "anger management" class.

>>Why not name the names, Bill? Who are all of the lost souls that you would
>>choose to enroll into this class?

>Why don't you do a google search for replies to me with various
>vulgarities in it?

Why can't you answer a simple question in a direct manner? I'm not about to
waste my time searching Google for replies to you with vulgarities in them.
Even if I filtered out those I posted in other threads, there would be hundreds
from other rec.climbers. That should tell you something, Bill: Your method of
making off-the-wall statements, then refusing to defend your own words rubs
people the wrong way. In this thread alone, you have repeatedly refused to
answer simple, direct questions. I predict you'll do it again. In this case,
you made a non-specific statement:

>>>Perhaps a number of you need an "anger management" class.

And I'm just trying to get you to name the names. I suspect you're including me
in that comment, but this thread has not generated the slightest shred of anger
in me. Nada, zilch. Now, on the other hand, if there was a pity management
class, I might enroll, because I pity you in the extreme.

>I presume, of course, that you are merely embarassed by your
>own behavior. If so, why don't you just clean up your act?

We're talking about this thread, right? This is probably my tenth or so attempt
to communicate with you in a civil manner. I clearly remember the first
attempt, with regards to plastic hold texture. Not only were you ill-informed
about a technical topic in which I have significant expertise, but you were rude
and indignant. Thus, your pattern of behavior is consistent:

1) Bill posts either a bizarre anecdote or a factually incorrect statement.

2) Someone else posts a disagreement.

3) Bill counters, with some off-the wall, ridiculous statement or possibly makes
a blatantly incorrect presumption and posts it.

4) The someone re-counters with a specific question about said statement.

5) Bill refuses to answer the question and continues ad nauseum, apparently
believing that if he continues to scream into his keyboard, any and all
dissenting opinions will go away.

6) Eventually, Bill either calls the person a liar or some other name, such as
"low lif", or otherwise writes something offensive.

7) The name-calling escalates, with Bill eventually crying fowl because somebody
pissed on his Pokemon.

Although you might be impressed with the outcome of these interactions, such as
Nate bailing out on this thread, it's really not impressive and does not point
to you as a source of higher intelligence. It simply means that you do not
attempt to have open, honest conversation on this forum. If you did, you'd be
willing to answer a simple question, such as:

"Who are you talking about?" in response to your statement:

>>>Perhaps a number of you need an "anger management" class.

So here's the deal, Bill: I'm bored because you're doing the same old routine.
It's obvious that you will fight to the death for your right to have the last
word, so I'll ONCE AGAIN bow out and leave it to you to take the last shot. But
don't think for a minute that you've won anything, because you can't win a
debate when you are unwilling to provide supporting statements and proof. You
drug me into this thread, but you were then unwilling to admit the unspecified
people you were speaking about. I pity you, Bill, but I'm not angry.


----------------

Appendix of my posts to this thread, with other's comments snipped:

-----------------

You're like a little kid that fell on his bicycle - you keep picking at the
scabs, apparently looking for more blood.

It seems obvious that you feel the need to have the last word. Remember, you
were above replying to Nate's post where he had already signed off:

Maybe we should appoint Bill as rec.climbing's Last Word Guy. "The governing

council hereby decrees that NO THREAD shall end until Bill has had the last
word. All the rest of you losers shall shut the fuck up and take the next anger
management class. You're not learning, people!"

Why not name the names, Bill? Who are all of the lost souls that you would

choose to enroll into this class? And what is your background that would allow
you to make these deductions? I thought you were a physicist? Did you minor in
anger management? Don't try to tell me you minored in law, since you don't know
the difference between slander and libel.

Good work, Nate. Remember to breathe. Smile at yourself too.

So, it seems you are concluding that people that use vulgar language are angry

liars? That's quite a nice little paper mache bridge you've built. I look
forward to seeing you try to cross it in a rainstorm.

If you had even a tiny bit of comprehension and retention, you'd know that
Eugene gave John his handle. Just like I bestowed yours upon you.

But your comment above demonstrates another of your "attributes" that you've
exposed on this thread. I was sitting back, leaving this thread alone, watching
you dig yet another grave for your sorry self as you insulted people with your
know-it-all attitude. Then you chose to drag me into it. Sure, you didn't do it
by name. In response to John's reply, you posted:

Now, you can try to lie and act like you weren't talking about me, like in the
Bush/monkey thread (that you started), but all of us will know you're lying.
You jump in my shit for calling you names, but you can't keep from dredging up
another old grudge of yours. Your actions are pathetic and boring. A friend of
mine told me it's time to look you up and kick your ass but it's not worth the
tiny effort it would take. Besides, you're doing a fine job of making a
spectacle of yourself, so keep up the good work. You may be boring, but at
least a small part of your schtick is weird enough to provoke the occasional
laugh. Sure, it's a laugh of pity, but, still, it's a laugh. Carry on.

Do you claim to be innocent in this regard? That's a laugher.

There's more proof, as if it is required. You, who in this thread have cast
stones for name-calling, have once again thrown the first stone. Your glass
house is shattered by way of your own projectile.

(She-doobie, shattered, shattered)

Not guilty at all. As many have noted over the last few years, I pegged you to
perfection. Now, come on Bill, are you actually trying to weasel out again?
Answer this question directly: Was your comment above referring to me or not?
Hint: When you once again lie, it will once again be obvious to all.

The fact of the matter, Bill, is that in THIS thread, you have done the name

calling on me (the apparently mis-spelled "low lif" above). I have yet to do

any of the TERRIBLE, DREADED, HORRIBLE name calling that supposedly gets you so
upset. You, on the other hand, have. Sad, truly sad, your behavior is.

But, you're shirking away. You didn't answer my question. I'll paste in that
section again, so you can take another shot at it. Whatsamatta, are you scared
to tell another lie? Answer the question, Bill!

Not guilty at all. As many have noted over the last few years, I pegged you to

perfection. Now, come on Bill, are you actually trying to weasel out again?
Answer this question directly: Was your comment above referring to me or not?
Hint: When you once again lie, it will once again be obvious to all.

----------------

End of appendix. 'Ow does it end?

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 3:17:02 PM9/12/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:

> Bill Z. says...
>
> >I was responding to a rant of yours were you admitted to willfully
> >engaging in behavior that in fact really is pretty low.
>
> Show exactly where in this thread that I admitted to behavior that
> is low. And, just to clue you in: if anyone's been ranting on this
> thread, it's you.

See the text I was responding to.

>>The "apparently mis-spelled" word (you don't know?)

>Apparently, YOU missed it. I *SUSPECTED* that you intended to type
>"life", but because of your often bizarre behavior, I chose to not
>*ASSUME* what the word was. You should think this over, because one of

>your key problems in communication is <snip>

If you can't figure out that "low lif" was a typo that should have
read "low life" (a common English phrase), particularly given the
context, what do you think that says about your intelligence? BTW, if
you look up words starting with "lif" in a dictionary, the vast
majority have a following 'e' (the first exception is "lift". The
only ones with precisely one additional letter are "life" and "lift."

[ Mad Dog's very long rant that follows snipped - there's no point
responding much to such garbage ]

Apparently Jeff McCoy needs to buy a mirror!

BTW, He's brought up that I once posted a link to the "Curious George"
picture before. This is the one pairing photos of George Bush with
pictures of various primates with similar facial expressions and was
going around the internet like wildfire a couple of years ago (an
indication of how long Mad Dog holds a grudge.) He didn't like a
comparison with un-named climbers. He also apparently didn't catch
the unstated literary reference either - the article Tom Patey once
wrote about climbing named, "Apes or Ballerinas?"

I suspect this is all about politics. Jeff is an obvious Bush
supporter, and he only got really mad at me when I made some wisecracks
about our court-appointed Prez. And like elephants, Republicans
never forget.

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 5:45:17 PM9/12/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in message news:<3f620a9a$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...

> In article <766eb38c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one.
>
> eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in message news:<3f61693d$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...
> >> What rank did she hold?
>
> >You're right -- I'm guilty of a bit of imprecision there. By "high
> >ranking," all I meant to suggest was that she had friends in high
> >places. Not that she held any official rank within the party.
>
> I have seen no indication that she was even ever a Party member.
>
> [snipped]

>
> Can you even show that she was a Party member?

Nope. I can't.

br

Bill Z.

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 5:48:26 PM9/12/03
to
fredal...@hotmail.com (Brian Reynolds) writes:

> eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in message news:<3f620a9a$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...

> > Can you even show that she was a Party member?
>
> Nope. I can't.

A newspaper article I saw a couple of days ago stated that she was not
a party member.

Bill

A. Cairns

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 6:03:47 PM9/12/03
to

Eugene Miya wrote:

> Do you mean Kahn's Codebreakers (1968)?

The year sounds right. There was a pronunciation guide to Polish names, cryptic
in their own right to a mere English speaker.

> ><quote>
> >Studying the pin, Paul went on. "I have for several days now inspected it,
> >and for no logical reason I feel a certain emotional fondness. It does not
> >have wabi, nor could it ever. But - " He touched the pin with his nail.
> >"Robert, this object has wu."
> ><end quote>
>
> You mean my friend Neal's book The Cryptonomicom?

The Man in the High Castle (if Germany had won the war)


Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 7:49:59 PM9/12/03
to
In article <3F6242C1...@intergate.ca>,

A. Cairns <lek...@intergate.ca> wrote:
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>> Do you mean Kahn's Codebreakers (1968)?
>
>The year sounds right. There was a pronunciation guide to Polish names, cryptic
>in their own right to a mere English speaker.

Zagalski: he developed what are known as Zagalski sheets which
eliminated unlikely rotor settings based on logical elimination.

Rajewski also worked with him.

Kahn's books are pretty old now but a nice survey independent of the
military intelligence aspects, I think the IBM 7094 was the computer of
the period which they had 1-2 at Ft. Meade.

The Poles of the Cipher Bureau themselves made it to England and never
knew about Bletchley Park, and they were relgated to minor code breaking
unknowing the huge size of the contribution they had started and goes on
to this day.

I wonder if the Poles had contact with the Tellers and von Neumanns
crossing Poland at that time.

>> ><quote>
>> >Studying the pin, Paul went on. "I have for several days now inspected it,
>> >and for no logical reason I feel a certain emotional fondness. It does not
>> >have wabi, nor could it ever. But - " He touched the pin with his nail.
>> >"Robert, this object has wu."
>> ><end quote>
>>

>> The Cryptonomicom?
>The Man in the High Castle (if Germany had won the war)

Oh a number of books of that type.
Occasionally fun fiction, but don't stick to those too long.
Almost as bad as reading Clancy.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 7:50:59 PM9/12/03
to
In article <766eb38c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you even show that she was a Party member?
>
>Nope. I can't.

Alright, fair enough.

Maohai Huang

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 3:03:58 PM9/16/03
to
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in
news:3f5ea761$1...@news.ucsc.edu:
> As Maohai started this thread, my
> distant ancestors performed duplicating experiments on his ancestors
> dipping their hands into LN2.

Several weeks ago some people got sick and sent to hospitals for treatment
in Northern China because of chemical (mustard gas) abandoned by the
Japanese army at the end of WWII.


Brian Reynolds <fredal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one. She was


> friends with Hitler and clearly sympathetic with Germany's ruling
> party.

It's easy to classify someone "is a Nazi" and start from there.
I caught the end of the crazy times of the Cultural Revolution of China.
I still remember how absurd people are capable to become. The mass
-- including the most intelligent poeple of the time -- are easily
carried away by ideals and do unthinkable things. And they usually don't
understand what is going on before, in the middle of, and after the
movement.
Many find it abnormal that there are quite a few still are
sympathetic with Nazi Germany's ruling party (or any party of a massive
social movement, long after the movement has ended). Whoever feels it
abnormal perhaps doesn't understand why such ruling party could be
accepted as the ruling party in the first place. And in a different
context these same people could join the abovementioned mass in a
heart beat.

Eugene Miya

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 6:20:01 PM9/16/03
to
In article <bk7mqt$qc1re$1...@ID-193135.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Maohai Huang <usen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"horrors..."

>Several weeks ago some people got sick and sent to hospitals for treatment
>in Northern China because of chemical (mustard gas) abandoned by the
>Japanese army at the end of WWII.

Yeah, actually the found an unidentified can of something in SF and they
thought initially that it was also a mustard agent.


>> The fact remains that she was a Nazi, and a high ranking one.

We resolved that.

>It's easy to classify someone "is a Nazi" and start from there.
>I caught the end of the crazy times of the Cultural Revolution of China.
>I still remember how absurd people are capable to become.

Ah another response to intellectuals from that period.
A friend's wife survived that period, and she absolutely refuses to have
anything to do with camping. So much for the end of Candide.

The only thing that she (and most women involved in the outdoors) will
consider is downhill skiing at a resort.

Other good comparison snipped.


It does not matter whether it is a black cat or a white cat,
so long as it catches the mouse.
--Deng Xiaoping

0 new messages